Evaluation of the presentations and the course

First of all, we think that the presentations were given at a high level. Further on, all the questions were answered clear and honest.

Here are some remarks on the presentation of some teams:


We liked the flow diagram of different screens. This gave us immediately an overview of the possibilities of the app in just one slide.


If there was an award for the nicest logo, they would win it.


The application is mainly white. This is maybe boring, but also gives a clean look. They promoted their app via many ways, which is certainly interesting to gather more users.


We liked the fact that the failed Facebook log-in was turned into a well considered privacy issue. You have to sell your features right. This was the perfect example!

Chili Con Carne

The structure of the presentation was totally different from other groups. They discussed each problem separately and not each iteration. This was innovating. You might think it was disturbing, but this was certainly not the case.


To give feedback on the course, we would like to ‘tip’ the blog of Chi Con Carne: http://chiconcarne.wordpress.com/. Not because of laziness, but because of the very constructive and ‘to-the-point’ evaluation.

We agree on almost everything, except for the fact that you must know a website or mobile programming language. The three of us didn’t know anything about HTML5 or PHP at all at the beginning of the course.

Last, we also want to thank JeTS-CHI for winning their Highest chance-to-keep-using-the-app trophy.



Final presentation

Last Tuesday we presented the final design of Tip-It! In the end we got 40 users and this number kept on rising during the presentation. These 40 users accounted for over 200 tips.

So there were more tips than users. This was quite opposite to most groups. This is because our application focused the personal bond between friends. The consequence is that 2 users using the application together will boost our number of tips. If we check our database we see the typical 80-20 rule arising.

In general the reaction to our application was positive, people liked the plugin and the simplistic form of the website.  We also got a good remark about adding functionality to invite friends.

Check out the final presentation for yourself at : http://prezi.com/dcwjzqx7mwyy/final-ui/?auth_key=fcb79bf7d8d55506b939c066a068ef99c9c8975e&kw=view-dcwjzqx7mwyy&rc=ref-10533796

Iteration 4

Because in the previous iteration we noticed that it took a while for all the users to add a new friend, we changed this functionality and executed a new small test.

In the figure below, you can see we added three new tabs at the left side. One of them includes the ‘Add-friend’ functionality. In the previous version (unfortunately we didn’t find a screenshot) this functionality was included in just one friends-page instead of three.



Testing if the problems concerning the ‘Add friend’-functionality are solved. Namely the difficulty of finding how to add a friend.


Asking users to add a friend and record the number of clicks to measure the efficiency.


The fewer the number of clicks, the better users know how to add friends.

Who, What, Where, Time?

  • Who? 4 testpersons, 2 with good knowledge of computers, 2 less experienced users.
  • What? 1 specific task: add a friend starting from the ‘for you’-page.
  • Where? 200 A, Heverlee
  • Time? 2-3 minutes


n=4: needed 3 clicks to add a friend, this is the minimum number of clicks required to execute this tasks.


The problems with the ‘add-friend’ functionality are solved.


Official Release!

Tip-It! is online!



Go to http://tipit.cobemar.be and tip your friends an interesting site!



Tip-It! was already online since April 22th, but on May 7th, the official release was announced! You can see the evolution in the following figure of unique visitors per day generated by google analytics:


The two peaks match the two release dates. The first big one with the days after the unofficial release of Tip-It!, the second when we officially announced Tip-It! at Twitter and in the course.

The average number of visitors is also higher after the second release. We are now planning to ‘create’ a third peak by the help of Facebook and a special action. More on this later in the post! 🙂



Another remarkable thing that google analytics showed us was the high bounce percentage. This percentage gives the number of users that visit your site but leave the site without doing anything. At this moment this number is 44 percent. We try to decrease this percentage by adding a preview to the login-page of our site, as you can see below. This way people may be curious and take the effort to register and discover Tip-It! Thanks to google analytics we can compare the number today with a hopefully lower number in the future.



Via google analytics we want to investigate another issue. Do people tip sites mostly via the plug-in or via the site itself? To test this we created to separate submit pages where google analytics code was included. This way we can compare the how many times each submit page is executed and give an answer to our question. These results will be published later!


The last two weeks we made some final changes to our website and plugin. In the overview beneath you can see the evolution of our application. Each time three moments in the evolution are shown. First the paper prototype, in the middle the first digital prototype and as final the current look of the site:

For You Page


From You Page


Friends Page


New Tip Page






To make extra publicity for Tip-It! we are planning to make some small paper forms that can be tied to students bikes on the campus. We also started a Facebook and Twitter campagne. Like and follow us at http://www.facebook.com/tipitBelgium and https://twitter.com/Tipit_Belgium!

Iteration 3

With the digital prototype we took a step back in our testing process. We want to be sure that just like the paper prototype the functionalities of the digital one are all clear. This will be investigated in iteration 3. This iteration isn’t completely finished yet, so we will wait with publishing the results and the conclusion, but here is already the set-up of it.

Iteration 3


  • We want to test whether by digitalising the prototype no new issues are discovered that weren’t there in the paper prototype.
  • We will test if the reactions of the users remain the same.
  • Temporarly the  buttons with logo’s are replaced by keywords to test just the basic operations. Later on, the logo’s on the buttons will be tested on ‘clearness’.


Digital Prototype in HTML5 together with the Think Aloud protocol.


  • Digital Prototype is used because the application is developed to work as a plug-in with accompanying site and this closely resembles how the application will look like in the future.
  • The reasons to use the think aloud protocol are the same as in Iteration 1.

Who, What, Where, Time?

  • Who? 5 testpersons, 2 were family-related to a group-member, 3 of them were searched in the wild
  • What? All the test-persons will be asked to execute some basic assignments: register (T3.1) and log-in (T3.2) , give a tip via the plug-in (T3.3), remove a friend (T3.4), look at a tip and like it (T3.5), add a friend  (T3.6), give a tip via the site (new-tip tab and friends tab) (T3.7), log out (T3.8).
  • Where? 200A Foyer and Kapucijnenvoer 113, 3000 Leuven
  • Time? The duration of each test took at most 5 to 10 minutes.


  • n = 3: Didn’t find at all the functionality to add a friend. They used the search-functionality to look for a new friend and not the add-friend-button (R3.1).
  • n = 2: Found the adding-functionality, but it took at least ten seconds longer than the other assignments to complete (R3.2).
  • n = 2: Mentioned that the concept of liking a tip is clear, but re-liking1 a tip wasn’t easy to find (R3.3).
  • n = 1: After registration asked and we quote: “Did it work?” (R3.4).


  • T3.1 It was not clear to all test persons if registering was successful or failed so we will add a notification of this (R3.4).
  • T3.2 There were no noticable problems with the login, so this is good.
  • T3.3 Everything went fine.
  • T3.4 By executing this assignment we noticed we forgot the ‘Are you sure? – pop-up’2 !
  • T3.5 Liking a tip was no issue. To make sure people do find the re-liking1 functionality we will display a short message when hoovering over the (dis)liked button (R3.3).
  • T3.6 All the testpersons encountered problems while adding a friend. The button to fullfill this functionality is not obvious enough. They all searched for this at the left side of the page and didn’t look at the right top. We will adjust this button and move it to the left top (R3.1 & R3.2).
  • T3.7 Giving a tip via the site didn’t reveal any problems.
  • T3.8 Also logging out gave us no noticable problems.

1: Re-liking: When you have (dis)liked a tip, you can change your mind and undo your opinion.

Areyousure 2: Are you sure? – pop-up: Extra confirmation screen when removing a friend, because comments on our blog suggested that this decision was too heavy without any confirmation.


Recap Iteration 2

After exploring the world of testing and iterations for the first time, a new iteration was immediately set-up and executed. Here is a brief recap of it.

Iteration 2


  • We want to test if the logo on the main screen doesn’t distract the users anymore (R1.1)
  • Is the friends-functionality added in accordance to the expectation of the users (R1.2,R1.3)?
  • R1.4 and R1.5 will not be tested in this iteration. The first result is trivial and the second will be elaborated later.
  • We added ‘settings’-functionalities, we will test them as well.


We use the Wizard Paper Prototyping method together with the Think Aloud protocol.


  • Wizard prototyping allowed us to quickly add the friends-functionality and to change the layout regarding the logo.
  • Think Aloud gave us the opportunity to test where the attention of the users was going to. We wanted to know what the test-persons thought about the functionality and not just whether the functionality was operating in the right way.

Who, What, Where, Time?

  • Who? 3 co-students, each belonging to a different group from the class User Interfaces.
  • What? All the test-persons were asked to execute some basic assignments: give a tip via the plug-in, give a tip via the friends-tab, add a friend, search for a friend, like a tip.
  • Where? The tests took place at the campus in the 200B building.
  • Time? The duration of each test was 5 to 10 minutes.


Some new remarks were mentioned:

  • R2.1: All the users said that the logo’s of the buttons on the friends tab not pointed out what their functionality was.
  • R2.2: One person thought that the search-for-friends-fucntionality was not clear enough, but the two other users understood the search function completly right.
  • R2.3: Two users told us that they didn’t immediately saw what was adjustable and what not when they were on the settings-page.
  • R2.4: There were no remarks anymore on the logo of the main page.


  • The added functionalities (friends and settings) were necessary but the logo’s on the friends tab and the layout of the settings page need to be changed (R2.1, R2.3).
  • The new location of the logo was clearly an improvement (R2.4).
  • Because just one person pointed out that the search-functionality wasn’t clear, but the others didn’t, this aspect will remain the same in the next iteration (R2.2).

Recap Iteration 1

In this post we will give a short overview of the first iteration of the development of our application Tip-It!

Iteration 1:


Get a general idea of the impression of the users. Do they understand and find the functionalities?


We use the Wizard Paper Prototyping method together with the Think Aloud protocol.


  • Wizard prototyping is highly applicable in our case because you can test en maybe adjust your prototype immediately. Different functionalities can easily be added or removed.
  • Think Aloud allows us to look into the mind of the users and to collect their thoughts.

Who, What, Where, Time?

  • Who? 4 co-students, each belonging to a different group from the class User Interfaces. 
  • What? In the first two tests, the users had to tell what they should do with the given prototype, without any information. What did they expect to happen when they executed their actions? The other two testpersons were asked to try some basic functionalities, namely give and like a tip.
  • Where? The tests took place at the campus in the 200B building.
  • Time? The duration of each test was 5 to 10 minutes.


3 of the 4 people spontaneously told us that they liked the concept of the application! Yet there were some remarks:

  • R1.1: The 4 testpersons all thought that the logo at the top of the site was a button. They also mentioned that it distracted them from the actual functionality.
  • R1.2: 2 users wondered if there was a friends-functionality en warned us for possible spam if the application was open to everybody.
  • R1.3: One user asked if the possibility to send a tip to multiple persons exists.
  • R1.4: All testpersons clicked on the site-preview while this wasn’t a link to the tipped site and thus non-clickable.
  • R1.5: Two users didn’t exactly understand what the purpose of the notifications was.


  • In general the users were very enthusiastic about the application.
  • But a certain friends-functionality was clearly missed and will be included in the next iteration, just as the possibility to send a tip to multiple persons (R1.2, R1.3).
  • The previews will include a link to the site they represent (R1.4).
  • The logo will be smaller and moved to another location (R1.1).
  • Notifications are not being handled in the next iteration, because this isn’t a basic functionality. Later on, we will elaborate this more (R1.5).