Hello.
I'm
Mark
Bailey.
I'm
here
with
my
colleague
Jacob
Rhyne,
to
talk
about
some
recent
work
on
the
new
user
interface
in
JMP
Custom
Design.
The
primary
focus
of
our
work
was
a
usability
study
to
evaluate
the
new
interface.
First,
I'm
going
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
current
interface
and
our
motivation
for
the
change.
We
think
of
experimentation
as
a
workflow.
In
the
very
first
step,
we
define
our
factors,
responses,
and
goals.
This
critical
step
determines
so
much
in
what
follows.
Adding
factors
is
a
very
important
step
when
you're
designing
an
experiment.
We
learned
that
customers
have
some
difficulty
with
common
tasks
around
defining
factors.
There's
confusion
about
adding,
deleting
or
renaming
factors.
They
find
it
difficult
to
change
the
factor
type,
the
factor
levels,
even
reordering
the
factors
in
the
list.
Figure
2
shows
the
original
User
Interface
for
comparison.
The
goals
for
this
prototype
were
to
decrease
confusion,
to
reduce
the
number
of
operations
in
the
time
that
it
took
to
achieve
the
result.
Our
usability
study
wanted
to
compare
different
controls
that
might
be
used
to
achieve
these
goals.
Figure
3
shows
the
prototype
for
the
new
user
interface.
This
prototype
is dynamically
configurable.
That
is,
we
can,
that
will
turn
different
user
controls
on
and
off.
This
led
to
a
prototype
with
384
possible
configurations.
It
was
impossible
to
include
all
of
them
in
a
usability
study.
A practical
study
required
a
smaller,
optimal
design.
Looking
at
figure
3,
especially
along
the
top,
you
see
the
User
Controls
that
we're
going to
primarily
focus
on
in
our
usability
study.
You
see
the
Trash
icon,
the
Delete icon,
the
Plus
and
Minus
buttons,
the
Undo
and
Redo
buttons,
the
Add
N
Factors
control,
and
what
we
call
our
Buffet
menu
button.
In
figure
4,
you
see
just
two
of
the
384
possible
configurations.
In
order
to
make
sure
that
the
usability
study
was
efficient
and
effective,
we
used
Custom
Design
to
make
most
of
the
runs
for
our
study.
In
this
case,
some
of
the
User
Interface
controls
were
treated
as
a
binary
factor.
That
is
they
were
turned
on
or
off
in
the
prototype.
Other
User
Interface
controls
could
have
more
than
just
two
states.
Each
time
the
subject
was
asked
to
perform
several
different
tasks
repeatedly
with
different
configurations
for
comparison.
In
the
table
in
the
lower
left,
you
see
all
of
the
factors
that
were
included
in
our
study.
The
first
six,
seven,
have
to
do
with
controls
in
the
User i
nterface
that
were
turned
on
or
off
or
to
a
different
state.
The
last
factor
is
the one
that
determined
what
we
wanted
them
to
do
with
a
particular
configuration.
That
is
we
asked
them
to
delete
a
factor,
change
the
type
of
the
factor,
or
change
its
position
in
the
list.
On
the
right
in
figure
5,
you
see
the
completed
Custom
Design
platform
with
the
response
defined.
We're
going
to
measure
the
time
it
takes
for
them
to
complete
each
task.
We're
trying
to
minimize
that.
All
of
the
factor
definitions,
and
finally,
the
model
that
we
want to
use
to
quantitate
the
time
to
complete
each
task.
I'm
now
going to
turn
it
over
to
Jacob.
Who's
going to
talk
about
the
resulting
Custom
Design,
how
that
fit
into
our
study,
and
our
findings.
Thank
you,
Mark.
Mark
has
laid
out
how
we
use
the
Custom D
esign
platform
in
JMP
to
set
up
our
usability
study.
In
figure
6,
you
can
see,
all
the
runs
in
the
study,
for
the
first
participant.
I'll
note
that
we
did
include
a
participant
and
Run
Order
in
our
design
as
covariates
because
we
wanted
to
include
these
in
our
analysis
as
well.
You'll
also
note
from
figure
6
that
we
included
a
few,
what
we
call,
special
tasks
in
our
study.
These
were
tests
we
knew
would
take
longer
to
complete,
and
we
didn't
want to
ask
participants
to
do
these
more
once.
If
you
look
at
the
final
task
of
the
of
the
study,
these
were,
special
exercises
that
we
ask
the
participants
to
complete
a
series
of
tasks
using
a
provision
of
the
prototype
and
the
same
series
of
tasks
using
the
Custom
Design
platform.
This
allows
us
to
get
a
direct
comparison
between
the
new
configurable
prototype
and
Custom
Design.
To
apply
this
Custom
Design,
we
developed
a
custom
JSL
application
that
allowed
us
conduct
an
unmoderated
usability
test.
Now
I'll
give
an
example
of
how
this
works
in
figure
7.
From
the
top
of
figure
7,
you
can
see
that,
for
Run
Order
2,
the
task
was
to
delete.
As
you
can
see
in
the
second
part
of
the
screenshot,
the
instructions
the
participant
saw
in
the
study,
instructed
them
to
click
the
Launch
Prototype
button
and
then
delete
the
factor
charge.
When
the
participant
clicked
the
Launch P
rototype
button,
the
version
of
the
prototype
that
appeared
here
in
the
third
part
of
the
screenshot,
that's
entirely
determined
by
the
other
factors
in
our
study.
For
example,
you
could
see
the
Trash
icon
is
set
to
off.
That
means
you
don't
see
the
Trash
can
icon,
down
here
in
the
prototype.
The
Delete icon
is
on,
so
you
do
see
the
Delete icon.
For
every
exercise,
in
our
study,
the
version
of
the
prototype
that
appears
and
the
instructions
that
the
participant
would
see
is
entirely
determined
by
our
Custom
Design.
Let's
look
at
some
of
the
qualitative
results
from
our
study.
In
our
usability,
study
scripted
we
included
an
integrated
questionnaire
at
the
end
where
we
ask
participants
to
get
us
some
feedback
on
what
they
liked,
what
they
didn't
like,
et cetera.
I'll
highlight,
a
few
of
the
options
in
figure 8
here.
We
ask
participants
to
give
us
feedback
on
whether
they
liked
using
the
Plus
button
or
the
Add N
Factors
control
to
add
factors,
and
you
can
see
from
the
top
of
figure
8
that
participants
overwhelmingly
preferred
using
the
Plus
button
to
the
Add N
factors
control.
We
also
ask
participants
how
they
liked,
Deleting
factors,
either
using
the
Delete icon
or
the
Trash
icon.
In
this
case,
the
Delete icon
was
overwhelmingly
preferred.
We
also
asked
participants,
what
was
their
favorite
Row
icon
that
you
could
see
beside
the
rows
in
the
factor
list.
The
Pin
icon
was
the
most
popular
with,
giving
five
of
the
10
votes,
compared
to
the
Oval
icon,
which
only
got
two
of
the
10
votes.
Then,
finally,
I
point
out
if
you
look
down
towards
the
bottom
of
figure 8,
you
can
see
that
the
participants
overwhelmingly
voted
that
the
User I
nterface
of
the
new
prototype
was
easy
to
learn.
It
was
the
new
interface
was
also
greatly
preferred,
to
the
original
factor
listing
Custom
Design.
Now
let's
look
at
some
of
the
quantitative
results
from
our
study.
We
got
these
results
by
using
the
generalized
regression
platform
available
in
JMP
to
fit
models
for
the
time
it
takes
to
complete
the
task,
and
the
factors
in
our
model
or the
effects
on
model,
excuse
me,
or the
different
elements
of
the
prototype.
If
you'll
look
at
figure
9,
for
the
output
of
our
generalized
regression,
you
can
see,
that
the
factors,
Row
States,
Trash
icon,
and
Pin C
olumn
Type
were
found
to
have
a
significant
impact
on
time.
You
can
also
see,
from
the
profile
or
the
Run
Order,
in
this
case,
did
not
have
a
significant
impact
on
time.
Let
me
draw
your
attention,
to
the Pi
n
Column
Type F
actor.
You
can
see
that
the
time
to
complete,
the
task
of
changing
a
factor
order
was minimized
when
the
Oval
icon
was
used
to
complete
the
task.
I'm
pointing
out
this
Pin
Column
Type
Factor
specifically
because
in
this
study,
the
way
participants
would
change
the
order
of
a
factor
is
they
would
click
the
Row
icon
beside
the
factor
in
the
factory
list
and
drag
that
icon
to
the
appropriate
spot.
In
this
case,
the
Pin
Column T
ype
is
what
I
wanted
to
focus
on.
Looking
at
figure
10,
you
can
see
that,
participants,
when
they
were
asked
to
tell
us
their
favorite,
only
two
of
the
10
participants
reported
liking
the
Oval
icon.
When
it
came
to
completing
the
task,
that
participants
interacted
with
the
icons
the
most,
the
Oval
icon
was
actually
the
best-
performing
icon.
Now
let's
look
at
the
results,
for
the
task
of
deleting
a
factor.
In
this
case,
participants
would
be
asked
to,
given
version
of
the
prototype,
remove
one
factor
from
the
factor
list,
and
they
could
do
that
by
either
using
the
Delete icon,
the
Trash
icon,
or they
could
have
the
option
to
use
both.
Again,
we
fit
models
using
a
generalized
regression
with
time
as
the
response,
and
you
can
see
that,
the
icon
was
used
and
Run
OrderThe
bot had
a
significant
impact
on
time.
The
time,
for
this
task
was
minimized
when
the
Delete icon
was
used
as
opposed
to
using
the
Trash
icon
or have any
option
to
use
both.
In
contrast,
to
the
previous
slide,
our
quantitative
results
here
match
the
qualitative
results
because
as
you
can
see
in
figure
12,
the
participants
overwhelmingly
preferred
the
Delete icon,
to
the
Trash
can
icon.
I'll
end
this
study
by
commenting
on the
results
of
the
last
two
exercises.
The
last
2
exercises
in
the
study,
we
had
we
had
participants
complete
a
series
of
exercises
using
the
prototype
and
then
complete
the
same
series
of
exercises
using
Custom Design.
The
instructions
for
the
exercises
were
the
same.
The
only
thing
that
was
different
is
in
one
case
you
use
the
prototype,
and
in
the
next
case,
you
use
Custom
Design.
When
participants
were
giving
the
prototype,
it
took
them
an
average
of
68
seconds
to
complete
the
task.
When
participants
use
Custom
Design
platform,
it
took
them
an
average
of
316
seconds
to
complete
this
exercise.
I'll
also
note
this
316
seconds
is right-
centered
because
a
couple
of
the
early
participants
that
we
gave
the
study
to
reported
that
they
gave
up.
A
fter
this,
we
started
popping
up
a
notification
after
five
minutes
saying,
"We
thank
you
for
completing
this
exercise.
You
can
move
on
to
the
next
one."
That's
all
we
have
to
share
today.
Want to
thank
you
for
your
interest
in
our
poster,
and
please
let
us
know
if
you
have
any
questions.
