Usability Evaluation Technical Report: A Usability Evaluation of the Communication Tool Prototype Prepared in Adobe XD for High Density Vertiplex (HDV) Team
Purpose: As cities get more crowded, the roadway infrastructure cannot keep up with the travel demands. Aviation can be a solution. Organizations supporting NASA’s Urban Air Mobility (UAM) concept are conducting studies on feasible concepts of operations for the new air traffic management system required to implement UAM. NASA’s High Density Vertiplex (HDV) team conducts studies using both live flights and simulations. Significance: The goal of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a communication tool developed for this team to enhance team situation awareness. Specifically, the study aims to determine if the communication tool is effective in allowing NASA-Langley and NASA-Ames team members playing different roles to understand what others are doing so that completed steps can be communicated to the whole team. Methods: This study asks participants to conduct four distinct scenarios using an Adobe XD prototype. Participants included five members of the target audience, who each received up to 15 minutes of training on how to use the Adobe XD prototype. The participants were NASA-Ames or NASA-Langley researchers, developers or tech leads who had 0 to 15 years of experience. Their ages ranged from 20 to 40 years old, and they were of both genders. After training, each participant was asked to do 4 tasks of varying difficulty, using the prototype testbed. After each task they reported on task difficulty and after all tasks were completed they were asked to fill out the System Usability Survey (SUS). Performance will be assessed through task completion time and accuracy rating. Results: User perception was evaluated by the SUS which showed a mean score over the six participants of 84. All the participants were above the acceptable range which was 70 and nobody was in the marginal usability zone between 50 and 70. In addition, most of the participants did well in terms of time on task, success rate and task difficulty on all the tasks except for Task 3. Participants had two minutes to do the task correctly to succeed at the task, otherwise it was marked as a failure. The geomean for Task 1 for completion time was 22.20; Task 2 was 58.28; Task 3 was 84.68 and Task 4 was 19.61. In Task 3, three out of six people failed this task but all five scored this with an average score 4.2 out of 5 for self-rating on task difficulty.