Ayana Metoxen
Project: Part IV Data Presentation
MMC 5279
PARTICIPANTS’
Detailed
Report
Who Was Tested: Six participants, diverse
perspectives on online event ticketing.
Demographics:
Ages: 25 to 60 years old (Average: 40).
Gender: Evenly split (3 Male, 3 Female).
All own a computer at home.
Learning Journeys:
Majority (5 of 6) were self-taught computer users.
4 of 6 also learned through training classes/school.
PARTICIPANTS’
Internet
Usage
Daily Digital Natives: All six participants use the Internet
daily.
Experienced Users: All have used the Internet for more
than three years.
Online Shopping Habits: All made more than 10 online
purchases last year.
Familiarity with Similar Products: Four purchased similar
products (event tickets) online more than 10 times.
Two purchased 1-4 times.
PARTICIPANTS’
Testing
Methodology
When & Where: Usability tests conducted in-person over
two weeks in the month of July.
Two participants tested at our shared office.
The other four tested from their homes, using personal
devices.
How It Was Conducted: Each session was a moderated
usability test.
Participants completed scenarios on Ticketmaster and
SeatGeek while thinking aloud.
Direct observation captured navigation, verbalized
thoughts, and qualitative data.
Quantitative metrics collected via post-task
questionnaires.
BOTH WEBSITES
Findings
Varied Usability Experience
Perceived Utility: Mixed views, with a higher standard deviation (Mean:
5.73, Std Dev: 1.84).
Impression of Usability: This had the lowest mean (Mean: 4.17, Std
Dev: 2.62), indicating a wide range of user experiences, from very
positive to somewhat challenging.
High Intent to Use
Easy to Learn
Strong Product Offerings
6.50 0.67 6.30 0.83 6.22 1.44
Mean
Std Dev
Mean
Std Dev
Mean
Std Dev
TICKETMASTER
Results
Strengths: High Intent to Use (Mean: 6.50).
Strong Product Offerings (Mean: 6.50).
Good Ease of Learning (Mean: 6.20).
Perceptions: Perceived Utility rated well (Mean: 6.42).
Impression of Usability remained moderate (Mean: 4.19),
reflecting some specific friction points observed during
tasks.
SEATGEEK
Results
Strengths: High Intent to Use (Mean: 6.50).
Strong Ease of Learning (Mean: 6.40).
Perceptions: Perceived Utility was notably lower (Mean: 5.04,
Std Dev: 2.29), indicating varied usefulness among participants.
Product Offerings were slightly lower (Mean: 5.94).
Impression of Usability was moderate (Mean: 4.14), similar to
Site 1.
EASE & OFFERINGS
Comparing
Websites
Ease of Learning: SeatGeek (6.40) was perceived as
slightly easier to learn than Ticketmaster (6.20).
Products & Services: Ticketmaster (6.50) was rated
slightly higher for its offerings compared to SeatGeek
(5.94).
Perceived Utility: Ticketmaster (6.42) was perceived
as significantly more useful overall than SeatGeek
(5.04). This suggests that while SeatGeek might have
offered price advantages in specific instances,
Ticketmaster's general utility for tasks was more
consistently recognized by our participants.
Comparing
Websites USABILITY & INTENT
Impression of Website Usability: Both sites received similar, moderate scores (Ticketmaster: 4.19; SeatGeek:
4.14) with high variability (Std Dev ~2.6). It's important to note that questions related to frustration, confusion,
and search difficulty were reverse-scored; thus, a mean around 4 with high deviation indicates a mix of
positive and negative experiences, rather than universal ease. This highlights that "seemingly insignificant
features often get overlooked by designers," leading to varied user perceptions (Sharps, 2025).
Behavioral Intention to Use: Despite the mixed usability impressions, participants showed an equally high
intention to use both websites in the future (Mean: 6.50 for both). This suggests that the fundamental value
proposition of these platforms may outweigh some minor usability frictions for users.
COLDPLAY CONCERT
Scenario 1
Imagine you want to attend the Coldplay concert on July 26 at Hard Rock Stadium
in Miami
Task: Find this specific Coldplay concert on the website. Once you locate the event, dentify the cheapest
available ticket price for a single ticket before any additional fees are applied.
Ticketmaster: Search was effective. Minor friction was noted by some participants regarding initial price
transparency.
SeatGeek: Interface was generally clean and straightforward.
Overall: Both platforms allowed task completion with minimal notable friction.
MARLINS GAME
You are planning to attend the Miami Marlins vs. San Diego Padres baseball game
at LoanDepot Park on July 23.
Task: Find this specific Marlins game on the website. Then, navigate to the seating chart and select two
adjacent seats together in section 20, Row A. Identify the highest total price for both tickets that is displayed
before the site prompts you to sign in or enter personal details.
2 oiranecS
Key Friction Point: This scenario presented the most significant challenges, primarily due to user unfamiliarity
with specific sporting event navigation and stadium layouts.
Ticketmaster: Users sometimes struggled with finding specific sections on the seating chart.
SeatGeek: Some participants, particularly older users or those less familiar with baseball stadium seating,
expressed confusion with "section" names and navigating the detailed seating map. The "think aloud"
protocol highlighted these moments of disorientation (Interaction Design, 2024).
Overall: Unfamiliarity with the domain (sports events/stadiums) led to more navigation challenges on both
platforms.
Scenario 3ADAM SANDLER
You are looking for a comedy performance by Adam Sandler in Miami
Task: Use the website’s search tools to find this specific Adam Sandler comedy event. Once you’ve found the
event, identify the name of the venue where it will take place and the exact date of the performance.
Ticketmaster: Search was successful and straightforward.
SeatGeek: Search was effective. Users found the event details clear.
Overall: Both platforms allowed users to efficiently find the required event information quickly and effectively.
The Power of USABILITY TESTING
Beyond Assumptions: Confirmed that assumptions about user interaction are unreliable. Usability testing is
crucial for uncovering hidden pain points (Isherwood, 2018).
Value of Observation: "Think aloud" protocols provided invaluable qualitative data, revealing why users
struggled beyond just that they struggled.
Iterative Improvement: The process solidified UX design as iterative, emphasizing continuous improvement
based on direct user feedback.
Key Insights
intoUSABILITY
Clarity is King: Clear navigation and pricing transparency are paramount. Ambiguity caused user hesitation
and frustration, underscoring the importance of intuitive interface design (Sharp et al., 2023).
The "Familiarity" Factor: Users rely on established patterns from other e-commerce sites. Deviations, even
well-intentioned, create friction by challenging users' existing mental models (Sharp et al., 2023).
Optimizing Feature Presentation: While both sites offer comprehensive features, the challenge lies in
presenting them in a way that is consistently intuitive for all users. This balance is key for positive UX,
ensuring efficiency and effectiveness (Hotjar, 2021).
Understanding the "Why": Knowing why users struggled (e.g., confusing labels) is more valuable than just
that they struggled, driving meaningful recommendations (Sharp et al., 2023).
Conclusions & Future Impact
This usability testing exercise has been incredibly insightful, providing a practical application of the usercentered design principles discussed throughout this course.
It has highlighted that effective data analysis and presentation are crucial for translating raw observations into
actionable insights that can drive real-world improvements in the digital space. Presenting data effectively
ensures that findings are understood and acted upon (Marr, 2017).
The ability to identify user pain points, synthesize findings, and communicate them clearly is a foundational
skill, regardless of one's specific role in the digital landscape. I am confident that these learnings will make me
a more effective and user-aware professional in any future endeavor.
References
Dam, R., & Teo, S.(2022). Personas – a simple introduction. The Interaction Design Foundation.
https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/personas-why-and-how-you-should-use-them
Hotjar. (2021, April 9). Usability testing: What it is, benefits, and how to do it. Usability Testing: What It Is, Benefits,
and How to Do It. https://contentsquare.com/guides/usability-testing/
Isherwood, M. (2018, February 13). How to write a user testing report that people will actually read. Medium.
https://uxdesign.cc/how-to-write-a-user-testing-report-that-people-will-actually-read-652d15d2f92e
Marr, B. (2017). 5 top tips for presenting data more effectively. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2017/09/11/5-top-tips-for-presenting-data-more-effectively/?
sh=71b7875252a8
Sharp, H., Rogers, Y., & Preece, J. (2023). Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.