Project Scope: Create a text entry method for a smartwatch.
The size of the touch area is 1 inch by 1 inch.
Deliverable: Final prototype programmed in Processing,
completed after a series of user tests.
Timeline: 2 weeks (14 days):
For our first brainstorming session, our ideas included:
-2G Phone texting model (typing system w/ 9 buttons)
-Organizing the alphabet into 4 different screens.
-Have all alphabet letters in a continuous line or circle that can be scrolled or swiped to select specific letters.
-Users will “draw” the letters like they would on paper, to type them into the screen.
-Have a motion detecting feature on the 1 by 1 inch square.
For the design of our first prototype, we were inspired by the keyboard design of 2G phones.
The pros for why we chose this design
-The organization of letters in alphabetical order made sense, since the alphabet is so widely used in our everyday lives as English speakers.
-The organization of the whole alphabet into less than 10 buttons total would be feasible as a design for a 1’’ by 1’’.
-Tapping based on the orders of the alphabet on each button makes sense, and is not a hard concept to grasp for users.
-Tapping as an action is very commonly used for many phone apps, and users would be comfortable with repeatedly doing this action.
First Prototype User Testing
For our user tests, we wanted at least 5 participants for each round. In this first round of user-testing, the average WPM with penalty was 3.8224. Common themes in our feedback included frustrations about letter size and our the design of the buttons not being as intuitive.
Based on the feedback of our users from the first testing, we knew our next prototype needed to:
1). Have more interactions or feedback with the users
( for ex. changing colors when pressed).
2). Have bigger font.
3). Have buttons be more easily accessible to users.
This could mean changing the size of the buttons
to be bigger, for example.
We also noticed that all our users lost time “thinking” about which buttons to press.
The Main Problem
The design of our buttons wasn’t intuitive to our users, which made us lose a lot of time.
Feature a keyboard layout that our users would already be very comfortable using, because of everyday use.
A.k.a. QWERTY keyboard
Second Prototype User Testing
Just like the first user test, we wanted at least 5 participants for each round. In this user testing, the average WPM with penalty was 6.30242, which is an improvement from the average WPM for our first prototype. Common themes in our feedback included frustrations about the flow of our screens between the left side of the keyboard, right, and the zoomed out version. Users also enjoyed our haptic feedback.
Refinement & Final Prototype
The main refinement we added was the flow change of switching between the screens.
This way, switching between screens can become a more intuitive action for users, thus faster and effortless.
Third Prototype User Testing
To continue consistency, we had 5 participants for each round.
In this user testing, the average WPM with penalty was 9.6949, which is an improvement from the average WPM for our first and second prototypes (3.82 and 6.30 respectively).
Common themes in our feedback included frustrations about the flow of our screens between the left side of the keyboard, right, and the zoomed out version. Users also enjoyed our haptic feedback.