With our prototype ready, it was time to put it to the test. We used an online prototype combined with a quiz to measure its effectiveness. Our testers completed a quiz before using the prototype and then took the quiz again afterwards to see how much their knowledge had improved.
Observations from the Testing Phase
The testing phase revealed several interesting insights. One notable issue was with electrical items. The only example we included in the prototype was a small blender, which could easily be put into a container. However, this led to confusion when considering larger items like a microwave. It’s likely that different answers would have been given if larger items were explicitly mentioned.
We also noticed almost everyone did worse with the fridge question. The multiple-choice answer options were not as clear as they could have been. One of the answers included, “Unplug it and close the doors,” while the correct answer was “Empty it and leave the doors open.” During a flood, you should indeed unplug the fridge, which might explain why all of the 11-year-olds who answered incorrectly chose that option. This suggests that the options provided might have unintentionally misled them.
Interestingly, the 11-year-olds showed significant improvement after using the prototype, which was encouraging. On the other hand, the 68-year-old participant fared worse, highlighting a potential gap in the prototype’s accessibility or clarity for older users
Insights from Playtesting
During this phase, I found Nathalie Pozzi and Eric Zimmerman’s primer on playtesting extremely valuable. Their advice in “Don’t follow these rules! A Primer for Playtesting” encourages to approach testing with a flexible mindset, ready to adapt and learn from our testers’ feedback. They suggest that playtesting is not about following a strict set of rules but about understanding and responding to the players’ experiences (Pozzi & Zimmerman 2012).
