Problem Space
Thinking about how the popularization of remote work in recent years has pulled many people out of typical office spaces, we wanted to know what working professionals' pain points are around navigating physical comfort in an alternative work setting.
Background Research
We explored various facets of this space in order to understand what kinds of physical issues were faced by individuals who work for prolonged periods of time at a computer. We conducted a literature review and a competitive analysis in order to understand what research had been done and what conclusions could be drawn from such work, as well as what products already existed and what purported problem they were trying to solve. Many of the current on-the-market solutions took the form of an app that users had to engage with on their phone in order to track seated posture at a laptop or desktop computer.
Data Collection
After we had gathered enough information on the topic to inform our understanding of the issue at hand, we executed three different data collections methodologies to gathers insights from potential users about where their pain points lie when it comes to long-term computer use.
The first method we used was observation, wherein we went to a collegiate library, two different coffee shops, and a student study lounge and took notes on how people sat and moved as they worked. These notes were condensed into coded actions taken during this observed seated computer work.
The second method we used was a semi-structured interview, in which we spoke with four individuals one-on-one, using the inclusion criteria that these workers must conduct work outside of a typical office space at least some of the time.
The third method we used was a survey which was sent out to Georgia Tech students, faculty, and staff, that inquired about general working habits, desk and equipment set up, and self-reported physical comfort and productivity while working.
Data Synthesis
Affinity Mapping
The four individual semi-structured interviews we conducted were parsed into notes and organized by category. The below images are samples of the high-level insights gained from this categorization activity. The high-level themes drawn from this exercise were that users:
- manage a mix of responsibilities while working remotely
- do not realize they have problematic posture
- have a preference for working at home
- use different postures and tools to maintain and improve physical health
- manage an at-home work station
- experience a wide range of physical comfort and discomfort while working
Data Storytelling
Given the insights gained from our affinity mapping and survey results, we started to recognize themes that our users fall under. One such theme is that, despite a desire to work remotely and a personal perception and desire to be comfortable while they work, many users find themselves experiencing some level of physical discomfort for a variety of reasons regardless of the effort they put into improving their remote working space.
The persona shown below, Carolyn, represents a user journey we created from these insights that considers this prototypical user through the lens of her goals, frustrations, and motivations. Subsequently, this persona was used to develop an empathy map that considered what Carolyn might say, think, do, and feel, as well as her pains and gains that should be addressed in any minimum viable product for our design.
Survey ResultsOur survey inquired about a wide variety of working dimensions in order to gain understanding about comfort as a result of where working time is spent and well as user perceptions of how they feel while working. Key insights emerged from this data, such as the apparent contradiction that while over 89% of respondents reported feeling at least somewhat physically comfortable while working remotely and 87% are satisfied with the technology they use while working remotely, almost 59% reported feeling some level of pain or discomfort while working and over 72% reported having difficulty finding a comfortable position in which to sit while working. These results indicated a disconnect between user's perceptions of their overall working comfort and their acknowledgement of physical pain while working.
After synthesizing our data, we determined two core functions that our potential solution should address in order to meet the needs of our users. The design should...
- educate the user about the importance of sitting with good posture.
- raise the user’s awareness of their own posture and habits while they work.
Knowing this, we started our design ideation phase which consisted of two parts:
- each member of the team came up with their own idea that addressed both core functions, and these four ideas were combined and re-worked into two stronger, more cohesive designs that were then pitched to potential users for initial thoughts and feedback
- based on this feedback, the preferred design idea was chosen as the final design concept and turned into a wireframe for another found of user feedback before initiating prototype development
Part 1: Initial design ideation honed into two distinct design ideas
The below two images represent initial sketches made by the team to present our two distinct design ideas to potential users for feedback. The image on the left is an augmented reality app that allows users to visualize an avatar sitting with correct posture at the workstation they use for remote work, and the image on the right is a downloadable software for laptops and desktops that compromises pop-up reminders that respond to camera footage of the user sitting improperly and/or provides periodic reminders to take work breaks.
Part 2: Design idea with more positive user feedback turned into a wireframe
The pop up reminder software was chosen by users as the preferred designed during an initial feedback session, and so was developed into the wireframe below for a second round of user feedback before being refined into a full prototype.
The leftmost image below is a mock-up of the software's home screen, structured as a dashboard feed allowing users to interact with various elements of postural needs such as defining their work location, learning more about correct posture, scheduling breaks and reminders, and selecting stretches from a library to complete during breaks.
On the right is demonstrated some potential reminders that would pop up on the user's screen based either on poor posture as detected by the camera or scheduled breaks set by the user.
We created a list of questions to ask during the user feedback session which guided the conversation and created an opportunity for structured commentary on our design ideas:
To evaluate this wireframe, we again created a list of questions to ask during the user feedback session which guided the conversation and created an opportunity for more structured commentary on our idea that would inform our final prototype:
Based on the commentary we received from the wireframe feedback session, we created the following high-fidelity prototype:
Home Screen
The landing page of this software is designed as a dashboard layout with a vertical left hand navigation bar to allow for quick access to each of the main functions of the interface.
Progress Reporting
The progress reports are based on collected data over time regarding the user's break and postural habits, so they can see how their physical activity while working has evolved and can be given suggestions and tips for improvement opportunities. Postural movement over time is detected using a computer's camera if enabled by the user.
Stretch Library
The personalization of this interface is further established through the ability for users to select stretches that they would like to complete during their breaks based on potential physical areas that they may want to see improvements in.
Pop-Up Notifications
To demonstrate the functionality of the interface in real-time without longitudinal deployment, we created mock pop-up flows whereby clicking a button mimicked a reminder or break trigger to show potential users how the software would interface with a screen once it is personalized by the user.
Task Rationales & Heuristics
We established a series of tasks for our users and heuristic experts to navigate through in order to gather feedback about all the key features of our interface. Each task was accompanied by a rationale for implementation as well as the Nielsen Heuristics that we believed to be addressed when completing said tasks.
To gather feedback on our high-fidelity prototype, we conducted feedback sessions with a three different kinds of evaluators: potential users, heuristic experts, and a subject matter expert. This way, our prototype would benefit from a variety of input from different perspectives that could inform a well-rounded and holistic collection of commentary for improvement.
Thematic User Feedback
We conducted evaluation sessions with a total of six users, and organized their feedback on the various tasks and overall interface into themes based on positive commentary as well as areas of confusion and potential opportunities for improvement.
Heuristic Expert Feedback
We also conducted evaluation sessions with two heuristic experts, who were also asked to complete the pre-determined tasks with the understanding that they would be evaluating the interface and the tasks heuristically. Their feedback was then organized according to Nielsen's Heuristics so that we could understand what categorical improvements were needed across the interface.
Subject Matter Expert Feedback
The subject matter expert whom we conducted an evaluation session with was not taken through the pre-determined tasks, but rather shown the functionality of the interface and asked for their professional opinion on the effectiveness of the key features in the style of an unstructured interview. This individual is a Doctor of Physical Therapy, and as an expert on physical wellness, we wanted their professional perspective on whether our interface would achieve its intended purpose of supporting working individuals in their efforts to improve the physical wellness longitudinally.
The SME was then asked a series of semi-structured interview questions aimed at understanding the holistic effectiveness of the interface as well as any potential opportunities for improvement regarding the way information is communicated to users and generally usability from a physical logistics perspective.
Since this interface was designed and created for the purposes of a class project, the evaluative feedback will not be used to enable future prototype improvements, and rather serves the purposes of allowing our team to reflect upon our design process and recognize what went well and what lessons were learned along the way. Upon reflection, several key takeaways came out of this experience:
- quick and dirty research strategy can often gather pivotal insights that are needed to determine next steps
- no two data gathering sessions will be the same, so prepare prompts and questions to be adapted as needed
- iteration is incremental and requires focus on both small details and holistic interface functionality
- there is often an opportunity to change directions in order to improve a design, even if you are far along in the process
- every interaction had with others about the project is a learning opportunity
One-Time Reminders
The ability to personalize reminders and breaks is a core function of this interface, so it is split into two reminder types, the first being one-time or "for the moment" reminders to allow users to set a schedule for a single day or period of time.
Recurring Reminders
The second reminder type is the recurring reminder, shown here on a weekly schedule of recurrence, that allows users to plan their breaks and reminders around their current working schedule via synchronized calendars to ensure their breaks and reminders are optimized for their routine.
