INFO–I561 HCI DESIGN 2

INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF INFORMATICS
SPRING 2011
PROFESSOR: DR. DAVIDE BOLCHINI

T H E E N H A N C E D ZO O
EXPERIENCE
A DIGITALLY GUIDED APPROACH TO ZOO
VISITS AT THE INDIANAPOLIS ZOO

PREPARED BY:
ERIC COX
STEVEN ENTEZARI
    KENNETH SPRY
Table of Contents
Table  of  Figures  .............................................................................................................  3  
I. Executive Summary  ............................................................................................  4  
II. Definition of the Setting and Project Scope  ...............................................  5  
Definition  of  the  Setting  ..........................................................................................................................  5  
Project  Scope  ................................................................................................................................................  6  
III. Fieldwork Activity and Data Collected  .......................................................  6  
Process  ............................................................................................................................................................  7  
Results  ............................................................................................................................................................  7  
General  Observations  .....................................................................................................................  7  
Photos  from  Visits  ............................................................................................................................  9  
Analysis  of  Observations  ...............................................................................................................  9  
IV. Consolidated Work/Activity Models  ..........................................................  11  
Affinity  Diagram  ......................................................................................................................................  12  
Consolidated  Flow  Model  ....................................................................................................................  13  
Cultural  Model  ..........................................................................................................................................  14  
V. Requirements and Goals  .................................................................................  15  
Functional  Requirements  ....................................................................................................................  15  
Usability  Goals  ..........................................................................................................................................  16  
Effectiveness  .....................................................................................................................................  16  
Efficiency  ............................................................................................................................................  16  
Safety  ...................................................................................................................................................  16  
Utility  ...................................................................................................................................................  16  
Learnability  ......................................................................................................................................  17  
Memorability  ....................................................................................................................................  17  
Physical  Requirements  .........................................................................................................................  17  
Goals  .............................................................................................................................................................  17  
VI. Conceptual Design  ..........................................................................................  17  
VII. Page Design and Prototypes  ......................................................................  21  
VIII. User Feedback  ..............................................................................................  28  
Usability  Tasks  .........................................................................................................................................  28  
Task  1  ..................................................................................................................................................  28  
Task  2  ..................................................................................................................................................  29  
Usability  Testing  Results  .....................................................................................................................  29  
Post-­‐test  Questionnaire  Results  .......................................................................................................  29  
Positive  Feedback:  ..................................................................................................................................  30  
Negative  Feedback:  ................................................................................................................................  30  
Recommendations  for  Design  Improvements  ............................................................................  30  
IX. Appendixes  .......................................................................................................  31  
Appendix  A:  Informed  Consent  Form  ............................................................................................  31  
Appendix  B:  Affinity  Diagram  ............................................................................................................  33  

  2  
 Appendix  C:  Physical  Paper  Zoo  Map  .............................................................................................  34  
Appendix  D:  Photos  From  Zoo  ..........................................................................................................  34  

Table  of  Figures  

Figure  1  -­‐  Age  of  Participants  ................................................................................................................  6  
Figure  2  -­‐  Map  of  Zoo  .................................................................................................................................  9  
Figure  3  -­‐  [Closed]  Stroller  Rental  .......................................................................................................  9  
Figure  4  -­‐  Visitor  Reading  about  Exhibit  ...........................................................................................  9  
Figure  5  -­‐  Affinity  Diagram  (Small)  ...................................................................................................  12  
Figure  6  -­‐  Flow  Model  .............................................................................................................................  13  
Figure  7  -­‐  Cultural  Model  .......................................................................................................................  14  
Figure  8  -­‐  Guided  Mode  ..........................................................................................................................  19  
Figure  9  -­‐  Browsing  Mode  .....................................................................................................................  20  
Figure  10  -­‐  Prototype  with  Single  Selection  ..................................................................................  22  
Figure  11  -­‐  Prototype  with  Multi  Selection  ...................................................................................  22  
Figure  12  -­‐  Initial  Homepage  Prototype  .........................................................................................  23  
Figure  13  -­‐  Combined  New  Home  Page  Prototype  .....................................................................  23  
Figure  14  -­‐  High  Fidelity  without  Notification  .............................................................................  24  
Figure  15  -­‐  High  Fidelity  with  Notification  ....................................................................................  24  
Figure  16  -­‐  High  Fidelity  with  Single  Selection  ............................................................................  25  
Figure  17  -­‐  High  Fidelity  with  Multi  Selection  ..............................................................................  25  
Figure  18  -­‐  High  Fidelity  with  Sharing  .............................................................................................  26  
Figure  19  -­‐  High  Fidelity  Home  ...........................................................................................................  26  
Figure  20  -­‐  High  Fidelity  Browsing  ...................................................................................................  27  
Figure  21  -­‐  High  Fidelity  Browsing  Specific  Animals  ................................................................  27  
Figure  22  -­‐  High  Fidelity  Guided  Tour  .............................................................................................  28  
Figure  23  -­‐  Visitor  Reading  and  Sharing  Exhibit  Info  ................................................................  35  
Figure  24  -­‐  First  time  Visitors  saw  Show  Times  ..........................................................................  35  
Figure  25  -­‐  [Closed]  Concession  .........................................................................................................  35  
Figure  26  -­‐  Visitor  Taking  a  Picture  to  Share  ................................................................................  35  
Figure  27  -­‐  Visitor  unable  to  see  Animal  ........................................................................................  35  
Figure  28  -­‐  Animal  Hiding  Behind  Rocks  ........................................................................................  35  

  3  
I. Executive Summary
The Indianapolis Zoo is always seeking new ways to improve the visitors'

experience, though many of the improvements, such as the audio-learning

stations and video displays, remain largely unused. Thankfully, with the advent

of affordable, touch-screen mobile devices and ever faster mobile networks, the

Indianapolis Zoo can refocus their efforts to enhance visitors’ experience by

exploring more adaptive and permissive technologies than are currently in place.

This report expounds our team's efforts to explore just those things that will

make the visitors' experience at the Indianapolis Zoo an unforgettable one whose

reach extends beyond the boundaries of the zoo itself.

Our team used contextual design to ground our application in a

comprehensive understanding of the zoo, the user, and the breakdowns of the

interactions between them. We found, for instance, that, while visitors

appreciated the idea of having audio-learning stations, few noticed them, and no

one used them. Designing contextually revealed to us that the requirements for

a successful design of an application for the Indianapolis Zoo be flexible, visually

compelling, and informative while still being understandable to the public of all

ages. Our design realizes these requirements in several ways. Our design is:

1. Age and eye friendly, including as little reading as possible and including
audio whenever possible.
2. Visually informative and stimulating, using maps, symbols, pictures, and
videos.

  4  
 3. Flexible, making the application follow the user and allowing the user to
view content in several ways.
4. Intuitive and enjoyable, using gestures consistent across other applications
5. Sharable, allowing users to send pictures, videos, and other media to
others or themselves using social networks, email, and MMS (through
downloads).
6. Animated and exciting, including information and videos for out-of-season
exhibits and other attractions and providing camera views for hidden
animals.
7. Complete, including necessary information about closed exhibits, restroom
and refreshment locations and closures, timers for shows, and emergency
assistance.

User testing confirms that our approach to design for this application is
successful. We invite you to inspect this report to satisfy questions that you may
have regarding our methods, process, and lessons learned.

II. Definition of the Setting and Project Scope

Definition  of  the  Setting  

Our project focuses on the experience while visiting the zoo. The intent

was to focus on one specific zoo and its visitor interactions, namely the

Indianapolis Zoo; however our application can be utilized in zoos of all shapes

and sizes. Based on their worldwide popularity, the iPhone and iPad are the best

platforms for our application.

  5  
Project  Scope  
For visitors, many zoos lack the content rich, interactive, robust experience

they desire while spending their day looking and exhibits and watching the shows.

The scope of our application envelops two phases, a browsing phase and a

guided phase. Both phases will maximize the utility of the user’s time while

visiting the zoo. The application is designed to be an additional benefit for zoo

membership. The interactive aspects of our application will effectively enhance

the visitor’s ability to plan and navigate through their day by utilizing self-

designed tours, attain a sense of situational awareness with proximal information,

and provide supplemental content during their visit.

III. Fieldwork Activity and Data

0-­‐18  
Collected 25%  33%  
19  -­‐  30  
Our team completed three separate 42%  
31  -­‐  50  
inquiries with three separate groups. The

groups consisted of two families and one

Figure  1  -­‐  Age  of  Participants

individual. Each group was monitored unobtrusively, for the most part, by our

team as they visited the different parts of the Indianapolis Zoo. During the visit,

our team conducted a contextual interview with the groups. A contextual

interview is defined by members of the design team meeting with the customer,

within the context in question, to observe and inquire about aspects related to

the researchers interest (Beyer & Holtzmlatt, 1998).

  6  
Process  
Due to the season during the writing of this report, our contextual inquiries

focus on the winter months at the Indianapolis Zoo. While this hindered us from

observing interactions between our participants and some of the closed exhibits,

our contextual study was not wanting; in fact, the slow, winter tours revealed

more clues as to the deficiencies of the zoo and the visitors’ expectations.

One of our family groups consisted of a mother, father, and two children.

The mother and the younger child had been to the Indianapolis Zoo before for

school fieldtrips. Two members of this family, the father and older child, had

never been to the Indianapolis Zoo but have attended other American Zoo

Association zoos.

Our second family also consisted of a mother, father, and two children.

The family has a season-membership to the zoo and frequents it often. They

were familiar with the layout of the zoo and much of the general information

about the zoo.

Our individual was an animal lover and had frequented the zoo many times

before. While he does not have a season pass, he is moderately familiar with the

zoo layout.

Results  
General  Observations  
While our observations were upon groups with wide variances in age and

familiarity with the Indianapolis Zoo, the results of our observations elicited some

intriguing points about the interaction with the Zoo and its artifacts:

  7  
 • The map provided by the Indianapolis Zoo (paper or signs) was hardly
used
• Visitors knew that many exhibits and services would be closed for the
season but were unsure as to which ones.
• Visitors wanted to find out more information about the particular animal
they were seeing
• Information about show times was not always made available to the
visitors to allow for proper planning. This caused many visitors to miss
shows they wanted to see.
• The families all said they would like to have some method to contact zoo
personnel immediately in the case of an emergency.
• Many concession stands were closed for the season which aggravated
some of the hungry visitors.
• All visitors, when asked, commented that cameras which focus on the
‘hidden’ portions of the exhibits would be a great thing to have.
• Some visitors (even within groups) debated the idea of having a preset
tours for their visit. Members of one group even commented that visiting
the zoo is “an adventure”. An overall majority, however, said the option
would be nice.
• Many users also tweeted about their visit on Twitter or updated their
Facebook statuses about their trip during or after their visit.

  8  
 Photos  from  Visits  

     
Figure  2  -­‐  Map  of  Zoo   Figure  3  -­‐  [Closed]  Stroller  Rental Figure  4  -­‐  Visitor  Reading  about  Exhibit

Analysis  of  Observations  

Of primary concern to our team was creating an understandable and

comprehensive map. While the Indianapolis Zoo may not seem large to those

who frequent it often, new or infrequent visitors to the zoo can find themselves

lost in the vast array of primary and ancillary exhibits. While the countless

exhibits and open layout present an opportunity to freely explore and learn about

the biological fascinations of the zoo, the lack of guidance can and (in the case of

the visitors we observed) did create a sense of anxiety while visiting the zoo,

even when visitors are equipped with the maps provided. One of our goals thus

became making the Indianapolis Zoo easily navigable.

We had to confront was visitors’ negative reaction to closed exhibits. All of

the participants expected that the zoo would not have certain exhibits open

during the winter for the safety of the animals, but this did not moderate the

frustration that stemmed from not knowing exactly which exhibits were closed.

Highlighting the closed exhibits would lessen this frustration.

  9  
 Visitors also expressed that they would like to know more about the

exhibits. Space allows for only a few informational displays, and crowding at such

displays can create frustration. Our goal was to present this information—and

much, much more—on the device itself, thus correcting the two major problems

related to displaying information in physical space.

Shows times at the zoo were not obvious to our participants. Although the

times for the dolphin show were marked on the copy of the map, the fact that the

map went largely unused in turn meant that our participants did not see the show

times. Users were frustrated when they arrived to the show location only to find

that the thirty-minute show had started twenty-five minutes ago.

Along with the exhibit closures due to the season, many other areas were

closed. Areas for services, such as concession stands and gift shop and stroller

rental kiosks were either permanently or seasonally closed. Our participants said

that they would have liked to know beforehand whether these services would be

offered. In addition, visitors were more disgruntled by not having a map that

displayed these closures.

Other issues were confronted during development of the requirements for

this application. First, for all of the observed visits, there were times when the

animals were hidden from view. Our participants thought that providing camera

views to see the animals would be a welcome addition to the interface.

Participants also expressed that having a button for zoo/emergency assistance

  10  
would be helpful and comforting. Our final design had to incorporate these

elements.

Different visitors had exhibited different methods for exploring the zoo.

Some preferred to do so methodically by planning the path to be taken before

starting on their way; others were more passive and liked to follow others; still

others preferred a seat-of-the pants style of exploration. The idea of a virtual

tour guide via a mobile device was accepted by most of our visitors, but making it

flexible enough for everyone also had to be considered.

Visitors, through their actions, suggested that the need to share was

important. More than one user shared pictures using Facebook or Twitter.

Including the option to share and download materials will not only increase

awareness of the zoo and its exhibits, doing so will make for a more meaningful

experience to the visitors of the zoo, one that can be experienced at any time and

more in depth. Creating a grander zoo experience was perhaps the most

surprising and important discovery of our contextual inquiry process.

IV. Consolidated Work/Activity Models

Upon completion of the data collection, a consolidated set of models was

constructed. These models revealed to us the relationships between the visitors,

the zoo, and the breakdowns in communication between these two entities,

thereby exposing to us the full scope of requirements and goals for our

application.

  11  
Affinity  Diagram  
After analyzing our results of the contextual interview, we consolidated our notes

into meaningful categories. These categories were Navigation, Supplemental

Exhibit Info, Situational Awareness, Accessibility, Supplemental General Info, and

Social Connectedness. This diagram provided us with the most fundamental

understanding of the requirements and content that should be included in our

application.

• Information should be easy to navigate on a mobile device

• Information should supplement the users experience
• Tasks should require as minimal number of steps as possible
• Information should guide the user, to enhance their experience

 
Figure  5  -­‐  Affinity  Diagram  (Small)

  12  
Consolidated  Flow  Model  
The primary players of this interaction, seen in this consolidated flow model, are

the patrons and the zoo exhibits. The zoo experience is a culmination of patrons

seeking out exhibits, shows, and information, and exhibits providing these in

return. Patrons can experience a much smoother interaction with exhibits by

having easy access to pertinent information related to animals, shows, food and

services.

 
Figure  6  -­‐  Flow  Model

  13  
Cultural  Model  
This model reveals interactions between the different stakeholders. During our

analysis the exhibits emerged as the most influential stakeholder of the zoo

experience. This model also shows the breakdown in communication between

patrons, exhibits, and zoo employees.

 
Figure  7  -­‐  Cultural  Model

  14  
V. Requirements and Goals
Functional  Requirements  

Include as little reading as possible

• Include audio where possible

Show as much information as possible in visually stimulating ways

• Maps, pictures, symbols, and video will be available whenever possible

Make it flexible
• Make the application follow the user
• Allow the user to view content in various ways
• Allow the user to choose what content he/she wants to see
• Permit the user to personalize the application through saving and
modifying tours

Make it intuitive and enjoyable

• Gestures used should be understandable and consistent with other
applications
• Labels and symbols should be unambiguous and easy to see
• Instructions, where necessary, should be minimal

Allow the users to share the experience or experience the zoo themselves
afterward
• Make sharing, emailing, and downloading possible

Make the zoo come to life

• Show the animals when they aren’t visible
• Show promotions
• Provide names and profiles for the animals if they have stories to be told

  15  
 • Show how animals are interrelated with maps and explanations of animals’
ecosystems and the niches that they occupy

Reduce frustration of zoo-goers

• Refreshments and restrooms locations and closures
• Emergency paging and zoo assistance
• Timers for shows and events

Usability  Goals  

Effectiveness    
• Information is clear and understandable to people with varying literacy
skills
• Information is accurate and consistent

Efficiency    
• Information is readily accessible from anywhere in the application or in the
zoo
• Helps visitors to plan trips to the zoo

Safety    
• Still functional even if the system is strained
• Does not mislead users with lagging information
• System is secure and reliable for users to use their own devices

Utility    
• iPad or similar tablet device equipped with Wi-fi and/or 3G/4G capability
• Wi-fi network strong and reliable on the zoo grounds

  16  
Learnability  
• Must be easy for anyone to understand, from small children to older adults

Memorability    
• It should be clear to users where they are in this large application
• Should be simple to recall which gestures perform what functions

Physical  Requirements  

The devices provided by the zoo should be carefully monitored and handled, and

much also be outfitted with necessary protective equipment, such as screen and

body shields. Drinking should be discouraged while handling the devices.

Screens must be kept clean and germ-free after each use.

Goals  

These requirements will make for an easy-to-use, fun, and informative application

that will entice users to visit the zoo more often and to attend even in the slower

months. Potential side-effects are a higher volume of visitors and season-pass

members, increased revenue for the zoo, and a public interest in the zoo as an

innovative place for learning.

VI. Conceptual Design

After observing the visitors at the Indianapolis Zoo, our team began to

conceptualize the design for the application by looking to our models and

  17  
requirements. We arrived at a modal approach: A guided mode and the browsing

mode. A concept map for each was then designed.

The center of our model for the guided mode was the exhibits. As the user

wanders through the different areas of the zoo, the mobile device updates with

closest exhibits and other like items, allowing the user to attain a greater sense of

situational awareness. For instance, if the user goes to the oceans exhibit and is

near the dog sharks, the device will recommend more information for dog sharks

as he/she approaches.

The inclusion of a browsing mode was established as a necessary

requirement, though we knew its focus would have to be different from that of

the guided mode, since it would have to make exploring the zoo application off-

grounds or while resting interesting. Our conceptual model for the browsing

mode thus orients the user on a higher level, that of the general zoo. At this point,

additional information can be brought up on different exhibits, shows, and even

specific Indianapolis Zoo information, regardless of users’ proximity to these

exhibits or whether the user is using the guided mode at all. When they are

finished and ready to actively walk around the zoo again, they may simply switch

back to the guided mode.

  18  
Figure  8  -­‐  Guided  Mode

  19  
Figure  9  -­‐  Browsing  Mode

  20  
VII. Page Design and Prototypes
Each team member designed an initial summation of their thoughts for the
system into one low fidelity prototype. From there, the best aspects of each team
member’s design were distilled and combined into the final, high fidelity prototype.
Below are some of the notes about the progression from low fidelity prototypes to
the high fidelity prototype.

  21  
  

With the initial low-fi prototype, it

was obvious that multiple topic
selection could have been
improved upon. Notice the
crowdedness of the fishes on the
lower page compared to the
loneliness of the dolphin at the
top. Interestingly, the presence
of multiple items on the lower
screen makes the affordance of
“clickability” more apparent,
whereas the dolphin requires a
caption saying, “Click Me!”

 
Figure  10  -­‐  Prototype  with  Single  Selection  

 
 
Other problems with these pages
include the navigation buttons at
the top of the page. During
revision, the “Switch Mode” and
“Home” buttons were changed to
“Guided Home” and “Browsing
Home.” Doing so eliminated
confusion that stemmed from the
buttons’ behaviors, which were
originally contingent on where the
user was in the application at the
time.

Another important change was

allowing the user to select only
the parts of the pages that he/she
would like to share. Having the
  “Share” button at the bottom of
Figure  11  -­‐  Prototype  with  Multi  Selection  
the page made sharing an all-or-
  nothing event.

  22  
  
 

The relative plainness of the home

page (top) merited its
consolidation with the browsing
home page (bottom). From there,
users can choose to browse or
 
Figure  12  -­‐  Initial  Homepage  Prototype   follow a guided tour of the zoo
through the guided mode. It is
    also worth noting that this original
  home page presented the user
  with an ultimatum whose options
  they probably wouldn’t have
understood.

 
Figure  13  -­‐  Combined  New  Home  Page  Prototype  

  23  
 High  Fidelity  
 
 

The differences between the details

pages are due to the fact that some
animals have been given special
attention at the zoo, such as the
dolphins. Dolphins, for instance, each
have given names and stories of how
  they came to be acquired by the zoo,
Figure  14  -­‐  High  Fidelity  without  Notification   which is interesting both to visitors and
donors alike. Notice, also, the camera
views offered for the polar bear exhibit.
This is to help visitors see the bear even
when it isn’t immediately visible.

As the user approaches other exhibits,

the application keeps them moving by
providing access to the nearby exhibits
through a nonintrusive message at the
top of the screen.
 
 
 
 
 
***Red boxes denote access paths to
specific animal pages. There are five
different ways by which to access
 
Figure  15  -­‐  High  Fidelity  with  Notification   specific animals in this application.

  24  
  
Figure  16  -­‐  High  Fidelity  with  Single  Selection  

 
 
 

Notice the improvement to the

multiple topic selection. Each
entity is more obviously
“clickable,” but the entities no
longer crowd each other on the
page. Also, showing the animals’
ranges via the map has not been
compromised.

 
Figure  17  -­‐  High  Fidelity  with  Multi  Selection  

  25  
 Sharing the experience with
others can increase awareness of
the zoo and the application. Also,
one can experience the zoo for
him/herself afterward using these
means.

 
Figure  18  -­‐  High  Fidelity  with  Sharing  

 
 

The home page offers the most

essential topics for both browsing
the application and reaching the
true heart of the application, the
guided mode, which helps users
navigate the zoo and provides
suggestions based on where they
are in the zoo at the time.

 
Figure  19  -­‐  High  Fidelity  Home  

  26  
 Making the browsing mode more
informative and inviting was
important, as we did not want to
discourage users from using this
method of exploring the
application. It is, after all, the
best way to explore the
application when not at the zoo.
We included categories that group
the animals of the zoo in
fascinating ways.

 
Figure  20  -­‐  High  Fidelity  Browsing  

 
 
 

This page, accessed only through

the browsing mode, offers the
detailed information about the
topic selected in the screen
above. In this case, the topic
accessed is “fishes.” The
application offers more
information about the different
kinds of fishes and gives access to
the instances of “fishes” present
at the zoo.

 
Figure  21  -­‐  High  Fidelity  Browsing  Specific  Animals  

  27  
  

The guided mode allows the user to

wander the zoo or to follow the path
created (or selected) by the user,
providing suggestions based on the
user’s proximity to different exhibits
along the way. The map can also be
populated by extra information, such
as restroom and dining locations by
clicking the buttons on top. If the
user is not in close proximity to an
exhibit that he/she wants to see,
he/she may select the desired exhibit
by clicking on the area of the map
where the exhibit is found.

 
Figure  22  -­‐  High  Fidelity  Guided  Tour  

 
 

VIII. User Feedback

In order to test the effectiveness of our design along with the high fidelity

prototype’s usability, we invited two participants to our testing session. We

devised two tasks for the participants to perform. After completion of the task

scenarios, we provided our participants with a post-task questionnaire. The post-

task questionnaire was another important aspect of our evaluation that guided

our efforts of redesign.

Usability  Tasks  

Task  1  
• Access the guided mode

  28  
 • Create a personalized tour that includes the Oceans exhibit
• Access the clown fish exhibit information
• Share a coloring book photo of the clown fish

Task  2  
• From guided mode, switch to browsing mode
• Find the polar bear information
• Look up where the polar bear ecosystem is
• Find additional photos and information about the polar bear

Usability  Testing  Results  

PARTICIPANT TASK SUCCESSFUL UNSUCCESSFUL

ONE Task 1 YES
Task 2 YES
TWO Task 1 YES
Task 2 YES

Post-­‐test  Questionnaire  Results  

Question Participant 1 Participant 2

Age Group 15-19 40-49
Gender Male Female
Status Student Full-time employed
Switching from guided Strongly Agree Agree
mode to browsing mode
was easy.
Additional animal exhibit Agree Agree
info was useful and
informative.
Creating a tour enhanced Agree Strongly Agree
the visit experience.
Knowing your proximal Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
location pertaining to
exhibits and zoo services
on the map is important.
Knowing times of opened Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
exhibits and services is
important.
Labels are intuitive. Agree Agree

  29  
Layout and navigation Strongly Agree Agree
was easy using the
mobile interface.
Sharing zoo content is Disagree Agree
important to me.
Would you use this Disagree Strongly Agree
application if it was
implemented with the
Indianapolis Zoo?

Positive  Feedback:  
• Both users felt navigation with mobile device was easy and straightforward
• Both users liked the additional exhibit, proximal, and services info provided
through the application
• Both users liked the option to create a guided tour
• Both users felt that the labels were intuitive

Negative  Feedback:  
• Supplemental exhibit links info was hard to recognize
• Would like to see recommended exhibits to help guide the visit
• Would like information about which exhibits are overcrowded to help make
decisions on which direction (exhibits) to go
• Clickable icons are hard to identify

Recommendations  for  Design  Improvements  

After the team completed the user testing and analyzed the user’s feedback, it

was determined that design improvements were needed. Our team took the user

comments under consideration and plan to implement some fundamental changes

to the prototype.

  30  
 • Make the supplemental information more prominent to the user when it
pertains to exhibits they are near
• Give the user the ability to find information about an ‘Animal of the Day’
• Provide overcrowded exhibit information pertaining to exhibits
• Provide the user with suggestive souvenirs that may be sold in the gift
shop

IX. Appendixes
 Appendix  A:  Informed  Consent  Form  
INFORMED  CONSENT  FORM  
 
ZOO  KEEPER  
Thank  you  for  participating  in  this  study!  

This  study  is  about  improving  a  visitor’s  experience  while  visiting  the  Indianapolis  
Zoo.    The  study  focuses  on  providing  zoo  members  with  a  computer  tablet  style  
device  that  will  provide  additional  resources  and  experiences  during  their  visit.  

-­‐   APPROVAL:        This  exempt  study  has  been  approved  by  the  Institutional  
Review  Board  (IRB)  for  human  subjects  research  at  IUPUI.  If  you  agree  to  
participate,  you  will  be  one  of  approximately  5  subjects,  and  you  will  take  
part  of  a  session  lasting  approximately  6  hours  between  30  minutes  and  
1  hour  and  a  half  to  experiment  a  new  software  application,  and  then  
complete  a  questionnaire  of  no  more  than  10  questions,  which  will  take  
no  more  than  10  minutes  to  complete.  
-­‐   RISKS:        There  are  no  risks  associated  with  participating  in  the  study  
outside  of  the  normal  zoo  experience,  answering  the  facilitator’s  
questions  as  you  visit  the  zoo,  and  having  to  complete  the  questionnaire.  
-­‐   BENEFITS:        You  will  be  providing  personal  insight  on  key  issues  of  the  
zoo  experience  that  will  help  designers  and  developers  tailor  a  new  
software  application  to  zoo  visitors  just  like  you.  
-­‐   CONFIDENTIALITY:        Subjects  of  this  study  will  participate  anonymously.  
No  personal  data  will  be  collected  or  used  for  research  purposes.  No  
personal  information  will  be  distributed  or  shared  with  anyone  outside  
this  research  study,  unless  required  by  law.  Pictures  may  be  used,  with  

  31  
 consent  of  the  visitor,  but  will  not  be  linked  to  any  data.  
-­‐   COSTS:        There  are  no  costs  to  you  to  participate  in  the  study  outside  of  
the  normal  Zoo  entrance  fees.    
-­‐   VOLUNTARY:        Your  participation  is  voluntary  and  may  choose  not  to  
take  part  or  may  leave  the  study  at  any  time.  Leaving  the  study  will  not  
result  in  any  penalty,  and  your  decision  whether  or  not  to  participate  in  
this  study  will  not  affect  your  current  or  future  relations  with  IUPUI.  
-­‐   CONTACTS:        For  questions  about  the  study,  contact  the  researchers:  
Steven  Entezari  (sentezar@iupui.edu),  Kenneth  Spry  (kspry@iupui.edu),  
or  Eric  Cox  (eecox@iupui.edu).  Also,  for  questions  about  your  rights  as  a  
research  participant  or  to  discuss  problems,  complaints  or  concerns  
about  the  research  study,  or  to  obtain  information  or  offer  input,  contact  
the  researchers.  
 -­‐   SUBJECT'S  CONSENT:        Being  part  of  this  study  and  answering  the  
questionnaire  is  an  acknowledgment  that  you  understand  the  nature  of  
the  study  and  have  given  your  permission  to  participate.  
 
 
Signature  of  the  participant:  ______________________________________________  
 

  32  
Appendix  B:  Affinity  Diagram  
   

  33  
 App
end
ix  C:  
Phy
sica
l  
Pap
er  
Zoo  
Ma
p  
App
end
ix  
D:  
Pho
tos  
Fro
m  
Zoo  

  34  
    
Figure  23  -­‐  Visitor  Reading  and  Sharing  Exhibit  Info Figure  24  -­‐  First  time  Visitors  saw  Show  Times

   
Figure  25  -­‐  [Closed]  Concession Figure  26  -­‐  Visitor  Taking  a  Picture  to  Share

   
Figure  27  -­‐  Visitor  unable  to  see  Animal Figure  28  -­‐  Animal  Hiding  Behind  Rocks

  35