UX Study Case:
JumpQ
No more waiting in line. Wait online.
Overview
Have you been in a very long queue doing nothing but waiting? Then when you walked away suddenly the queue disappeared? That is because in many occasion people tend to go to some places at the very same time. JumpQ is an app based solution where you can jump into queue right from your home and being called just about time you step in. JumpQ allows you to go for a cup of coffee or even window shopping at nearby premises while still intact queueing for your turn.
In the current pandemic circumstances you can avoid the crowd of queuing and wait wherever you like. We will let you know just at the right moment when it’s about your turn. Imagine that if you can take back every minutes you wasted by queuing and get more productive at the same time.
In this case study we tried to solves one of the most irritating daily problems which is standing in line by offering an automated smart mobile queuing app to better manage traffic/flow and save people a lot of time. JumpQ could be use anywhere where the line is however, we chose Bank for an MVP for it caused many painful in the society due to lack of services and countless customers.
Methodology
Organizing this case study, we need to apply design framework in order to make the effort plausible and systematic. We implement design thinking process to solve this problem that consist of 5 stages.
Design Thinking Process
User Persona
Persona was developed during our research. Almost all of the responder has something in common regarding their behavior, pain, and needs.
User Journey
We found that the journey when user go to bank is somewhat typical. Some banks still use manual card as ticket queue while the others use computerize one. Both shows nothing significant in the differences. However, we used this journey as our foundation in order to shorten the learning curve of the user.
In-depth User Interview
Qualitative research is being used in this case study. Since there are not many similar app around we think there is no need to make a comparative research. Instead, we find users that are alike our user persona and interviewed them.
We find that:
1. Most of users dislike queueing the most in their journey
2. There are two type of users: frequently and infrequently
3. Frequently users usually visit a bank to make transactions
Affinity Diagram
After we got scrambled data from the interview, we use affinity diagram as a method to extract the insight. We use Miro as the tools. Below are some key takeaways from the affinity diagram.
How Might We
To create ideation we use the How Might We or HMW as the basic framework. Some opportunity may highlighted easily this way.
Value-Effort Matrix
Right after we sorted the key opportunity, we prioritized them. This matrix illustrates which one that better to do first than the others. However, we decided not to do the high effort and low value quadrant.
Crazy 8
Crazy 8’s is a core Design Sprint method. It is a fast sketching exercise that challenges people to sketch eight distinct ideas in eight minutes. The goal is to push beyond your first idea, frequently the least innovative, and to generate a wide variety of solutions to your challenge.
At this step we discover the ticket design should resembling the real queue ticket. We thought it might help people associate the app better. It also appears to us that the app should be as simplest possible with the shortest steps towards the goal in order to fully obliterate the user’s pain of queuing.
User Flow
We build the user flow with the fastest value giver in mind. So that we were making the user flow as short as possible and straight to the point. We also eliminate the repetitive task for the user who use the same service by creating features such as favorite and recent visits.
Wire Flow
Following the user flow and crazy 8 that we did earlier, we build the wireframe flow and give some explanations for some details before we make the High Fidelity version. This steps is mandatory in order for the team, especially the engineer, to get the basic idea of the systems that we are building. The approval from the team is vital whether the project could be done or could not.
This is the part of the design thinking that undervalued the most. While it is much faster to get straight to High Fidelity version but it is important not to overcommit of something we do not fully understand or have no knowledge of.
Design Systems
Design systems are being used with the purpose that the overall design emerge as consistent supposing to make it looks better. It additionally helps the design process becomes faster and efficient by not creating every element from scratch repeatedly.
We embraced red as our prime color considering it identical with the line guard rail which drives the user to associate us as an queue app.
High Fidelity
Figma is utilized to construct the High Fidelity as well as the Low Fidelity in wire flow. Our design language is simple and clear: to give value to the user as straight forward as possible. We translate that as throwing away icons and unnecessary pictures.
The apps background is mostly reddish-gray to obtain contrast alongside white color that we used as queue ticket’s color yet match with our prime color maroon.
On the design aspect we decide to insert the user’s name on the ticket in favor of determine that the feature is not by any means abused. The cancel button is also almost too easy to reach to anticipate that people who genuinely need to cancel the queue don’t just neglect their ticket and put another user or the vendor waiting for them.
On top of that we built the prototype with Figma to be used later on usability testing and gather feedback. To check our prototype click here.
Usability Testing
In the validation stage we use Maze Design as our tool in order to gather qualitative feedback for the prototype. This tools enable us to distribute the survey to more people in a short period of time.
Eventually we ended up with total 7 participants that finished the task. We ask them to give score for the appearance and the ease-of-use of our interface.
In this UT we make scenarios based on user flow from login through getting a queue ticket in a specific location. The flows are divided into 3 separated scenarios as follows,
Scenario I: Open Application - Login - Go to Home Page
In the first scenario, we ask them to open the app and through the on-boarding screen then login as Julia Clarke before get to the home page.
It was pretty easy to set up the survey with Maze Design, however, some of the participants complained that it was quite difficult opening Maze in their phone. Some of them said it didn’t even open properly while the others who opened from PC was doing okay. Therefore as we may see from the graph below that plenty of the users that we tested bounced from the early phase of the test.
Later on only the remaining user would follow the UT and finished the task. Most of the users who gave feedback said that the appearance is pretty much regular and easy to follow though not that intuitive.
Scenario II: Selection Bank and Branches
The second scenario asks the user to perform using the services by selecting Bank BCA at branch Kemang Raya to get the queue ticket.
This is the least miss-clicked scenario in the entire testing. Also the shortest average duration task. Though there are still some people who dropped the test. We are not sure yet the reason behind this data, but one of the user gave us an input,
“When choosing a bank, it’s better to use the dropdown menu. When selecting a branch, you can type it with auto suggestion feature” — User
It was probably because the prototype was not fully developed when user took the test. Despite all that most of the users think that the interface and ease-of-use was ordinary.
Scenario III: Selection Time and Services
Scenario of the latest test prompts the users to pick their preferable services and time. To put on an act they were set to choose Customer Services at 12.45 PM.
The average duration and the miss-click rate in this task are 8,2 second and 30% respectively. As we may see it was quite high compare to the previous task. However, there is only a user bounced for the task.
Looking from the data above, we assume that users has interest to explore the prototype and for that reason it leads rise in duration to complete the task as well as miss-click rate.
We also found that most of the remaining user gave the interface an outstanding score for the simplicity and appearance.
User Feedbacks and Iterations
The ideal method for usability testing is in-depth interview albeit it’s time consuming. Comparatively as other quantitative measurement, Maze needs at least a handful of user for usability testing to enabling the quality of the feedbacks to some degree.
Though it was easy to use Maze, that is by no means without drawbacks. Maze is quite a considerably hefty website especially if you are using smartphone to open it.
Concerning of the prototype, we consider it satisfied our goal to be as straight forward as possible. It may appear boring to a few people but surely delivers the value preposition properly. Nonetheless we shall give Scenario I another shot with in-depth interview to verify whether if the bounce rate is actually caused by Maze or there was a few design issue involved.
Overall design is relatively good though not anything great. Most of the users told that it is simple and easy to use. Design-wise there is nothing have to change according to the feedbacks. However, we manage to improve the prototype and allow some adjustment to the buttons in order to enhance the user experience.
Learnings
This project reminds us that there are many opportunity as much as problems out there. Even the simplest and most unexpected things may turns out into something impactful.
Moreover companies need to hear and see the reality of their user much closer and more often. While the ugly truth doesn’t seems nice at the short period of time but the long term ROI might tells the other way around.
To give an opinion about the design thinking, it’s more like the fusion of creativity and logical order. That process could project a wildest idea into a proper perspective while maintaining the feasibility aspects. Some of it has the same root with Six Sigma but has more emphasis on ideation. That’s all.
Thank you for reading!
