Client: Melbourne Metro
Project type: App design
Team members: Solo project
Duration: 5 days
I was allocated to work on the Melbourne Metro project.
My task was to find a problem with the Melbourne Metro system and propose a solution.
My challenge was to create a wireframe armed with just 1 week of UX knowledge.
I applied a simple Design Thinking process to approach this project. A high-level breakdown of what I did in each phase is described below:
Worked alone to conduct a contextual enquiry to observe users in their natural environment, and user interview to gauge user experience with the Melbourne Metro system.
Worked as a group to consolidate the findings. A clear pattern emerged, despite the data being sourced from different people. This eventually led to identifying the problem area. Taking the findings from the synthesis, I then defined the problem statement, hypothesis, and solution statement on my own.
Worked alone to design the persona, storyboard, and journey.
Worked alone to designed the wireframes with pen & paper, and prototypes with Powerpoint.
Tested three different prototypes, which enabled me to see flaws in my original design and revise them based on user feedback.
Key findings - Contextual Enquiry
- The layout of the Southern Cross train station is confusing.
- The entrances/access to platforms is hard to find.
- The timetables for platforms is hard to find.
- The readability of information on the screen is poor (text too small, directions too small).
- Myki cards are easy to lose or get damaged.
- There are not enough Myki machines and they take too long to update.
2 days, 3 methods
I spent about 2 days gathering data for the analysis.
I used the following research methods to gather data:
- Contextual enquiry
- User interview
- Affinity mapping
Key findings - User interview
- What information are you looking for?
- What would make it easier for you to find this information?
- What would happen if you don’t find this information?
- How do you normally get home?
- What is the reason for your journey today?
- What do you find frustrating about travelling?
A clear pattern of issues became evident during the affinity mapping exercise.
I selected Where is it as the main problem users were experiencing as it was evident in the user research that many people had issues seeking information at the train station.
In order to convey the user journey and and emotional connection, I developed a storyboard to show how the app improves commuters' travel.
- Joe is going home from work. He’s tired and looking forward to a stress-free commute back home.
- Joe arrives at the station and looks at the timetable. It’s not easy for him to find the information because the text is too small.
- Joe take out his phone and checks his app that shows the information (platform, line, time, GPS map of the station).
- Joe walks to the platform and boards his train when it arrives.
I iterated the user flow a few times to achieve a more simple and linear process.
Original user flow
The first version was too complex.
Improved user flow
The second user flow is more linear.
Prototyping & Testing
Once I created the user flow, I began to draw the wireframes for the app.
I tested the first paper prototype version with classmates and then reiterated my design based on their feedback.
I created a second paper prototype and re-tested on different classmates and received different feedback, which I later incorporated into my final version.
List of changes from first round of testing:
- Added a DONE button on the keyboard.
- Added a PLAT label to the platform column.
- Added a Next/Prev controls to the carousel.
- Renamed the Text View button to Back.
List of changes from second round of testing:
- Removed the Time field as it was not necessary.
- Highlighted the active text box.
- Changed heading to indicate Clifton Hill as the destination.
- Added header information to identify columns.
- Moved Platform to the first column.
View more case studies
GLOBAL WOMEN'S PROJECT