The goal of Phase II was to evaluate the usability and clarity of our initial GymBuddy wireframes. In Phase I, we identified user needs, created personas and scenarios, and developed low-fidelity mobile-first wireframes based on heuristic assumptions.
However, several usability questions remained:
To address these, we conducted cognitive walkthroughs and collected informal feedback from SWE students. The outcome of these evaluations informed substantial updates to our design artifacts.
Throughout phase 2, we used two primary research methods: cognitive walkthroughs and informal feedback from the SWE team and other UX project members. Below, these methods and our findings are detailed.
We conducted structured walkthroughs with three external participants from our UX class. Each participant was provided with a clickable wireframe and given a scenario based on our Phase I persona: “Find a compatible gym partner based on shared workout preferences.”
At each step, participants answered the following standard cognitive walkthrough questions:
These evaluations provided insights into the usability and clarity of our wireframes. We learned that we had overlooked many steps in our process.
In collaboration with the SWE team, we presented our prototype to a class of approximately 30-35 students. They were asked: “Does our design make sense, and are there any features you think could be improved?” Responses were collected verbally and shared back with us via the SWE team. This method gave us broader insight into initial impressions, navigation expectations, and general app clarity from a larger group of non-UX users. It was useful for capturing spontaneous reactions and checking assumptions outside our core user group.
Through the combination of our cognitive walkthroughs and informal feedback from the Software Engineering class, we were able to identify several usability issues with our current GymBuddy wireframes. These findings helped validate previous assumptions from Phase I while also uncovering new problem areas in layout, interaction flow, and content clarity. Below is a breakdown of specific issues identified from each method.
The methods used in this phase led to several critical insights that helped validate and improve our design direction. Our cognitive walkthroughs revealed that users had difficulty understanding the flow of the app, particularly when attempting to find a gym partner. Similarly, informal feedback from the SWE class highlighted that button labels and navigation paths were confusing or redundant.
These discoveries led to the following UX design recommendations:
These recommendations directly shaped our next steps: we are currently implementing these changes into updated wireframes and will use them as the basis for future testing. The third and final sprints will focus on validating these updates through higher fidelity prototypes and gathering feedback from a wider participant pool.
While this phase provided valuable insights that helped us make meaningful design improvements, there were several limitations to our research and testing approach. These caveats are important to acknowledge, as they may have influenced the depth and scope of our findings and the generalizability of our conclusions.
Limited Participant Pool: The cognitive walkthroughs involved a small number of participants, which may not represent the broader user base.
Informal Feedback Constraints: Feedback from the SWE class was unstructured, potentially limiting the depth of insights.
Design Transition Challenges: Shifting from a mobile-first to a web-based layout introduced complexities that required significant adjustments to the wireframes.
Time Constraints: Due to sprint timelines, we were unable to iterate as deeply as we would have liked before the next deliverable.
These limitations should be considered when interpreting our findings, and they highlight the need for further testing with a more diverse and structured participant pool in future phases.