...
- More users for each of our tests: Though the amount of usability testing that we conducted was sufficient enough to provide us with valuable feedback, we feel that testing both the paper prototype and initial design on a wider variety of users would have given us more insight into our target user population. Additional paper prototypes would have saved us a great deal of time and provided more user feedback during additional iterations.
- More rounds of testing: We also believe that we should have done more iterations of testing after coming up with new designs after GR4. We were too focused on creating a final product that was what we wanted instead of ensuring that from the beginning that we were focused on something that that our user population would want and could use.
- More stretch: We think we should have zeroed in on the fundamentals of our user interface earlier so that we could have spent more time adding stretch. Stretch was the challenging part of the UI that allowed us face difficult decisions and utilize user feedback.
- More detailed computer prototype: While we had a computer prototype that enabled testers to get some sense of our user interface/project, we would have had a much easier time creating a more cohesive and better UI for our final implementation if our computer prototype had been further implemented before being heuristically evaluated.
- Focus the idea: We spent too much time initially trying to make a site that did too many things (and much of them were repeat functionality of already existing web applications). We should have more immediately focused on the elements of an idea that proposes unique and challenging UI problems.