Master's Project Proposal
Redesign of a DOS xBase system to a Windows NT object-oriented client-server system.
The sample consisted of three users, representing the roles of Comptroller, Program Director and Field Activity. The users are all analysts actually performing these roles: Karen Hester, Comptroller Budget Analyst; Nick Stravelakis, DCSLOG Budget Analyst; and Ken Shaeffer, Headquarters Activity Budget Analyst. The first two are familiar with the current system, the third is not (the current system does not provide significant field access). In addition, Headquarters Activity is functionally a field activity, but it is located physically and organizationally within the headquarters. This creates some unusual considerations.
Each user was given a brief introduction to the system and presented with the opening screen. Users were asked to perform various common tasks and their reactions were observed in terms of their ability to recognize what menu selections to make and what actions to take on input screens.
Tasks:
User easily recognized the correct Menu options except for ‘Change Fund Distribution’/’Reprogram Funds’. User was unclear about what to do when first exposed to items in a list box. User seemed uneasy about issue fad procedures – one-at-a-time approach is different from the current batch procedure.
Tasks:
User spent a long time studying the opening Menu. After the first task user began exploring on his own. User was able to understand the menu structure – he was going through saying, "Here’s where you do this, etc." Discussion ranged outside of strictly usability issues. Funding transfer screen should have a Point of Contact at the requesting Field Activity. The funding transfer process will require more discussion to determine how it will work, for instance, how to involve the gaining Program Director. User tried to double click in several places where this would have been appropriate, but the model does not support double clicking.
Tasks:
This user showed more uncertainty about which Menu items to select, especially in differentiating between ‘Check on Funding Transfer Status’ vs. ‘Check on Pending FADs’. He liked the ability to enter Transfer Requests on-line.
In general, the menu structure seemed relatively clear to the users. However, the Program Director menu is almost certainly too long – 8 items. The distinction between ‘Change Fund Distribution’ and ‘Reprogram’ may not be meaningful to users. The Field Activity menu must be better in explanation and context than the others have to be. Double clicking should be supported where appropriate. It will probably take several rounds of prototypes to arrive at a suitable model for processing funding transfer requests – actual procedures in use may not be as clear-cut or straight forward as they sound.