scribbles tagged ‘WES’

Smeggin style over substance

Wednesday, April 8th, 2009 | tags: , , , ,  |
Second in a seriess   of   Wednesday Wendy International Standards of Experience (WISE)  reports that  bring you the information on products and services that could affect your happiness and health.    

This pile of junk has wasted a lot of my time and money (user quote)

The Fab28 in not FAB (Wendy quote)

A recently published user review study gives preliminary indications that 1950’s style  Smeg Fridge    (FAB28)* is aesthetically pleasing, expensive  and functionally f******.   This Smeg fridge scored a severe health warning level of 26% on the Wendy International Standard for Experiences (WISE) because of its unreliable, expensive, breaking parts, poor support service and short life  that left people fridgeless and with water damage to their homes.     The score  scraped itw way  up to the depths of 26%  due to the branding, size  and visual styling that influenced users’ original purchase decision.

Study summary:

An expert Wendy (me) collected and  reviewed reports from SMEG fridge owners  then used the information  to complete the WES ©â„¢ questionnaire (below) by placing an X on the line in a position that  best summarised the user experiences  published  on product review websites:

Absolutely Fabulous

——————-X

Crappy

Cover-it-with-a-brown-bag ugly

——————X-

purrrrrrr-rity  

                                   Just what I need

——————X-

Don’t see why I’d want to use it

You’d have to pay ME to use it

X——————-

Take all my cash, and credit, NOW!

Squeeze, stroke, and lickable

——–X———-

Cooties, don’t touch IT!

Did I brake it or what?

X——————-

Works a treat                  

I can  use it first time

—–X————–

training-required nightmare

   Snore, Snore, Snore

—X—————-

Fun, Fun, Fun

Its  obvious what it was going to do

—————X—-

it was full of surprises

FAFFAUCEP score of 23/90 = 26%

Source product review websites:

  • Individual reviews on unbeatable.co.uk suggest that the compressors break,   the seals don’t work,   the shelves smash, it turns itself on and off,   it leaks, replacement parts are outrageously expensive.
  • Reviews at ‘the review centre’ are predominantly critical with a couple of pleased users.   The comments confirm expensive parts that are prone to breaking.   Buying a new door because the seals break, a frequently mentioned problem,  costs more than replacing the fridge.
  • Australian ‘product review’

Quotations:

  • it is without doubt the worst purchase I have ever made
  • I’ve had to replace the freezer door twice, and the plastic door compartments are also broken. Don’t buy it!
  • Less than 3 years since I bought this Smeg Fab28 fridge, it is heading to the tip.
  • thought it was cool (!) and looked nice but soon found out its a pile of crap that breaks regularly!
  • The seals on the main fridge collapsed within 3 months
  • I have to clean this fridge out more than we clean the car
  • I  have noise like small explosion coming from around the compressor area
  • fridge has frozen up at the rear, and it then decided to defrost all over the kitchen floor!
  • I have been plagued with problems such as the door seal going (you have to buy a whole new door at a cost of £300 plus labour to have this repaired!)
  • This pile of junk has wasted a lot of my time and money
  • One complete  positive review

* this review only covers the Fab28,   it cannot be generalised to other Smeg models.

Smeggin style over substance
2 votes rating 4.5

2 bits of fabulous banter »

Yorkie is not WISE

Wednesday, April 1st, 2009 | tags: , , , ,  |

This is the first in a series, YAY   A SERIES!   of   Wednesday Wendy Experience Survey  reports,   bringing you the scores on the doors on products and services that could affect your happiness and health.    

A recently published scientific  study gives preliminary indications that Yorkie bars are a consumer health risk when they scored a shockingly low* 23% on the Wendy International Standard for Experiences (WISE).      People in possession or a Yorkie bar should return it to the point of sale and seek a refund with compensation for emotional distress.

Study summary:

An expert Wendy** was given a Yorkie bar then observed while she conducted an end-to-end*** experience assessment covering

  • unwrapping
  • chunk-breaking
  • eating

The Wendy was observed completing the above actions than interviewed while completing the WES ©â„¢ questionnaire (below) by placing an X on the line in a position that  best described her experiences::

Absolutely Fabulous

—————–X–

Crappy

Cover-it-with-a-brown-bag ugly

-X——————

purrrrrrr-rity  

                                   Just what I need

—————-X—

Don’t see why I’d want to use it

You’d have to pay ME to use it

X——————-

Take all my cash, and credit, NOW!

Squeeze, stroke, and lickable

—————-X–

Cooties, don’t touch IT!

Did I brake it or what?

—–X————–

Works a treat                  

I can  use it first time

—-X—————

training-required nightmare

   Snore, Snore, Snore

-X——————

Fun, Fun, Fun

Its  obvious what it was going to do

——–X———–

it was full of surprises

FAFFAUCEP score of 21/90 = 23%

Observations:  

  • Unwrapping.   Successful.     Despite no instructions to talk out loud the Wendy talked out loud about the text on the wrapper.   Unwrapped in  7 seconds.   unwrapping involved no false-starts or error routes.
  • chunk-breaking.    Failure.   After attempting to break a single chunk off the bar with two hands and failing the Wendy resorted to using  the edge of the table to break the first chunk of chocolate from the bar.     Towards the end of the bar the Wendy used her teeth to bite-off single chunks,   this involved an average of 3-bites per chunk.
  • Dunking.   The Wendy added an unaticipated use of the chocolate bar when she tried dunking the bar in her tea between bites.  
  • Eating.   Poor.   we observed sucking (after dunking) and maximum range jaw-movements during chewing.

Quotations:

  • I can think of better ways to exercise my jaw
  • taste like fat with a hint of chocolate
  • OUCH,   that hurt the roof of my mouth

* Any product producing a FAFFAUCEP scores below 30% is provisionall designated a  health hazard by the Wendy International Standard for Experiences (WISE) .

** due to  research funding constraints  the data for this study was provided by one Wendy,  we recommend that at least 5, ideally 10  Wendy’s are used to enhanve the reliability and validity of published results.   We are currently recruiting volunteer Wendy’s to participate in future studies.   You can volunteer by contacting the Wendy House either through a blog post comment or writing directly to Wendy at Whendeee[at]hotmail[dot]com

*** purchase and pooping  process were not included in this assessment and may impact the FAFFAUCEP score either up or down.

Yorkie is not WISE
1 vote rating 4

4 bits of fabulous banter »

WES ©

Tuesday, March 24th, 2009 | tags: , , , , , , ,  |

WES ©:   Wendy Experience Scale*

What is this?

This is a tool for assessing product and services experiences.   The tool uses a questionnaire  developed with the help of Excel and 84 pots of tea.   The  WES © can be administered to any Wendy  that uses a product or service that you want to assess.   The WES © will tell you whether that product or service meets the stringent, to be published, Wendy  International Standard of Experiences (WISE).    Unlike assessment tools such as the SUS which focuses merely on usability with  Likert scales**,   the WES ©   focusses on product and service relevant experiences including usability with  9 semantic differential scales*** .     The scales tap into the following experiences:

  1. Fabulousness
  2. Aesthetics – Visuals
  3. Fitness for purpose
  4. Financial value
  5. Aesthetics – Tactility
  6. Usability
  7. Complexity
  8. Engagement
  9. Predictability****

 

 

 

 Also known as ‘ FAFFAUCEP’   (pronounced faff-Oh-sep)

The WES © is currently in a Beta release stage and is available for use* by product and service developers on condition that they ask advance permission and provide me with a full report of the product, service,  assessment conducted including the results which will be used to build the  WISE standards.

Administering the WES ©

Let a common all garden Wendy use your product or service  to complete a common task that it was designed to enable.   Provide a unbroken supply of tea during use.   Observe the Wendy complete the task collecting usability style observational data.   When the Wendy has completed the task,   or given up  provide her with a copy of  the WES © and ask her to mark an X on the line between each pair of experience  descriptors that indicates her experience on  this continuum.   There is a practice item that you should encourage the Wendy to complete then discuss her answer to make sure that she understands how to use the scale.     As the Wendy completes the scale ask her to describe examples that have lead to her reporting this experience.   This information will be extremely useful for either developing marketting materials or deciding what to change to improve the experience.

Below is an example of a WES ©  completed by my marking X’s on each scale item describing my experience of my wireless radio.   You can make your own practice scale that covers some dimension of the Wendys or the product being assessed.   In the example below the practice item asks about whether the Wendy considers the product a worthy conversation piece.

Practice by identifying  where you are  on this scale:

never talk about it

————-X——

tell the whole  world about it

 

Where is the Wireless Radio on these scales?:

Absolutely Fabulous

–X—————–

Crappy
Cover-it-with-a-brown-bag ugly

———–X——–

purrrrrrr-rity  
                                   Just what I need

——X————-

Don’t see why I’d want to use it
You’d have to pay ME to use it

———–X——–

Take all my cash, and credit, NOW!
Squeeze, stroke, and lickable

——–X———–

Cooties, don’t touch IT!
Did I brake it or what?

—————-X—

Works a treat                  
I can  use it first time

—-X—————

training-required nightmare
   Snore, Snore, Snore

————-X——

Fun, Fun, Fun

Its  obvious what it was going to do

—–X————–

it was full of surprises

 

 

 

 

Analysing WES © Results:

Allocate the location maked on the line with a weighting number between 1 and 10.    

For even number questions the weightings increase towards the left,   for odd number questions the weightings increase towards the right.     Sum all the weightings.       The total possible score is 90.   Higher scores indicate better Experiences.  

Coding the example provided above looks like this

Fabulousness

–X—————–

9  from right
Aesthetics – Visuals

———–X——–

6 from left
                                 Fitness for purpose

——X————-

6  from right
Financial value

———–X——–

6 from left
Aesthetics – Tactility

——–X———–

5  from right
Usability

—————-X—

8 from left
Complexity

—-X—————

7  from right
 Engagement

————-X——

7 from left

Predictability

—–X————–

8  from right

 Total score = 62/90 = 69%

The  average of multiple  WES © scores can be  used  to provide  overall Experience score for the product.  

The   normalisation data to enable comparision across different products and services  and  indicate the value of the score relative to a benchmark will be published as part of WISE.   Note that without the normalisation data it is possible that all procucts receive scores in the 80’s (a  roof effect)  or below 20 (a floor effect).     Our expert, on-site, Wendy (me)  recommends that prior to the publication of WISE we should assume that any score under 60 is at best a mediocre product or service and any score under 45 is an experience that should be avoided.

For in depth analysis each item should be verified with the  observational measures taking during the use phase and the comments made by the Wendy’s when completing the questionnaire.  

In this example we can clearly see that the tactile aesthetics (score = 5) provided the biggest opportunity for improving Wendy’s experience.   Wendy talked about the radio being a bit too big to put in her pocket,   she liked the bouncy rubber bits but all the little buttons were a bit too small and pointy to enjoy pressing them,   she prefers rubber-buttons (who doesn’t?!) and the industrial-safety feel for portable.    

 

Next Steps

The WES ©  development team haven’t decided whether to gather normalisation data on the vo version, refine the  item labels before collecting normalisation data  or just chuck the semantic differential format and  develop  WES © (v1) based on a creatively cunning perverison of  Kelly’s Repertory Grid technique.  

 

* Use is permitted by prior agreement with the inventor (me,   Wendy!)

** the linguistically pedantic should note that Likert scales tend to use split infinitives such as ‘strongly agree’ which can irritate those completing the scale undermining its efficacy in cases where people choose not to select any options that include split infinitives for purely curmudgeonly reasons.   This makes the scale unreliable for responses from educated people from Yorskhire.

*** The semantic differential is based on the assumption that everyone interprests the scales in the same way.   Unfortunately,   this assumption is not true rendering the WES © useless to anyone other than Wendy.

**** For some products or services predicatability is not a positive experience quality (e.g. games).   Administrators are advised to either scope the item to refer to the service or product  controls.  

WES ©
2 votes rating 4.5

2 bits of fabulous banter »