Feasibility Report: Mobile Application for CityBus

PREPARED BY Karlee Bauer Averie Dowell Becky Forgey Reed Longstreth Emily Overmyer

November 2011

Table of Contents
Executive Summary...2 Social Media Concerns and Possible Solution...2 Mobile Apps: Data and Findings.......2 Global App Trends2 Surveying Our Audience...........3 The Competition...3 Implementation Plan: App Interface Designs...3 Criteria for Evaluation...4 1. Clarity.5 2. Efficiency...5 3. Help Section...6 4. Consistency6 5. Learnability7 6. Fault Tolerance...8 7. Readability.8 8. Navigability9 9. Speed10 10. Cost to Users....10 App Feasibility.....11 Implementation Plan and Conclusion Cost.12 Sustainability..12 Design Modification..11 Conclusion......13 References...14 APPENDIX A Surveys A.1 Survey of Purdue Students.16 A.2 Survey of Lafayette Residents...........17 APPENDIX B Interface Design B.1 Interface Mind Map..19 B.2 Screenshots 1 3...20 B.3 Screenshots 4 6...21 B.4 Screenshots 7 9...22 B.5 Screenshots 10 12...23 B.6 Screenshots 13 14...24 APPENDIX C Summary of Interface Scores..25

November 2011

Executive Summary
As part of an English business writing course at Purdue University, our student group must work with a local business to solve a social media related problem. After researching several companies and organizations, we decided to work with the CityBus, the operating name of the Greater Lafayette Public Transportation Corporation. The purpose of our project is to create a centralized, reliable source of information for CityBus riders by utilizing a mobile application (app). In this feasibility report, we will summarize the problems found with current CityBus social media, discuss our data and findings, present our design for a CityBus app, explain the criteria used to evaluate the app design, and review the feasibility of creating the app.

Social Media Concerns and Possible Solution

Currently, the CityBus system has a website, Facebook page, blog, and Twitter account. There is also a texting service and a Wireless Application Protocol (WAP) for phones. The Facebook site (CityBus Fan Page, 2011), Twitter page (@GoCityBus, 2011), and blog (CityBus News and Notes, 2011) all provide updates on route information, closures, and construction; however, there is no information on these sites about regular schedules or real-time stop information. The texting service (MyRideTEXT, 2011) and WAP site (MyRideWAP, 2011) allow riders to receive accurate departure times by providing stop information while not at a computer. While the current social media created by CityBus utilizes various outlets, there is a lack of a centralized location to access all CityBus information. One form of social media not being used by CityBus is a mobile phone app. An app would have the ability to provide accurate departure times, CityBus information and updates, and would be portable for riders when unable to access a computer. Therefore, our solution to the decentralized social media currently provided by CityBus is an app encompassing all of the desired features from existing sites.

Mobile Apps: Data and Findings

To determine the receptivity of a mobile app to Lafayette CityBus riders, our group found general information on smartphones and mobile app success, surveyed Purdue students and Lafayette residents, and researched the competition. Understanding global app trends, our audience, and our competitors will help us create an app that is consistent with technological trends and our target users needs, as well as stand out from other similar apps. Global App Trends According to Kathy Nagamine and data from the International Data Corporation (IDC) (2011), 2

November 2011

vendors shipped a total of 100.9 million smartphones during the fourth quarter of 2010 (4Q10), up 87.2% from the 53.9 million smartphones shipped during 4Q09 (para. 1). The article also states that shipment of smartphones worldwide increased 74.4% for the entire year of 2010 (para.1). Smartphone sales are increasingly on the rise around the world, which means more exposure for mobile features, such as apps. According to ABI Research (2011), Global app downloads for year-end 2011 are expected to balloon to 29 billion, compared to only nine billion in 2010 (para. 5). Along with smartphone sales, app downloads are also currently experiencing a rise in popularity. These trends show a rapid increase within the app market, which is encouraging for potential app developers. Surveying Our Audience Once we determined that mobile apps are increasing in popularity world-wide, we wanted to support these trends by surveying our audience. We first surveyed 63 random Purdue students, and out of the 41 students with smart phones, 32 expressed interest in a CityBus app (See Appendix A.1). Because CityBus runs throughout both Purdues campus and the greater Lafayette area, we decided to also poll Lafayette residents. A survey of 70 random Lafayette residents resulted in 31 people expressing interest in an app (See Appendix A.2). While the figures obtained from Lafayette residents are lower than the student figures, there still appears to be some interest for an app. The Competition After finding interest in the proposed app, we decided to research existing apps used by Purdue students. Our purpose of learning about competing apps was to get an idea of features are currently used, features not used, and popularity of the apps. Our apps competitors would be the PurdueBus app for androids and the Purdue app for iPhones. The PurdueBus application shows campus bus stop locations and scheduled times for bus arrivals, while the Purdue app has a smaller subset of the app dedicated to bus route times. The main limitation of these apps is the restricted area covered; both apps cater to Purdue students by providing only campus loop information. Because there is already two Purdue Bus Apps that are currently in use, there appears to be a niche to fill for bus apps. If CityBus decides to capitalize on the app industry by creating their own app, the credibility of the information provided on the apps will improve, and bus riders are likely to choose an app created by the bus system itself rather than second parties.

Recommendation: Our App Interface Design

The next step for our proposed solution to CityBus social media concerns is to develop sample interfaces for a possible app design. In order to develop a functioning app, design interfaces can be created as a reference and evaluated, looking for flaws, gaps or errors in data, flow, and analyzing overall appeal. Online sites allow designers to create mock screen shots; we chose to November 2011 3

use Balsamiq.com, a free and simple site for designing a basic mock-up. While sites like Balsamiq do not evaluate the design for functionality or determine if the app is technologically possible, the designs created using the site can help developers view the clients ideas to determine if and how the app can be developed. Balsamiq allowed us to design 14 screenshots based on our research and our own ideas. Some of the features included were inspired from existing apps (like the PurdueBus app) that work well, such as detailed maps enabled with GPS. We also added features we believed would be important, such as the ability to add favorites, view updates, and view current weather. The Balsamiq tool kit provides the basic shapes, icons, and text boxes typically seen on an iPhone app, which can be dragged into place, altered in color, shape, and size, and edited. Anyone can design a screenshot; no user-name or password is required. However, to access all of the features available on Balsamiq, a package must be bought. As a result, our designs are somewhat limited to the specific tools provided, which were free of cost. The actual design would likely appear more professional and could contain some features not shown. In attempts to illustrate the potential functionality of the app, we also created a map of the flow of information between the interfaces. The arrows in the map show the screenshots that appear after clicking on each button from the homepage. The design mind map can be seen in Appendix B.1, and enlarged images of the designs can be seen in Appendices B.2 B.6. The designs in Appendices B.2 B.6 are numbered according to the numbers in the design map to help with identifying each interface, and a brief description is provided about each screenshot.

Criteria for Evaluation

After creating our interface designs, it was necessary to evaluate our work objectively. By researching companies that conduct professional evaluations of apps, we were able to define unbiased criteria to apply to our app design. The basis of the criteria was developed from Jacob Gube (2011), Founder and Chief Editor of Six Revisions, a web development and design site, and the Deputy Editor of Design Instruct, a web magazine for designers, and from Vensi (2011), a professional mobile application development company created in 2006 (para. 2-8). The following criteria were used to evaluate our app: clarity, efficiency, help section, consistency, learnability, fault tolerance, readability, navigability, speed, and cost to users. Each criterion is explained with a table listing the possible scores (on a 1 to 5 scale) and supporting descriptions to justify how the score was applied to the app design. For a complete summary of the scores for our interface design, see Appendix C.

November 2011

1. Clarity Scale Justification 1 Too many or too few features Features are unrelated to the purpose of the app Complex design, cluttered in appearance 3 Most of the features are related to the purpose Some features are less related to the purpose and seem out of place 5 All features of the application are unified with a clear purpose Simple design used (not complex in nature) All features are related and match the scope and purpose of the app

Our app received a score of 4 for Clarity. Our design is simple and uncluttered, with white space where appropriate, and not too many features per screen. For example, the homepage features each icon against a white background without distracting images, allowing users to see exactly which icon to press. Because the phone will be a touch-screen, having items too close together could interfere with icon selection; therefore, we spaced each list item in consideration to touchscreen ease of use. Aside from our weather feature, all features of the app relate directly to CityBus (routes, stops, maps, updates). The weather feature is not directly related to our purpose, but it could be helpful for some users because weather can influence a person to ride the bus (e.g. inclement conditions). 2. Efficiency Scale 1 Justification App is either not available on iTunes (or related site) or is difficult to locate from other source Only available for one phone model Information is not reliable 3 App may be available in iTunes app store (or related) but is difficult to find App only provided for certain phone models Information somewhat reliable 5 The app is available in the iTunes app store (or related) The app is easy to find using basic search terms App is available on multiple phone models Information is up-to-date and is directly from CityBus

Because our app has not been developed yet, we cannot determine its Efficiency score. Our goal is to have the app available on multiple smartphone models (iPhone, Android, etc.), but we would likely begin with a single model to gain initial feedback. Also, our updates feature will provide users with information directly from the source, CityBus, and we are hoping to have updates regularly. November 2011 5

3. Help Section Scale 1 Justification No help section or frequently asked question page (FAQ) No user interaction option or feedback possibilities No links to outside sources for help No contact information for users to contact developers 3 Limited help section and no frequently asked question page (FAQ) No user interaction available and no feedback possibilities Limited links to other sites for additional help Some contact information provided 5 There is a help section present and a frequently asked question page (FAQ) User interactions are possible (ability to ask questions, receive timely responses, ability to make suggestions) Links to more help are present and a troubleshooting section present All relevant contact information provided

Our app received a score of 3 for Help Section. There is some help provided for the users, but it is limited. The About CityBus section of the app provides useful links and basic information for bus riders. Most of this information is located on the CityBus website as well. However, our app does not offer user interaction or the ability for the app users to provide feedback to CityBus. Because the app is directly through CityBus, riders could use information on the website to contact CityBus and give feedback, so feedback could still be offered. 4. Consistency Scale 1 Justification Brand is not mentioned within the app at all Colors seem disconnected to brand and lack of company icons Different style than original company website 3 Some attention to the brand but not consistent Similar color scheme but no relatable icons or same color scheme 5 App is consistent with brand of company and the brand is mentioned within the app Similar color scheme throughout and is consistent with the scheme of the original website

November 2011

Our app scored a 3 in Consistency. The app relates to the CityBus brand utilizing an About CityBus button on the home screen. Due to the limitations on the interface design site, we were unable to use the CityBus icons and we were not given a wide range of choices for color scheme. Ideally, we would stick to the red, white, and blue color scheme found on CityBus site and buses. The content of the application is consistent and similar to the information and features available on the CityBus main web page, including loop maps, riding information, and route names. All information in the app is presented in a similar format to the website, which allows riders to transfer the knowledge of the website easily to app. Also, this ensures that the tone and style of the app is consistent with CityBus other social media. 5. Learnability Scale 1 Justification Instructions for complicated tasks are missing and there is a lack of direction New features are very difficult to understand and learn 3 Some information can be found online but is limited in its instructional qualities The application is generally easy to understand although some practice is required 5 The application does not require an instruction manual User tips can be found in the app store or online for more complicated features that need further instruction The information found on the app can easily be accessed on the website and has a similar format

Our app received a 4 in Learnability. Our app requires little practice to navigate and learn, mainly because many features and labels are similar to the CityBus website, such as lists and names of bus routes and loops. Labels are also clear, such as updates and routes, which lead users directly to pages with information relevant to the selected icon. Similarly, the icons on the home-screen relate to the section on the phone (such as a cloud for weather and a stop sign for stops). Because the app is not yet in the app store online, there are no features in the store to help users; however, we hope to provide basic information in the store. By using a similar format to the website and other social media outlets currently used by CityBus, new users that already have an understanding of the other CityBus media outlets will have an easier time learning to use the app.

November 2011

6. Fault Tolerance Scale 1 Justification The application may be prone to freezes or malfunctions due to improper programming If an error is made during the running of the application, the user will have to restart all progress 3 5 The application has a quick There are limited features including recovery time if crashes do few back tools so occur recovery is difficult The application hosts features The application is such as redo/return/home inconsistent with its screen buttons fault tolerance The application features a back features button which allows you to reverse your searches or progress throughout the applications run

Our app received a score of 5 for Fault Tolerance. Our app features prominent back and home buttons to allow users to retrace their path, return to the home-screen if an error is made, and repeat a step. The back buttons appear as arrows at the top of the screen, and the home buttons look like houses at the top of the screen. Back-tracking will be easy on this app, which will allow for a faster recovery time if a mistake is made. Also, if a user wants to retrace steps or repeat a process, returning to the home-screen each time is not necessary. 7. Readability Scale 1 Justification Fonts are not legible Background and font colors are too similar making it hard to read and distracting App has distracting images and/or icon that move and may not be related to the purpose. 3 Text and color are somewhat easy to read Some minor distractions 5 Fonts are legible and large enough to read Contrast in colors to enhance readability There are no distractions in the design Text phrases are short (no paragraphs to read)

Our app scored a 5 in Readability because we utilized legible fonts, such as sans serif and italics. Any descriptions are short and to the point, allowing to user to spend less time reading 8

November 2011

and more time using the app. For example, the updates will likely feed directly from the existing Twitter. Because Twitter updates are limited to 140 characters, the updates on the app will be short and concise. This will allow users to quickly learn information and find answers to questions quickly. The background of the app is a solid, light color to enhance contrast and prevent distractions. The font size is large enough to read, and maps with smaller font have zoom tools to expand the size of images to enhance readability. There is also a contrast in colors so the fonts stand out from the background and are easy to read. 8. Navigability Scale 1 Justification There is no centralized homepage for the user to reference. No search tools for the user to find what they are looking for. It requires numerous clicks to find a page (>8) The organization of the app is unclear and confusing 3 Requires between 5-8 clicks to reach a page There is some organization. No clear organized scheme. 5 The app is well organized with labels, clearly legible and descriptive buttons, homepages, and items are color coded A search bar is provided It only takes a few clicks (<5) to achieve the task

Our app scored a 5 in Navigability because it is color coded. Each section has its own color and it is uniform throughout the app. For example, the stops section is a gold color, which is present at the top of each page that relates to stop information. There is also a centralized homepage that first appears when the app is opened. All sections and button are labeled so the user can identify desired pages easily. For example, favorites section features a purple color with the image of the pushpin. Throughout the app, whenever a purple pushpin is seen, riders can favorite a stop, which takes them to the favorites section quickly. There are both back and home buttons so the user can go to the previous page or go back to the homepage, which also enhances Fault Tolerance. A search bar is available in most of the pages on the app where a large number of items are provided in list form. This allows for a faster search for a specific item, instead of scrolling through the entire list. The design allows for minimal clicks to achieve a task; there are also shortcuts (such as favorites), so the user does not have to click through as many screens to reach the same location.

November 2011

9. Speed Scale Justification 1 App is slow when in use and in downloading App stalls often and has poor refresh time The file size is large or interferes with normal phone functions usage 3 App has moderate loading speed when in use and in downloading App requires some time (20 -30 sec) for loading of information There are some delays when navigation within the app to access other screens/options 5 App loads quickly and is refreshed often when in use. The size of file download is manageable and does not interfere with normal phone functions. Prompt app navigation (within 20 seconds), reaches new pages promptly after clicked on.

Because our app has not been developed yet we cannot determine a score for Speed. We are unsure of the file size, speed, and loading time that will be present in our app. We hope to have an app scoring highly in Speed to be useful for CityBus riders anticipating the next bus. Ideally, the app will have a quick speed to keep riders accurately informed using GPS and the most upto-date features. If the app runs slowly, riders will not be well-informed about stops, defeating the purpose of the app. 10. Cost to Users Scale Justification 1 There is a cost for entire app for the users upon download No trial period or starter version available to download Must pay for upgrades or new versions released periodically 3 App has a free trial available and after trial is over the user is charged a fee for continued use of app App has limited features for free and user must pay if they want the premium version 5 The app is free to all users permanently upon download No cost for upgrades or downloads of a new versions released

We were unable to determine our apps score for Cost to Users because it has not been developed yet. We are planning on creating a completely free app, but this would depend on the total cost for the app and the possibility of advertising on the app itself. If the app is free, it would most likely have a higher popularity among students and residents because of the ease of November 2011 10

accessibility. Free trial periods could offer limited features, and to receive all features, an update would need to be purchased. This method may encourage some to pay extra for more features, but it might also limit the number of people interested in the app.

App Feasibility
After creating and evaluating an app design, we believe the core features illustrated in our interfaces would provide an excellent starting point for the CityBus app development. Based on our analysis of each criterion for the app, we believe our app design would be feasible for CityBus, if slight modifications are made. Overall, our app scored 30 out of 35 possible points (not including the three criteria for which scores were non-applicable). In short, the 30 points refer to the main design of the app, while functionality cannot yet be determined without actual creation of the app. Based on design alone, our app scored relatively high. The main areas of concern are Consistency and Help Section, which each scored a 3 out of 5. Consistency is a concern for our app because brand loyalty to CityBus is critical. Our app will be competing with existing apps, and should stand out by clearly representing CityBus to add credibility. At present, our app is somewhat disconnected in appearance with the CityBus brand due to a lack of similar color scheme, fonts, and icons. The main reason for this disconnection is the program used to design the app, which did not allow for a range of font colors and styles, and adding outside images was challenging. Therefore, we believe that while the app scored low in Consistency, improvements could be made by either using a different program (which may cost a fee), or asking real developers about specific design elements. Our other area of concern is the Help Section. Our group did not consider adding a feedback category to the app, which limits user input to make changes, correct errors, and improve the app to better serve riders. Although no information is provided on the app, because the app will be directly through CityBus, riders can suggest changes through the websites existing comment form and contact information. Our app received such a low score because while the app itself limits feedback, riders can utilize CityBus other online forms of communication to contact CityBus with concerns. Aside from Consistency and Help Section, our app scored high in all other design elements. The app is easy to navigate and read, it is not overly complex, and the design allows users to quickly fix mistakes. Despite our design, we cannot answer questions on the feasibility of the apps functionality, including speed, cost, and efficiency. These three categories are of great importance to users that expect a high quality and timely app. Because we cannot determine how exactly the app will work without its creation, the true feasibility cannot be fully assed. It is for this reason that we cannot state with complete certainty that our app will be feasible for CityBus, and more research and development must be done.

November 2011

11

Implementation Plan and Conclusion

We believe the app design is only one component of the entire feasibility plan for the CityBus app, and other considerations must be made when determining if an app is right for CityBus. Therefore, our group came up with several recommendations to implement the app, which are based on research by a current developer. We would like to contribute our thoughts on cost for CityBus, sustainability, and design modification, in hopes that our ideas will help CityBus make a final decision on feasibility in the future. Cost One of the initial concerns with app development is the cost for the company to create the app. Our group contacted Tim Watson, the creator of the Purdue Buses app to determine a realistic price range for development (T. Watson, personal communication, November 4, 2011). According to Watson, hiring a developer can cost up to $10,000 to $20,000; however, to create the app without hiring a professional developer, the cost is only $100 a year for the Apple development account (for Apple apps). We recommend alleviating the high cost of hiring a developer, a student or a group of students could be hired at a lower cost, or even offer their services for free. Therefore, the work will not have to be outsourced, and CityBus can help showcase some of the talents of Purdue Students at a reduced price. Sustainability If a student creates the app, the biggest concern with the app might be sustainability for the future. Watson believed that an app like our idea would not need a full-time developer to maintain the system. Instead, a developer could be contacted (or students) if updates are needed. The average cost of a developer can reach $100 an hour, but this option is still less expensive than hiring a developer to create the app initially. Watson also suggested that the app could automatically pull in information from the existing CityBus Twitter or blog, so updates relating to buses are updated regularly without the need of a developer. Also, this option would help connect the existing social media to the app and help to centralize CityBus information. To help with the cost of developing an app, we recommend advertising space can be made within the app. The advertisements would only take up a small space on the app, so the basic design would not change dramatically. This would allow local businesses to purchase space on the app for advertising, which both increases community awareness of small businesses and helps with the apps costs for upkeep. Design Modification The app design will depend on the operating system and any updates related to the mobile device being used. The features, design details, and abilities of the app, such as GPS and weather, may November 2011 12

not be possible with certain phones, so our interface designs may need altering. Our group is willing to work with CityBus and offer our ideas if the design must be changed or updated, and we understand that not all features might be available at a reasonable cost. Conclusion Our goal for CityBus is to create a centralized form of social media utilizing app technology. After evaluation our design, we believe that our core elements and features would benefit CityBus, although further research and testing must be done to determine true functionality of a working app. The design presented in this report has features not seen in other apps, such as creating favorites, providing updates directly from the source, and a weather snapshot. These features will help the CityBus app stand out from competitors, as well as simplify and enhance riders experience on CityBus. Our design also scored high in various design elements, and would serve as an excellent template for the creation of a CityBus app, with some of the slight modifications mentioned in the feasibility section. Our novel features and strong design would help to unify CityBus social media, while providing extended services to Purdue students and Lafayette residents. While there are other considerations that must be made by CityBus, including cost, sustainability, and design modification, we hope that our app design and input and ideas for implementation will help CityBus make the decision to create their own, centralized mobile app.

November 2011

13

References
ABI Research (2011, October 24). Android Overtakes Apple with 44% Worldwide Share of Mobile App Downloads. Retrieved from http://www.abiresearch.com/press/3799Android+Overtakes+Apple+with+44%25+Worldwide+Share+of+Mobile+App+Downloa ds CityBus (2011). CityBus Fan Page. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/pages/CityBusFan-Page/261336093175 CityBus (2011). CityBus News and Notes. Retrieved from http://citybusnews.blogspot.com/2011/10/state-st-resurfacing-impacts-citybus.html CityBus (2011). @GoCityBus. Retrieved from http://twitter.com/#!/GoCityBus Greater Lafayette Public Transportation Corp. (GLPTC/CityBus) (2011). MyRideTEXT. Retrieved from http://www.gocitybus.com/myridetext.html. Greater Lafayette Public Transportation Corp. (GLPTC/CityBus) (2011). MyRideWAP. Retrieved from http://www.gocitybus.com/myridewap.html
Gube, J. (2011, September 30). 22 Essential Tools for Testing Your Websites Usability. Retrieved from http://mashable.com/2011/09/30/website-usability-tools/

Nagamine, K. (2011, February 7). Android Rises, Symbian^3 and Windows Phone 7 Launch as Worldwide Smartphone Shipments Increase 87.2% Year Over Year, According to IDC. Retrieved from http://www.idc.com/about/viewpressrelease.jsp?containerId=prUS22689111&sectionId= null&elementId=null&pageType=SYNOPSIS
Vensi (2011, January 17). What Makes a Good Mobile Application?. Retrieved from http://vensi.com/blog/what-makes-a-good-mobile-application/165/

November 2011

14

Appendix A
Surveys
A.1 A.2 Survey of Purdue Students Survey of Lafaytte Residents

November 2011

15

A.1

Survey of Purdue Students

Our group conducted a poll with 63 random Purdue students on campus in October of 2011. We asked students if they would be interested in an app created by CityBus, not part of the PurdueBus or Purdue apps. We told them the app would likely include features such as bus routes, maps, real-time updates on stops, information on closures, and possibly weather. The results were collected and are illustrated in the graph below:

Poll of Purdue University Students: Would you be interested in a CityBus App?

Interested (32 Students) Do Not Have a Smart-Phone (22 students)

Not Interested (9 students)

November 2011

16

A.2

Survey of Lafayette Residents

Our group conducted a poll with 70 random Lafayette residents on October 29, 2011. We asked residents if they would be interested in a CityBus app. We told them the app would likely include features such as bus routes, maps, real-time updates on stops, information on closures, and possibly weather. The results were collected and are illustrated in the graph below:

Poll of Lafayette, IN Residents: Would you be interested in a CityBus App?

Interested (31 residents)

Not Interested (39 residents)

November 2011

17

Appendix B
Interface Design
B.1 Interface Mind Map B.2 Screenshots 1 3 B.3 Screenshots 4 6 B.4 Screenshots 7 9 B.5 Screenshots 10 12 B.6 Screenshots 13 - 14

November 2011

18

B.1

Interface Mind Map

This mind-map of screenshots illustrates the anticipated flow of information. The center image (#1) represents the home-screen, and the color-coded arrows branching from each icon on #1 show the screen that would appear after clicking each new button. The purpose of this map is to see how each screen will relate to the other screens; further information about each screen is provided in Appendicies B.2 B.6

November 2011

19

B.2

Screenshots 1 - 3 1 Home-screen When the app starts, this is the first screen users will see. There are 7 buttons located on the Home-screen, leading to the remaining 13 screens. The buttons are color-coded, with colors that remain consistent for each section. The buttons are: Routes, Stops, Map, Favorite Stops, Weather, Updates, and CityBus Information. When the home icon is clicked on any other screen, it will lead to the homepage.

2 Routes When the black Routes button is clicked from the home-screen, a list of all of the CityBus routes will be listed. Riders can select a category of routes, which will lead them to screen 3.

3 - Routes From screen 2, riders will see a list of all routes within the category selected. There is a scroll bar to find all routes, and a back button (the arrow) to return to the previous screen if an error has been made.

November 2011

20

B.3

Screenshots 4 - 6 4 Routes Once a specific route is selected from screen 3, the rider can choose a specific stop of interest. The purple icons located next to each stop allow the rider to favorite a stop (more information on screen 8). From this screen, riders can click Route Map leading to screen 5, or they can click on a specific stop, leading to screen 7)

5 Routes From screen 4, riders can view the general route map drawing (typically found on the CityBus website). A zoom tool (the magnifying glass icon) allows users to examine the map closely to find stops of interest. A back button/arrow allows users to return to the previous screen

6 - Stops When the gold button is selected from the homescreen, users will see a list of all stops used by CityBus. Because of the lengthy list, a search bar and a scroll bar are available to find stops more quickly. The stops will be organized alphabetically. The purple icons located next to each stop allow the rider to favorite a stop (more information on screen

November 2011

21

B.4

Screenshots 7 - 9 7 Stops This screen can be accessed from multiple locations. Every time stop information is requested, from the routes section, stop section, or favorites section, the user will see this screen with accurate departure times for the stop, and the loops that currently reach the specific stop. From this screen, the map can also be accessed (see screen 12).

8 Favorite Stops When the purple button is selected from the homescreen, riders will see a screen with their favorite stops. The favorites come from items selected on screens 4 and 6. There is a search bar to search for stops, and a home button to return to the homescreen. From this screen, stop information can be viewed (screen 7).

9 - Updates When the red button is selected from the homescreen, riders will see a screen with updates directly from CityBus, including closures, construction, time changes, etc. Each update can be clicked on to expand and read. The home button returns users to the home-screen, and the scroll bar helps users view all updates. Most recent updates will appear on the top of the screen.

November 2011

22

B.5

Screenshots 10 - 12 10 CityBus Information When the tan button is selected from the homescreen, riders will see a list of CityBus information topics (originally round on the CityBus website). Each section can be selected and the topic will expanded to include all web-content. A home button returns users to the home-screen.

11 Weather When the blue button is selected from the homescreen, riders will see a screen with the current weather in Lafayette. The weather screen would likely include temperature, precipitation/conditions, wind chill, and an image representing the current weather. A home button returns users to the homescreen.

12 Map When the green button is selected from the homescreen, riders will see a screen with a satellite map of Purdue and Lafayette. Screen 7 can also lead riders to this screen. The green dots on the map represent a CityBus stop (which could be selected), and the blue and white circles represent the riders current location. The icon in the top right allows riders to return to their current location after scrolling away. Riders can click Highlight Route, leading to screen 13. A home button returns users to the home-screen.

November 2011

23

B.6

Screenshots 13 - 14 13 Map When Highlight Route is selected from screen 12, a list of all of the routes is provided. Users then click on the route they wish to be highlighted, leading them to screen 14.

14 Map After a route is selected from screen 13, riders will see the selected route highlighted in bright yellow. This allows riders to see the entire route and each stop made.

November 2011

24

Appendix C

Summary of Interface Scores

Using the criteria and objective justifications, our group evaluated our app interface designs. These tables represent the scores given to the app in each criteria. Scores are based on a 1 5 scale, which is detailed in the Criteria for Evaluation section of the paper.

Criteria Interface Score Criteria Interface Score

Clarity

Efficiency

Help Section

Consistency

Learnability

4
Fault Tolerance

N/A
Readability

3
Navigability

3
Speed

4
Cost to Users

N/A

N/A

November 2011

25