TakeControl

Application

TakeControl

February - June 2016

Context & Problem

Encouraging energy saving

There are currently a lot of energy usage managers available. These systems allow users to gain more insight in their energy usage and, through the use of innovative applications, gain more control over the energy usage in their homes. Some applications allow for a certain degree of automation. For example, the heating, lamps, or other devices might be automated to turn on or off at a specific time, or for instance when you leave your house.

Currently, some of these systems are mostly used by enthusiasts; users who have more experience with such systems and can more easily use advanced features. These features could involve rule-based systems to control devices around the house. We were told that these advanced features, while powerful, weren’t easy to use for the average person, as they required more in-depth knowledge about technology. This is a shame as it could lead to a significant decrease in the reduction of energy usage. The ultimate goal of the client was to reduce the energy consumption through the use of energy managers.

Orientation

Briefing & goals

After receiving the initial briefing, we determined that we needed further information on the project to get properly started. In order to further clarify the goals and direction of the assignment we sat down with the parties involved. After talking with the involved clients the following two issues main issues came to light: the interfaces and the installation process. It was clear that the installation processes and interface of current applications left something to be desired. This prevented people from saving energy optimally. This is where our project group came in. We decided, in agreement with the clients, to design the ‘ultimate’ energy management system.

1 ) Interfaces are too technical and above all user unfriendly.
2 ) The installation process and managing of related hardware is too complex.

- The clients

Orientation

Target group

In theory, the aforementioned new application could target everyone who lives on their own, pays their own bills and is someone who likes innovations in the early stages. Taking this as a target group would be too broad and too hard to ultimately test with. Therefore, and based on the talks with the involved clients, we divided users into three, more comprehensible target groups: Students living outside their parental home, starters on the housing market, and seniors (65+) who live on their own.

Research

Literature study

After determining the scope of the assignment and deciding on the target group, we moved on towards the research phase. For this we created a main question we wanted answered:

How do you create a better user experience in energy management systems, for multiple and different target groups, and stimulate active use?

Main research question

The main question led to several sub-questions. These answers to these questions collectively provided the answer to the main question, and led to the following results.

The improved user experience can first of all be achieved by taking the physical and cognitive limitations of the user into account. Thereby the system should be easy to use, uncluttered and look pleasantly. These factors, in combination with the fact that the system should offer both comfort and security, can lead to an improved user experience. In order to encourage users to save energy they have to actively use the system. Active use can be stimulated by applying gamification techniques and structurally providing the user with feedback.

Ideation

Brainstorming

Based on the results from the orientation and research phase our team setup a multitude of design requirements. Based on these requirements we organised a brainstorm session in which we tried to come up with as many solutions per requirement as possible. This led to a wide variety of possible implementation options for the product. After the brainstorm was completed it was time to organise all the different ideas into more clear categories. This led to merging some ideas and a thematic ordering, which gave us a concrete list of themes to focus on.

Based on the thematic overviews we set out to create an order of importance. Using the MoSCoW rules (which stand for Must have, Should have, Could have, and Would or Won’t have) we determined which ideas or themes were the most important to implement and which were less relevant. This allowed us to focus our time on parts where it mattered the most.

Prototyping

Low-fidelity prototypes

After doing the collaborative brainstorm session we decided to split the group into three teams. This allowed us to develop multiple ideas, test them and ultimately merge them together into one final prototype. Each time focussed on one main part of the application, for my part we focussed on designing the quick action panel and the controlling and adding of devices. We started off by sketching, discussing and converting the sketches into an interactive low-fidelity prototype.

After developing the three low-fidelity prototypes we tested them with an expert on the field of user-centred design. We created several tasks for each prototype which the expert should try to accomplish. This test process gave us some useful insights into the current state of the prototypes, and the expert mentioned several things that were on his mind. Based on some of the suggestions he gave us we adapted the prototypes before we moved on to the evaluation stage.

Evaluation

Testing with users

After creating the three standalone low-fidelity prototypes we tested them with users. During this phase it was the goal to discover which functionalities worked well and which less. We did this through setting up task scenarios which the users would have to walk through. These scenarios would lead them through the application step-by-step.

After the walkthrough of the tasks we also interviewed the users. For the clients it was important to discover what the users thought about the implemented retention techniques. Therefore, we included several questions related to these implemented techniques.

We tested the product with the three defined target groups. Testing each prototype with every group showed several interesting results. For example, the tests showed that several users were confused about the layout or design of some buttons, and could either not find them or could after receiving more directions. These were issues that the low-fidelity prototype was made to solve, and ultimately lead to easy to implement solutions.

High-fidelity prototype

Final design

After finishing the evaluation tests we implemented the results into the prototypes, and it was time to merge the three prototypes into one final application. The merging led to some screens being unnecessary or being quite similar to others. To solve this, we had to take another look at the user flow. We discussed several of the issues presented and this process ultimately led to the creation of one final overview of (low-fidelity) screens.

After this process I took on the task of designing the final layout for the application. This led to the application having one clear and user friendly look and feel. In the end the app consisted of around a hundred designed screens. Several of the final screen designs I created for the applications are highlighted below.