Researching a Better Way to Buy Parking Through a University Parking Portal

Client: University of Washington

Role: UX Researcher

Collaboration: Team of three UX Researchers

Timeframe: 10 weeks

Research method: Usability testing

Data and Analysis

Data collected from the study included participant demographic and preference information, navigation path, task success rating, error type and severity rating, Single-Ease Question answers, System Usability Scale data, and an overall satisfaction debrief. Data analysis indicates that while participants were largely successful at the task of purchasing single-use parking permits, they experienced significant challenges interpreting information presented in the interface (permit and lot types), the amount of time and steps required by a purchase, a general lack of saved payment and preference information, and difficulty accessing help or guidance. Five of six participants rated the central task of purchasing a single-use parking permit as difficult or very difficult. 

First, the facilitator presented each participant with a recording consent and release form and briefed the participant on the study. Next, the facilitator asked the participant to fill out the pre-study demographic and preference questionnaire. Once collected, the facilitator administered the case scenario and eight (8) tasks to the participants.

Scenario - Staff

Imagine that you are hoping to attend a seminar by a visiting professional next Friday evening on the UW campus. The seminar is in the Paccar building and you need to reserve parking in a nearby campus lot using the University of Washington’s online parking interface.

Scenario - Student 

Imagine that you are attending an evening class at the University of Washington. Next week only, you need to park in a UW campus lot for your class in the Paccar Building and must purchase parking nearby using the University of Washington’s online parking interface.

Tasks

The tasks were presented in sequential order to mimic the actions and sequence a typical user would follow when using the system (see table below). Participants were presented with a saved set of credentials giving them access to a pre-configured account with linked vehicle information and a prior permit purchase in the account history. Participants were also given a “dummy” Visa card to use when completing purchase information.

During the test, the data logger recorded notes on pathfinding, task success/failure (1-Success, 2-Success with errors/needs assistance, 3-Failure), error type and severity (1-Irritant, 2-Moderate, 3-Severe, 4-Unusable), participant comments, and other qualitative observations. Note: While error count, type, and severity was recorded, it was not used to justify findings, as other ample convincing evidence was available.  

After each task, the facilitator asked the participant a Single Ease Question (SEQ). Responses to task difficulty were recorded using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Very Easy) to 5 (Very Difficult). Once all tasks were completed, the facilitator presented the participant with a nine-question, post-test System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire with answers ranging from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 5 (Strongly Disagree). Finally, the facilitator asked five (5) open-ended debrief questions to gather additional feedback about the participant’s experience with the interface.

Study Findings Overview

Areas of Success

Finding #1: Low Parking Rate (vs. Pay by Phone, Meter)

Participants appreciated the discounted parking rates available in the interface: 4 of 6 participants reported satisfaction that the interface offered access to parking at lower rates compared to other options, such as Pay-by-Phone. This is viewed as a “win” for the system because it provides competitive pricing for a service that all participants use at least “sometimes” when parking on campus, if not “always” (See: Preference data, Table 6).

Finding #2: Adding a New Vehicle

Another success for the parking portal is the ease with which vehicles can be added to a user account. 4 of 6 participants rated adding a new vehicle to their account as easy or very easy (while a 5th said "neither easy nor difficult"). Because permits are attached to a specific vehicle, easy vehicle selection and registration is imperative for a smooth and successful process.

Finding #3: Permit History 

Because users typically make permit purchases in advance of parking on campus, they need to be able to access their purchase history within the interface to confirm details if necessary. 5 of 6 participants located records of prior permit purchases easily or very easily with a 6th saying it was "neither easy nor difficult" to find. (The system also sends confirmation emails to the address entered when paying.) Of note, however, is that permit purchase history does not display a lot linked to a single-use permit.

Finding #4: Completing a Permit Purchase

Selecting a permit for purchase requires multiple steps, some of which presented difficulty for users and are listed in the Areas for Improvement section below. However, once participants had finalized permit selection, they found confirming the remaining purchase confirmation easy. 4 of 6 participants ranked confirming the details of their permit in the cart and purchasing cart contents as “easy” or “very easy,” and 1 participant said they felt the system was “secure.” This is viewed as a success for the system because users are able to simply and confidently complete the job of purchasing a permit.

System Usability Scale Scores

After task session completion, participants completed a nine-question System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire rating their experience using the interface against statements on a scale from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 5 (Strongly Disagree).

Using the scale John Brooke created to interpret SUS results (where anything above 68 is considered above average and anything below 68 is below average), and adjusting the SUS calculation multiplier to account for only nine (instead of 10) questions, we calculated an average SUS score of 29.4 from all participants.

As evidenced by the SUS Rubric above, an average score of 29.4 indicates an “F” grade. Of note is that all six participants also individually scored the interface below 51.

This feedback clearly indicates that there is a major need for improvement within the system. In particular,

• 5 of 6 participants either disagree or strongly disagree that they would like to use the system frequently

• 5 of 6 participants either disagree or strongly disagree that the system is easy to use

• 5 of 6 participants either disagree or strongly disagree that the system provides sufficient help and support

• 5 of 6 participants either disagree or strongly disagree that the various functions of the system were well-organized

Areas for Improvement

Finding #1: Mobile Usability (Opportunity for Business Growth)

Severity Rating: 3 - Major Problem, High-Priority Fix

We believe that Transportation Services can ensure greater user satisfaction and increase interface success against competitors (like Pay-by-Phone) by updating the customer portal interface to be mobile friendly and/or building a separate app for use on mobile devices.

Our research indicates that students and faculty are mainly using the parking portal to save money on permits. Yet, some users are still defaulting to the Pay-by-Phone app for speed, simplicity, and convenience, which shows they are willing to spend more money on less convenient parking for higher ease-of-use. Combining the lower rates and greater lot selection of the Transportation Services Customer Portal with an easy-to-use mobile interface and convenient mobile app could make the parking portal the preferred choice for more users, ultimately increasing profit for the university.

While a mobile app remains our top suggestion for business growth, we want to stress that it is necessary for a mobile application to also incorporate the other recommendations in this report.

Without addressing the other pain points outlined in this study, a mobile app would still present an experience that frustrates users and causes them to opt-out of use.

This finding is relevant to all study tasks.

• 6 of 6 participants indicated that if cost wasn’t an issue, they’d prefer to use the Pay-by-Phone mobile app to pay for on-campus parking due to ease of use (fast, few steps, saved user data, ability to update on-the-go, mobile-friendly).

• 4 of 6 participants noted they only used the parking portal over the Pay-by-Phone app to save money.

• 1 of 6 participants indicated they used the Pay-by-Phone app instead of the parking portal due to convenience, despite a higher price point and access to fewer lots.
  

Parking payment confirmation screen on the Pay-by-Phone app showing fewer, simple steps

The “Select Permit” list is the first step in the permit process. Users are presented with a long list of permit types and can read more about each permit option by visiting the link labeled 1.

Permit purchase history page displays no information about how to cancel

Supporting evidence

Pre-Test Questionnaire: If You Have Used the UW Online Parking Interface, Do you Prefer It Over Other Methods? (Fig 1)

“Pay-by-Phone is easier on-the-go. I don’t drive to campus as predictably as having a permit (including the flex permits) expects, and based on my expenses, paying through the nose for the Padelford Garage when I come to campus just makes things easier.” (P4)

“I don't prefer it, but it's cheaper.” (P6)

Debrief: What Other Comments Do You Want To Share About the Interface? (Fig 2)

“Everything is very hard to click on mobile. It’s not mobile-friendly. I have to zoom in and out a lot.” (P1)

Debrief: What Do You Feel Would Make Parking On-Campus Lots Most Convenient And Accessible For You?

“An app that stores information and is a few clicks of a button.” (P5)

“I park where I do even though unbelievably expensive and not a good use of my money…it’s a Pay by Phone lot. If I realize I didn’t pay, the app remembers me…I don’t want everything to be an app, but it’s a good thing to have an app for.” (P4)

Recommendations/Comments

Create a Mobile App 

Create an app that would incorporate the other suggestions outlined in this presentation

AND/OR

Create a Mobile-Friendly Version of the Parking Portal 

Create a mobile-friendly version of the parking portal that prioritizes how information is presented on mobile devices

Finding #2: Organization of Information

Severity Rating: 3 - Major Problem, High-Priority Fix

Participants were challenged by the organization of detailed information requiring interpretation within the interface, particularly as presented by permit selection and lot selection and identification during the single-use permit booking process. This finding presented primarily in Task 2. 

Task 2: You want to reserve parking in a lot close to the Paccar Building for your lecture next Friday. Walk me through how you would do this.

Number of participants: 6

Avg Success Rating: 2 (success w/errors or assistance)

Avg SEQ rating: 4 (somewhat difficult)

• 5 of 6 participants rated Task 2 as difficult or very difficult on the SEQ

• 3 of 6 participants had difficulty identifying the best parking permit type for the scenario (a single-use night permit had the lowest rate and most lot flexibility)

• 6 of 6 participants had difficulty identifying and selecting a convenient parking lot using the lot list and reference maps

• 5 of 6 participants disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement "I found the various functions of this interface were well-organized" in the SUS Questionnaire

Supporting evidence

Many Permit Type Selections

"A lot of scrolling [...] I just want to one-click and be done. [...] I don’t need all these options here." (P1)

Fig. 3, #1: Zero of 6 participants visited the linked Transportation Services products page for more information about permit type.

Undefined, Unsorted Lot List

“The lots list is not alphabetical or organized and the link to a map takes you to a separate tab. Then [you] have to remember what lot you want from the map and need to navigate the dropdown to find it” (P2)
“How did this list get here and why do I have to do the searching? Alphabetize it. Who is this built for? This isn’t built for users.” (P4)

Linked PDF Maps Are Not Searchable/Interactive

“[The] campus map is huge and hard to read [and] lots are not always clearly labeled.” (P5)

Image of Lot Map

Recommendations/Comments

Use Filters and Sorting for Permit, Lots, Dates Selection

Interactive filter and sort options enable intuitive choices while interpreting large data sets.

Integrate an Interactive Map

All 6 study participants expressed a desire for a more easily searchable map to increase lot discoverability

Finding #3: Redundant Steps and Inputs

Severity Rating: 3 - Major Problem, High-Priority Fix

Participants commonly expressed frustration throughout the permit booking and purchasing process at the number of steps, repetitive tasks or information, and redundant selections. This finding was present during Task 2 and Task 3.  

Task 2: You want to reserve parking in a lot close to the Paccar Building for your lecture next Friday. Walk me through how you would do this.

Number of participants: 6

Avg Success Rating: 2 (success w/errors or assistance)

Avg SEQ rating: 4 (somewhat difficult)

Task 3: Confirm your purchase details and show me how you would continue as if you were going to pay for the permit (using this sample Visa Card).

Number of participants: 6

Avg Success Rating: 1 (success w/o errors)

Avg SEQ rating: 2 (somewhat easy)

• 4 of 6 participants commented on the high number of steps required to book a parking permit

• 3 of 6 participants noted specifically that content within these steps/pages was repetitive

• 6 of 6 participants remarked that they were required to select payment type multiple times

Thumbnail walkthrough of number of steps required to book a single-use permit

Supporting evidence

High Number of Steps and Pages (Fig 6)

“[It] takes a lot of time to complete, especially where several tasks happen numerous times. [...] Overall this process was redundant and unnecessarily repetitive.” (P2)

“[There are] 20 clicks/steps for one part, could take 2 or 3.” (P1)

“I wish it was straight click-through. Too much redundancy in the system.” (P5)

“It takes double the amount of time it should.” (P3)

Multiple Selections of Payment Type (Fig 7)

“This bugs me the most because I have to select Visa and then will get it again.” (P3)

“Why do I have to do that again? What’s the point of telling them Visa if have to enter this all on this page?” (P4)

Recommendations/Comments

Reduce and Simplify Steps

Consolidate steps and interstitial pages requiring users to review similar information

Reduce Redundant Fields

Eliminate places where users need to input the same data twice

Finding #4: Saved User Data and Preferences

Severity Rating: 3 - Major Problem, High-Priority Fix

Participants of this usability study all had some degree of prior interface experience, yet all six struggled to make selections quickly and without confusion when presented with a novel scenario. After proceeding through the steps required to add a single-use permit to the cart and complete the purchase, participants commonly remarked that the ability to re-use frequent permit/lot/vehicle combinations or to save payment information would result in higher task ease and require less time. This finding was present in Task 2 and Task 3.  

Task 2:You want to reserve parking in a lot close to the Paccar Building for your lecture next Friday. Walk me through how you would do this.

Number of participants: 6

Avg Success Rating: 2 (success w/errors or assistance)

Avg SEQ rating: 4 (somewhat difficult)

Task 3 - Confirm your purchase details and show me how you would continue as if you were going to pay for the permit (using this sample Visa Card).

Number of participants: 6

Avg Success Rating: 1 (success w/o errors)

Avg SEQ rating: 2 (somewhat easy)

• 4 of 6 participants agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "I thought there was too much inconsistency in this interface" in the SUS Questionnaire

• 4 of 6 participants noted they cannot save payment information for future use or use quick-pay options 

• 5 of 6 participants expressed the desire for the interface to remember common selections as shortcuts

The payment page does not save information or allow autopay

Supporting evidence

Selecting Permit, Lot, and Vehicle

“It’s just really time consuming. [...] Inputting everything over and over is cumbersome. [...] Saving most-favorite lots and permits so you could one-click purchase it [would be helpful].”  (P1)

“Should store information and be more streamlined and a simple few clicks to complete.” (P3)

Entering Payment Information

“On my phone, I have it autocomplete, but the autocomplete has issues, too. [...] It would be nice if it was all saved.” (P1)

"[Would] be cool if I could use Paypal or Apple Pay or Google Pay here. I spend so much time putting in credit card credentials all over the place and takes time out of my human life." (P4)

“It doesn’t store it from the day before which pisses me off.” (P3)

Recommendations/Comments

Allow Shortcuts with Frequently Used Selections

Enable users to save frequent permit/lot/vehicle combinations for future use

Enable Payment Shortcuts and Autopay Methods

Integrate options for saving financial information or payment shortcuts

Finding #5: Help and Guidance

Severity Rating: 3 - Major Problem, High-Priority Fix

When study participants experienced difficulty with interface functions or tasks, only 2 of 6 participants successfully located and referenced the help and contact information in the interface footer. Other participants were not able or did not attempt to locate assistive functions of the interface. This finding was primarily evident in Task 4 and Task 7, which intentionally presented users with situations that tested the limits of the interface, and Task 8, which prompted users to explore options for assistance. 

Task 5: You want to cancel your previously purchased parking. How would you do that?

Number of participants: 6

Avg Success Rating: 2 (success w/errors or assistance)

Avg SEQ rating: 5 (very difficult)

Task 7: You recently moved. How would you update your address?

Number of participants: 6

Avg Success Rating: 2 (success w/errors or assistance)

Avg SEQ rating: 3 (neither easy nor difficult)

Task 8 - Imagine you have run into some difficulty in purchasing parking and your seminar is starting soon. How would you get assistance?

Number of participants: 6

Avg Success Rating: 2 (success w/errors or assistance)

Avg SEQ rating: 3 (neither easy nor difficult)

• 5 of 6 participants disagreed or strongly disagreed that the interface provided sufficient help or supportive information in the SUS questionnaire

• 6 of 6 participants could not locate information on how to cancel a parking permit and rated the task difficult or very difficult

• 4 of 6 participants abandoned rather than seeking help and said they would pay a higher rate or park without paying rather than asking for help

Supporting evidence

Canceling a permit
“It should tell me in the portal how to do it.” (P5)

“I actually don’t even know how to do this. [...] I would just give up and go to class.” (P1)

Above image: Only 1 of 6 participants noticed the return policy information displayed on the payment page, but then could not locate this information again on the Transportation Services website when prompted to cancel a permit, despite searching multiple pages
Changing/Updating Address

“Why can’t I change this online? — If I can’t, tell me why!” (P4)

Help and guidance in the footer

“Interface doesn’t offer much guidance on what to do if I need to do something besides those basic tasks. Don’t remember even seeing a phone number or anything [...] no indication on interface that’s an option.” (P4)

"There's not clear info or guidance.” (P1)

“In the past, I went to the gate. The person at the gate was not helpful. Didn’t know about permits. One laughed at me.” (P6)

Account info features an address that can’t be updated with no guidance as to why

Image of Transportation Services webpage with customer portal button in upper right

Recommendations/Comments

Use Clear Tooltips Throughout Interface

Supplement current tooltips with clear references, resources, hints and guidance

Place Help Information Prominently

Feature helpful resources in a more visible location

Finding #6: Navigation

Severity Rating: 2 - Mid-Level Problem, Medium-Priority Fix

As mentioned previously, all six (6) participants had experience using the parking portal prior to the usability test. Even still, participant 1 had trouble locating and navigating to the parking portal entry button to get to the login page of the portal during Task 1. During this same task, participant 2 was able to find the button, but mentioned he struggled to find it initially when he first tried to use the parking portal. Navigation issues were also present during Task 2, where participants had to use a calendar to select the date for their parking permit. In this task, 4 of 6 participants did not initially realize they could click into the next month and buy a permit more than a few days in advance (the task instructed them to purchase a permit for the following week). This finding was present primarily in Task 1 and Task 2. In Task 4 and Task 6 participants also commented on challenges with navigation although they experienced no difficulty with task success and rated tasks easy to complete.  

Task 1: You want to drive to your evening class next Friday and park in a campus lot. Where would you go to purchase parking online?

Number of participants: 6

Avg Success Rating: 2 (success w/errors or assistance)

Avg SEQ rating: 3 (neither easy nor difficult)

Task 2: You want to reserve parking in a lot close to the Paccar Building for your evening class next Friday. Walk me through how you would do this.

Number of participants: 6

Avg Success Rating: 2 (success w/errors or assistance)

Avg SEQ rating: 4 (difficult) 

• 5 of 6 participants disagreed or strongly disagreed with “I think that I would like to use this interface frequently” in the SUS Questionnaire.

• 4 of 6 participants agreed or strongly agreed with "I found the interface unnecessarily complex" in the SUS Questionnaire

• 4 of 6 participants had difficulty selecting the date for their permit using the calendar in the parking portal.

Supporting evidence

Looking for Parking Portal Button

“I almost couldn't even find where to get to the portal at first. Even though I am used to it [using the parking portal], I would not say it was easy.”  (P1)

Looking at Calendar to Buy a Permit for Next Week

(Participant doesn’t realize she can click to the next month)

“Can’t buy March 3 yet. Will I remember to come back to this task when dates open up? I’d think OK, abandon task.” (P4)

(After seeing you can move to the next month in the calendar)

“I would have left this task if I hadn't noticed that and nothing to draw your eye to that…This made it seem like you can only observe out the next 5 days and that’s an assumption I’m making that maybe they don’t open things that far in advance. (P4)

Using Site Navigation

“The header doesn’t seem that noticeable” (P1)

“IF I realize there’s a nav bar, there’s an easy button to add the vehicle” (P1)

P1, P2, P3 mentioned navigation bar did not stand out from the rest of the site or “draw the eye”

Image of Customer Portal Landing Page with Navigation Menu at Top

Recommendations/Comments

Make Parking Portal Button More Prominent

Place parking portal button and/or links in a more visible location, with contrasting colors, and include call to action

Make Navigation and Functions More Prominent

Make navigation elements throughout the portal more visible and add language or elements to direct users on where navigation elements are and how to use them

Reflections

What went well

• Recruiting through UW HCDE Slack channels.

• Setup and documentation.

• Usability test script.

• Participants' understanding of tasks and questionnaires.

What I would change

• Recruit both students and faculty from the beginning.

• Prepare for both in-person and remote sessions.

• Offer more availability for session times from the start.

• Make more explicit notes about when tasks started and ended for the facilitator.

NEXT: Designing a Welcoming Environment in VRChat