Development of Low-Fidelity Virtual Replicas of Products for Usability Testing

Designers perform early-stage formative usability tests with low-fidelity prototypes to improve the design of new products. This low-tech prototype style reduces the manufacturing resources but limits the functions that can be assessed. Recent advances in technology enable designers to create low-fidelity 3D models for users to engage in a virtual environment. Three-dimensional models communicate design concepts and are not often used in formative usability testing. The proposed method discusses how to create a virtual replica of a product by assessing key human interaction steps and addresses the limitations of translating those steps into a virtual environment. In addition, the paper will provide a framework to evaluate the usability of a product in a virtual setting, with a specific emphasis on low-resource online testing in the user population. A study was performed to pilot the subject’s experience with the proposed approach and determine how the virtual online simulation impacted the performance. The study outcomes demonstrated that subjects were able to successfully interact with the virtual replica and found the simulation realistic. This method can be followed to perform formative usability tests earlier and incorporate subject feedback into future iterations of their design, which can improve safety and product efficacy.

Staff participation in design with multiple tools: Impact on design and POE results

OBJECTIVE

This is a concluding part of an action research study to evaluate the impact on healthcare staff participation in the design of a new intensive care unit (ICU). Staff participated with multiple tools in the design; during the predesign phase utilizing co-design and virtual mock-ups, and also participating in the predesign evaluation (PDE) and postoccupancy evaluation (POE). Both the ICU design and evaluations were based on the principles of evidence-based design studies.

METHOD

Staff satisfaction was evaluated with an online survey comprising 116 statements on 13 different topics used both in PDE and POE. There was space for open-ended comments after each topic.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant difference (<.001) between PDE and POE results. There were considerable improvements in privacy, accessibility, safety and security, and acoustics. It was assumed that participation in the predesign phase would positively influence POE results, but there were no statistical differences in any topics. However, as a result of collaborative predesign phase, the staff was satisfied with these jointly designed patient rooms. Open-ended questions revealed the importance to continue functional and technical support for staff after commissioning and ensure that technical solutions are practical and well-functioning.

CONCLUSION

The use of PDE and POE assists to set predetermined criteria and evaluate the success of design. Healthcare providers should see POE as a valuable part of design and commissioning process. Additionally, the use of POE should be made more effortless and the results more easily accessible to promote increased interest and usage.