The document describes a project to design a technology solution to better prepare University of Washington students for an earthquake. The team conducted user research including surveys and interviews which found students needed education on what to do and supplies but wanted a simple website. They created personas including "Typical Tommy" and prototyped a website with earthquake facts, preparedness information, and a tool to customize emergency kits. Usability testing improved the prototype which is available online. The team reflects on lessons learned and ideas for future enhancements.
3. 1
Design Question
How can technology be used to better prepare
UW students for a catastrophic earthquake?
Originally too broad
Preparation defined as:
1. knowing what to do
2. having supplies
5. 2
Methods
Literature and web review
-
Existing sites, data, tools?
Survey
-
Primary data, 40 participants
Motivations, beliefs, preparedness, preferred solution(s)
Interviews
-
Checking for consistency
Contextual inquiry
6. 2
Findings
Users needed:
-
Supplies (generally not prepared)
Education (generally didn’t know what to do)
Motivation through facts
Users wanted:
-
Website (preferred by majority)
Simple & quick solutions
Don’t make a website like this…
9. 3
Personas
Process
3 personas
-
Typical Tommy (Primary)
Low motivation & low preparedness
-
Busy Barbara (Secondary)
Medium-high motivation & low preparedness
-
Prepared Peter (Secondary)
High motivation & high preparedness
10. 3
Development of Personas
We came up with three personas
-
Typical Tommy (Primary)
Busy Barbara (Secondary)
Prepared Peter (Secondary)
11. 3
Primary Persona
We came up with three personas
-
Typical Tommy (Primary)
Busy Barbara (Secondary)
Prepared Peter (Secondary)
12. 3
Secondary Persona
We came up with three personas
-
Typical Tommy (Primary)
Busy Barbara (Secondary)
Prepared Peter (Secondary)
13. 3
Secondary Persona
We came up with three personas
-
Typical Tommy (Primary)
Busy Barbara (Secondary)
Prepared Peter (Secondary)
35. 9
What We Would Do Differently?
Better survey (pilot testing, better wording,
better questions, etc.)
6-point Likert scale on survey responses
Larger study groups
36. 9
Future Features?
Single page design with parallax scrolling
Additional customization of kits
Integration with other tools (e.g. personal
organizers & shopping lists)
More location-specific “resources” content
Additional motivational features
(gamification?)
40. Appendix (Credits)
Graphics, facts and various content, courtesy of the web
Home page “facts”, in order of appearance:
-
"Big earthquake coming sooner than we thought…”
-
“The Cascadia subduction zone can produce very large earthquakes ("megathrust
earthquakes"), magnitude 9.0 or greater…”
-
The Oregonian. 2009-04-19
“A major earthquake can damage infrastructure…”
"wikipedia”
“Some geologists are predicting 10% to 14%”
-
The Oregonian. 2009-04-19
Just plain common sense!
Home page images, in order of appearance:
-
Viaduct 3d Model
Cascadia Subduction Zone fault diagram
Earthquake, Alaska, 1964
Earthquake, Oakland, 1989 (also used for this PPT Title Slide graphic)
41. Appendix
(Persona Development)
“Best Guess” dimensions:
Universe: UW students who are not fully prepared for an
earthquake
Definition criteria: Preparedness and motivation
Key dimensions:
-
Has a plan vs. doesn’t have a plan
Has supplies/provisions vs. does not
Knows what to do and how to prepare vs. does not
Believes they’re prepared vs. doesn’t believe so
Personal experience with earthquakes vs. none
Has kids or does not
Married vs. single
Ruled-out dimensions (insignificant):
-
Believes an earthquake is likely vs. does not think so
Universe: UW students who are not fully prepared for an earthquake.Definition Criteria: Preparedness and MotivationKey Dimensions:§ Has a plan vs. doesn’t have a plan§ Has supplies/provisions vs. does not§ Knows what to do and how to prepare vs. does not§ Believes they’re prepared vs. doesn’t believe so§ Personal experience with earthquakes vs. none§ Has kids or does not§ Married vs. singleRuled-Out Dimensions (insignificant):§ Believes an earthquake is likely vs. does not think so:o From survey, 57.5% believe an earthquake is likely or very likely in the next 20 years. Numberincreases to 82.5% if you
Universe: UW students who are not fully prepared for an earthquake.Definition Criteria: Preparedness and MotivationKey Dimensions:§ Has a plan vs. doesn’t have a plan§ Has supplies/provisions vs. does not§ Knows what to do and how to prepare vs. does not§ Believes they’re prepared vs. doesn’t believe so§ Personal experience with earthquakes vs. none§ Has kids or does not§ Married vs. singleRuled-Out Dimensions (insignificant):§ Believes an earthquake is likely vs. does not think so:o From survey, 57.5% believe an earthquake is likely or very likely in the next 20 years. Numberincreases to 82.5% if you
Universe: UW students who are not fully prepared for an earthquake.Definition Criteria: Preparedness and MotivationKey Dimensions:§ Has a plan vs. doesn’t have a plan§ Has supplies/provisions vs. does not§ Knows what to do and how to prepare vs. does not§ Believes they’re prepared vs. doesn’t believe so§ Personal experience with earthquakes vs. none§ Has kids or does not§ Married vs. singleRuled-Out Dimensions (insignificant):§ Believes an earthquake is likely vs. does not think so:o From survey, 57.5% believe an earthquake is likely or very likely in the next 20 years. Numberincreases to 82.5% if you
Universe: UW students who are not fully prepared for an earthquake.Definition Criteria: Preparedness and MotivationKey Dimensions:§ Has a plan vs. doesn’t have a plan§ Has supplies/provisions vs. does not§ Knows what to do and how to prepare vs. does not§ Believes they’re prepared vs. doesn’t believe so§ Personal experience with earthquakes vs. none§ Has kids or does not§ Married vs. singleRuled-Out Dimensions (insignificant):§ Believes an earthquake is likely vs. does not think so:o From survey, 57.5% believe an earthquake is likely or very likely in the next 20 years. Numberincreases to 82.5% if you
Universe: UW students who are not fully prepared for an earthquake.Definition Criteria: Preparedness and MotivationKey Dimensions:§ Has a plan vs. doesn’t have a plan§ Has supplies/provisions vs. does not§ Knows what to do and how to prepare vs. does not§ Believes they’re prepared vs. doesn’t believe so§ Personal experience with earthquakes vs. none§ Has kids or does not§ Married vs. singleRuled-Out Dimensions (insignificant):§ Believes an earthquake is likely vs. does not think so:o From survey, 57.5% believe an earthquake is likely or very likely in the next 20 years. Numberincreases to 82.5% if you
Simplified info into four categoriesImage + text = motivation
Simplified info into four categoriesImage + text = motivation
Simplified info into four categoriesImage + text = motivation
Simplified info into four categoriesImage + text = motivation
Simplified info into four categoriesImage + text = motivation
Simplified info into four categoriesImage + text = motivation
Simplified info into four categoriesImage + text = motivation
Simplified info into four categoriesImage + text = motivation
We should briefly go over the four methods above:Literature Review: Prior to developing our questions and user research methods it was important to find outwhat solutions, recommendations, data, and tools already exist. We needed to learn what constitutespreparedness and what types of planning and provisions are recommended by organizations such as FEMA. Wealso explored sociological issues surrounding motivation and reasons why people tend not to prepare. Findingsfrom this research helped us to develop the user research questions and methods but are not included in thisreport unless otherwise noted.Survey: Our primary method of obtaining quantitative data was a Catalyst-hosted survey, which allowed us toquickly gather data from 40 participants, mostly UW students. We believed it necessary to find out specificallywhat steps they have taken to prepare themselves, which technology they’re likely to use, and what commonfactors might motivate them to act further. Because much of this data is numerical, the survey format allowed usto gather and analyze quantitative data and look for tendencies among the participants’ answers. A spreadsheetwas generated to facilitate the process and view the various correlations.Interviews: To obtain more qualitative and in-depth data, we interviewed 6 people. Because the survey wascomprised primarily of closed questions, we chose to use more open-ended questions for the interviews. Wecompared participants’ answers from the interviews with those of the survey to see if there were any consistentor contrasting trends. Additionally we were able to look deeper into more personal causation for behaviorsincluding resistance to change or preparation, beliefs or disbeliefs in the likelihood of an earthquake, andpreconceptions of what a large-scale natural disaster might look like.Contextual Inquiry: Finally, we did contextual inquiries in people’s homes and classrooms. We gave participantsa scenario and some specific response questions and tasks to see if their words would match their actions. Audioand video was recorded to allow us to review and look for any surprising or unexpected responses. Participantswere asked to perform the actions that they deemed the highest priority immediately after a major earthquakeand learning of various infrastructure failures. Through the on-site observations, we were able to see how quicklyand thoroughly participants were able to do basic recovery tasks such as locating and retrieving their suppliesand get a better sense of their overall preparedness. We did not pursue other contexts such as the office,
We should briefly go over the four methods above:Literature Review: Prior to developing our questions and user research methods it was important to find outwhat solutions, recommendations, data, and tools already exist. We needed to learn what constitutespreparedness and what types of planning and provisions are recommended by organizations such as FEMA. Wealso explored sociological issues surrounding motivation and reasons why people tend not to prepare. Findingsfrom this research helped us to develop the user research questions and methods but are not included in thisreport unless otherwise noted.Survey: Our primary method of obtaining quantitative data was a Catalyst-hosted survey, which allowed us toquickly gather data from 40 participants, mostly UW students. We believed it necessary to find out specificallywhat steps they have taken to prepare themselves, which technology they’re likely to use, and what commonfactors might motivate them to act further. Because much of this data is numerical, the survey format allowed usto gather and analyze quantitative data and look for tendencies among the participants’ answers. A spreadsheetwas generated to facilitate the process and view the various correlations.Interviews: To obtain more qualitative and in-depth data, we interviewed 6 people. Because the survey wascomprised primarily of closed questions, we chose to use more open-ended questions for the interviews. Wecompared participants’ answers from the interviews with those of the survey to see if there were any consistentor contrasting trends. Additionally we were able to look deeper into more personal causation for behaviorsincluding resistance to change or preparation, beliefs or disbeliefs in the likelihood of an earthquake, andpreconceptions of what a large-scale natural disaster might look like.Contextual Inquiry: Finally, we did contextual inquiries in people’s homes and classrooms. We gave participantsa scenario and some specific response questions and tasks to see if their words would match their actions. Audioand video was recorded to allow us to review and look for any surprising or unexpected responses. Participantswere asked to perform the actions that they deemed the highest priority immediately after a major earthquakeand learning of various infrastructure failures. Through the on-site observations, we were able to see how quicklyand thoroughly participants were able to do basic recovery tasks such as locating and retrieving their suppliesand get a better sense of their overall preparedness. We did not pursue other contexts such as the office,
We should briefly go over the four methods above:Literature Review: Prior to developing our questions and user research methods it was important to find outwhat solutions, recommendations, data, and tools already exist. We needed to learn what constitutespreparedness and what types of planning and provisions are recommended by organizations such as FEMA. Wealso explored sociological issues surrounding motivation and reasons why people tend not to prepare. Findingsfrom this research helped us to develop the user research questions and methods but are not included in thisreport unless otherwise noted.Survey: Our primary method of obtaining quantitative data was a Catalyst-hosted survey, which allowed us toquickly gather data from 40 participants, mostly UW students. We believed it necessary to find out specificallywhat steps they have taken to prepare themselves, which technology they’re likely to use, and what commonfactors might motivate them to act further. Because much of this data is numerical, the survey format allowed usto gather and analyze quantitative data and look for tendencies among the participants’ answers. A spreadsheetwas generated to facilitate the process and view the various correlations.Interviews: To obtain more qualitative and in-depth data, we interviewed 6 people. Because the survey wascomprised primarily of closed questions, we chose to use more open-ended questions for the interviews. Wecompared participants’ answers from the interviews with those of the survey to see if there were any consistentor contrasting trends. Additionally we were able to look deeper into more personal causation for behaviorsincluding resistance to change or preparation, beliefs or disbeliefs in the likelihood of an earthquake, andpreconceptions of what a large-scale natural disaster might look like.Contextual Inquiry: Finally, we did contextual inquiries in people’s homes and classrooms. We gave participantsa scenario and some specific response questions and tasks to see if their words would match their actions. Audioand video was recorded to allow us to review and look for any surprising or unexpected responses. Participantswere asked to perform the actions that they deemed the highest priority immediately after a major earthquakeand learning of various infrastructure failures. Through the on-site observations, we were able to see how quicklyand thoroughly participants were able to do basic recovery tasks such as locating and retrieving their suppliesand get a better sense of their overall preparedness. We did not pursue other contexts such as the office,
Universe: UW students who are not fully prepared for an earthquake.Definition Criteria: Preparedness and MotivationKey Dimensions:§ Has a plan vs. doesn’t have a plan§ Has supplies/provisions vs. does not§ Knows what to do and how to prepare vs. does not§ Believes they’re prepared vs. doesn’t believe so§ Personal experience with earthquakes vs. none§ Has kids or does not§ Married vs. singleRuled-Out Dimensions (insignificant):§ Believes an earthquake is likely vs. does not think so:o From survey, 57.5% believe an earthquake is likely or very likely in the next 20 years. Numberincreases to 82.5% if you
Universe: UW students who are not fully prepared for an earthquake.Definition Criteria: Preparedness and MotivationKey Dimensions:§ Has a plan vs. doesn’t have a plan§ Has supplies/provisions vs. does not§ Knows what to do and how to prepare vs. does not§ Believes they’re prepared vs. doesn’t believe so§ Personal experience with earthquakes vs. none§ Has kids or does not§ Married vs. singleRuled-Out Dimensions (insignificant):§ Believes an earthquake is likely vs. does not think so:o From survey, 57.5% believe an earthquake is likely or very likely in the next 20 years. Numberincreases to 82.5% if you
Universe: UW students who are not fully prepared for an earthquake.Definition Criteria: Preparedness and MotivationKey Dimensions:§ Has a plan vs. doesn’t have a plan§ Has supplies/provisions vs. does not§ Knows what to do and how to prepare vs. does not§ Believes they’re prepared vs. doesn’t believe so§ Personal experience with earthquakes vs. none§ Has kids or does not§ Married vs. singleRuled-Out Dimensions (insignificant):§ Believes an earthquake is likely vs. does not think so:o From survey, 57.5% believe an earthquake is likely or very likely in the next 20 years. Numberincreases to 82.5% if you