Phase 3 · Redesign

After using iCoach, the users were asked to provide input.  The exit survey asked: "Please take a moment to briefly describe your experience with iCoach, any problems you encountered, or tasks you found difficult."

 

-I wasn't sure why the players were different sizes. I had trouble deleting routes.

-I had to install a java tool to use the software.

-There were some kinks that needed to be ironed out, but the proposed functionality is good.

-I felt like there were too many options. It makes things too complicated. Nothing simpler than chalk and blackboard.

-I thought adding a video was a really neat feature!

-Looks like a prototype of some of the other similar software I've used, but uploading video is a nice touch.

-A little bit clunky to use. Maybe should auto-align the player icons when making a play. I'm OCD.

-I felt overall it was a good app. It has a good concept at its core. It has some flow issues. It's hard to get back to the home screen, for example, and read the tutorial again. I couldn't figure it out.. so it was sort of figure it out as you go along.

Some of the feedback is positive, while some is more critical.  The important distinction, as noted in the Evaluation Results section, is whether the criticism is directed toward the shortcomings of the prototype or the actual design itself.  Using this feedback, however, leaves certain design decisions cemented.

One issue was navigation.  A user wanted to return to the tutorial, but couldn't.  When transitioning from a paper playbook to something digital, it's important to leave the user with the same sense of freedom that they have with more traditional approaches.  This is, to us, the most important topic in terms of usability.  The coach needs to be in control of the playbook.

Another example of this was the task of creating a play.  One user expressed concern at the "clunkiness" of it, explaining that it might be more efficient to auto-align the players.  This is something we hadn't thought of before.  It would cost nothing but time and effort.  The player icons could snap-align to a grid, but give way to more specific placement if the user hovered for a set period of time.

The last, and perhaps least important concern was that the software had "too many options."  It is possible to create a simplified version of the software, but this particular user seemed set in his ways rather than trying to contribute to a change in coaching altogether.  We're not certain that there is a large enough demographic of coaches who would utilize a "lite" version of iCoach.  Nonetheless, the possibility remains.

In conclusion, much of the concern expressed by our users seemed to be shortcomings of the prototype rather than shortcomings in the overall vision.  The challenge in redesigning this prototype is transitioning into a more robust version which addresses the problems discussed by the testers.  As we had hoped, the video aspect of the software seemed to resonate with coaches and players alike.