KRL commuter line transportation mode has its own appeal so much in demand people in Indonesia. Even in 2017 reaches 315.811.848 passengers. However, for you and me as passengers, sometimes we don’t know the KRL schedule and often times the schedule is not in accordance with Gapeka aka Travel Traffic Chart for some reasons.
App Info KRL comes as a solution to that problem. I am using Info KRL to help my trip about what’s time the train arrival and where those is being actually (which is a realtime position).
- Discover how passenger use Info KRL to help their trip.
- Find pain point in the user experience.
- Give solutions to solve those pain points.
In this case study process, I followed IDEO model for human-centered-design. This process help me to be more directed, structured, and solid in order to achieve goals based on the findings obtained.
1. Empathizing with the User
The purpose of this section is to create temporary persona from related research about KRL transportation that already exists. This way makes it easier for me to do guerrila usability testing because it already has a rough picture about who’s the user. Based on this research in 2017, the most common general characteristics of KRL passengers are: age 20–30 years, employee, and need to work.
Guerrilla Usability Testing
By paying attention to the provisional persona, I conduct guerrilla usability testing to identify the pain point of the Info KRL users. In this test, I asked 5 people to do some few task on Info KRL, while I recorded whatever they said, did, even their thought or feel during this usability test.
Guerrilla usability testing is a rapid, low-cost method of quickly capturing user feedback that involves a User Experience (UX) consultant asking questions about specific areas of a site or application. — boxuk
Why only need to with 5 users? It’s about iterative design which that the main reason is be better to distribute budget for user testing across many small test.
- Select a travel route.
- Monitoring schedule in real time.
- Create a travel itinerary on the calendar.
- Reply to a message in discussion.
User Interview Process
My approach was straightforward to prove the hypothesis. I have the hypothesis that there are still many KRL passengers who do not use any application to help their trip. Then I created a simple script to guide the interviewee to experience about task and give me idea from their behavior.
Behavior information from interviewee that I gained are:
- 4/5 users still knowing the KRL schedule from officer announcement.
- 2/5 users ride the KRL to meet friends and the others is go to work.
After gather the information from user interviews, I also to update my provisional personas so that more weight and valid.
The first is Faisal, who is ride KRL to meet him friends. He use KRL because it’s cheap and fast. However, he still knowing KRL schedule from officer announcement even though he want to quickly reach the destination.
The second is Putri, who is ride KRL to go to work because it’s near the workplace. Same as Faisal, she knowing KRL schedule from officer announcement even though she need to get the KRL as soon as possible.
2. Defining the Problem
User Research Assimilation
This section collects the main points of the findings obtained from my user interviews. Then group them into three parts:
1. What the user said.
2. What the user did.
3. What the user thought or felt (non-verbal cues).
The main points of insight gained from each user are then sorted by order of affinity by grouping into pain point buckets.
During this process, I prioritize groups of pain points based on frequency with at least 3 to 5 of users, putting the other on hold for later validation.
I have 4 pain points with the following frequency sequence:
- The order of the function menu is less user friendly: 5 users.
- Did not find the message reply button: 5 users.
- The station name short code is confused: 4 users.
- Difficulty changing stations in route selection: 3 users.
3. Ideating and Prototyping
The next part is the process of getting deeper into the pain points that have been obtained and ideation to give a solution with prototype.
Pain point 1: The order of the function menu is less user friendly.
All users complained about the function menu order. When they open the app, the menu that appears directly is a realtime monitoring. Some users expect the menu that first appears is the search route so they are not confused. In addition, in the search route menu was also realtime monitoring of appropriate the destination station.
The route search menu is changed to be the first to replace the realtime monitoring.
Pain point 2: Did not find the message reply button.
All users get frustrated looking for a reply message button in the discussion menu. In the end, they can only try by random clicking, because there is no reply button message.
Create a reply button in the other person’s message section.
Pain point 3: The station name short code are confused.
4/5 user exhibited very clear frustration and must guessing when faced with KRL schedule information containing station name short codes.
Create new section function to give additional information about list of KRL station short codes with their full names.
Pain point 4: Difficulty changing stations in route selection.
The three users still have to scroll to select the station even though it’s easier with writing name of the station.
Replace text ‘search station’ to ‘type station name’.
After creating the prototype, the next step is testing and validating a solutions above using the same usability test questions and few task. The target is also similar people background to my initial users.
This UX case study has been a challenging and rewarding experience for me because for the first time I was conducting a guerrilla research. Not only did I get to exercise my UX skills, I was hoping this case study can useful for reader especially for KRL passengers that also Info KRL app users.