STEAM DESIRABILITY likelihood

2020

VALUE PROPOSITION

  • Dot voting workshop resulted in need to increase decision-making towards purchase of digital games

METHOD

  • Usability testing

IMPACT

  • Redesign resulted in 80% discovery of tooltip followed by 100% task success

  • Users main decision to wishlist the game possibly affected by lack of price indication above the fold of the website page

PAPER PROTOTYPE & RITE - ITERATION 1 FEEDBACK

  • 3 users

  • Lack of information on why the game would be recommended to them, how many people bought the game, popular opinions

PAPER PROTOTYPE & RITE - ITERATION 2 FEEDBACK

  • 1 user

  • Lack of information on similar played games on why the game would be recommended

PAPER PROTOTYPE & RITE - ITERATION 3 FEEDBACK

  • 1 user

  • Preferred probability of liking the game to be numeric

  • Tooltip information too generic, should be more tailored to each individual

PAPER PROTOTYPE & RITE - ITERATION 4 FEEDBACK

  • 1 user

  • Lack of understanding of the number in the probability of liking the game

  • Lack of information on friends playing the game

PAPER PROTOTYPE & RITE - ITERATION 5 FEEDBACK

  • 1 user

  • Use reduced notation to avoid visual clutter

  • Remove how many people play the game as information on friends playing was deemed more relevant

  • Lack of information on following streamers who have streamed this game with links to their page

HIFI PROTOTYPE

  • High-fidelity prototype built using HTML+CSS

USABILITY TESTING METHODOLOGY

  • Duration: 10 minutes

  • Participants: 5

    • Inclusive criteria: 18-50 y.o., tech-savvy, high frequency and permanency of Steam use (times per week), high discoverability of Steam (number of different pages viewed, number of games purchased)

    • Exclusion criteria: technophobes, non-users of Steam, never purchased games on Steam.

  • Task Scenario:

    • Task (a) - navigate the page freely to decide if you would like to purchase/wishlist this game or not (only based on information on the website, not the game itself)

  • Performance criteria:

    • Task (a) - click on “Add to wishlist” or “Add to cart” or decide not to purchase the game

  • Variables:

    • Time: time elapsed during exploration of the website (no longer than 10 minutes)

    • Clicks​: number of clicks and discovery of tooltip

    • Success​: success (ability to make a decision) or failure (inability to make a decision)

  • Test environment:

    • Laptop computer

    • Audio/Video recording with Bandicam

    • Brief/Consent/Debrief/Compensation

DATA ANALYSIS

  • Metrics:

    • One user did not see the tooltip

    • All users made a decision

    • Price was mentioned as one of the major contributors to the decision-making process

    • Time on page did not allow for conclusions to be drawn due to lack of comparison with real Steam users’ behavior

RESULTS

  • 1 out of 5 users decided to buy the game

  • 1 user decided not to buy the game

  • 3 users wishlisted the game

  • Price was deemed important, although its location below the fold constributed to the need to scroll down to get more information before the decision

User 2

WIREFAME

  • Wireframe of the proposed solution using Axure

Persona 2 with storyboarding

VALIDATION OF VALUE PROPOSITION

  1. Contextual inquiry followed by semi-structured interview

  2. Competitive analysis

  3. Identification of customer segment through personas

  4. Storyboarding of touchpoints in the user journey

  5. Card sorting for organization of information architecture

  6. Paper prototyping proper for Wizard of Oz

  7. Rapid Iterative Testing (RITE)

  8. Wireframing using Axure

  9. HiFi prototype using HTLM+CSS

  10. Usability testing

Competitive analysis

Persona 1 with storyboarding

CARD SORTING

Users were asked to group concepts together as these made sense to them, as well as name each category. Users were also given the option to modify any card name to words they preferred. Finally, users were asked to organize each concept by order of importance inside each category and, then, to organize each grouping by order of importance, which allowed me to see the concepts on the far left at the top are perceived as the most important for users and on the far right at the bottom are the least important concepts for users.

User 1