User testing with no instructions:
When two users tried my project without any instructions, both were able to figure out how to navigate it. The p5.js screen made it clear what action was required, so they understood that they had to respond to what they see on the screen. One user was able to move through the interaction smoothly and quickly connected the on screen commands to the physical controls like the buttons and keypad.
The other user showed some hesitation at the beginning. They got confused when instructions appeared quickly or were repeated, especially when multiple inputs were introduced at the same time. This made the experience feel slightly overwhelming in that moment. Even then, they were still able to understand the system after a short time. Both users understood the mapping between the controls and what happens in the experience, but one needed more time to adjust. This shows that the interaction is intuitive but depends on the user’s familiarity with fast paced games.
What worked well and what could be improved
Several parts of the experience worked well. The card interaction, LEDs, and overall input and output system were clear and responsive. The home page and flow of the experience helped guide the user, and the audio added an important layer by giving clear feedback for actions. These elements made the experience feel engaging and easy to follow once the user started playing.
One area that could be improved is the clarity of the instructions. Making them more specific and slightly more paced would help users who are less familiar with this type of interaction. Another important improvement is the stability of the buttons. When users started playing faster, the buttons sometimes shifted or felt less secure, which could interrupt the experience.
Reinforcing the buttons and making them more stable would make the interaction feel more reliable and comfortable. This was clear during testing and also when I disassembled and reassembled the project, which helped me better understand how to improve the physical setup.
What needed explanation and how to improve
Most parts of the project did not need explanation because users were able to understand them through interaction and feedback. The main part that needed explanation was the card. Since it is a separate component, users did not immediately understand how it works or what action triggers it.
To improve this, I could make the card interaction more clear by adding more detailed instructions or clearer visual cues. For example, showing a clearer message on the screen when the card is needed or adding simple labeling near the sensor would help users understand it faster. This would make the experience more accessible for first time users without changing the core interaction.
User one:
User two: