Interactive Transit Display
Interactive Transit Display
Interactive Transit Display
Interactive Transit Display
Role:
The Burger Workshop
explore data & AI ethics thru eviction data
Team:
Researcher, Designer,
Product Strategy
The Burger Workshop
explore data & AI ethics thru eviction data
Team: 4 GT-HCI students,
Anthony T. (MARTA)
4 GT-HCI students,
Anthony T. (MARTA)
Role: Researcher, Designer,
Product Strategy
Role:
Researcher, Designer,
Product Strategy
Duration:
The Burger Workshop
explore data & AI ethics thru eviction data
10 months
Aug. 2024 - Jun. 2025
The Burger Workshop
explore data & AI ethics thru eviction data
Duration: 4 months
May. 2023 - Dec. 2023
4 months
May. 2023 - Dec. 2023
Tool:
The Burger Workshop
explore data & AI ethics thru eviction data
Qualtrics, Figma, Notion, Miro,
ChatGPT, Illustrator, After Effetcs
The Burger Workshop
explore data & AI ethics thru eviction data
Tool: Qualtrics, Figma, Notion, Miro,
ChatGPT, Illustrator, After Effetcs
Building Interactive Signages for the new BRT
Building Interactive Signages for the new BRT
The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) is a vital public transit system serving the metropolitan Atlanta area. As part of MARTA 2040, Summerhill Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) started construction in the summer of 2023. Summerhill BRT is a 5-mile dedicated bus route which will establish a transit link, connecting Downtown Atlanta to the Capitol Gateway, Summerhill, Peoplestown, and the Atlanta BeltLine. In the pursuit of improving customer experience, MARTA envisions the deployment of digital signage at Summerhill BRT encompassing functions such as ticket vending, digital screens displaying service alerts, bus schedules, and route maps.
How might we help
MARTA BRT riders
find the
information they need
for their journey via
digital signage
Trip Planning
Information Guide
Language Barrier
Accessibility
Cross-Platform Consistency
First-Time Users
Ethnographic Observation
Ethnographic Observation
Semi-structured Interview
Semi-structured Interview
Contextual Inquiry
Contextual Inquiry
Survey
Survey
Comparative Analysis
Comparative Analysis
Affinity Mapping
Affinity Mapping
What do users want for the new interactive signages?
One complicating factor on the path to our goal is that the BRT bus line does not currently exist and thus does not have active riders. Therefore, we will need to dive deep into the behaviors, thoughts, preferences and frustrations of current MARTA bus and train riders, as both of these transport methods incorporate elements of BRT buses. Although we considered narrowing down the user group, we decided to address the needs of all potential MARTA riders, either local residents or visiting tourists. We're placing a special emphasis on the requirements of new riders because, at some point, everyone in the city will be new BRT riders.
Ethnography:
3 Bus Stops
Current user behaviors at bus stations
Current services at bus stations
Contexts where users make decisions
Contextual Inquiry:
3 Participants
Issues encountered when buying a ticket
Users' experiences during the ride
Unexpected scenarios outside interviews
Semi-structured Interview:
4 Participants
Drill down on specific behaviors or habits observed from other research activities.
Comparative
Analysis:
How is MARTA BRT different from other BRTs in the world ?
4 Cases
Survey:
186 Participants
Who are the users of MARTA?
What are users' general preferences?
What are users' ratings of the current systems?
What assisting tools do users use for MARTA rides?
What is the hardest part of the journey?
What user wishes are not currently fulfilled?
Findings Analysis: Service and User Perspectives
A challenge in achieving our goal is that the BRT bus line doesn't yet exist, so there are no active riders. To address this, we'll study the behaviors, preferences, and frustrations of current MARTA bus and train riders, as these share elements with BRT. While we considered narrowing our focus, we chose to address the needs of all potential MARTA riders, with a special focus on new riders, since everyone will eventually be new to the BRT system.
What do users want for the new interactive signages?
One complicating factor on the path to our goal is that the BRT bus line does not currently exist and thus does not have active riders. Therefore, we will need to dive deep into the behaviors, thoughts, preferences and frustrations of current MARTA bus and train riders, as both of these transport methods incorporate elements of BRT buses. Although we considered narrowing down the user group, we decided to address the needs of all potential MARTA riders, either local residents or visiting tourists. We're placing a special emphasis on the requirements of new riders because, at some point, everyone in the city will be new BRT riders.
Findings Analysis: Service and User Perspectives
A challenge in achieving our goal is that the BRT bus line doesn't yet exist, so there are no active riders. To address this, we'll study the behaviors, preferences, and frustrations of current MARTA bus and train riders, as these share elements with BRT. While we considered narrowing our focus, we chose to address the needs of all potential MARTA riders, with a special focus on new riders, since everyone will eventually be new to the BRT system.
Ethnography:
3 Bus Stops
Current user behaviors at bus stations
Current services at bus stations
Contexts where users make decisions
Contextual Inquiry:
3 Participants
Issues encountered when buying a ticket
Users' experiences during the ride
Unexpected scenarios outside interviews
Semi-structured Interview:
4 Participants
Drill down on specific behaviors or habits observed from other research activities.
Comparative
Analysis:
How is MARTA BRT different from other BRTs in the world ?
4 Cases
Survey:
186 Participants
Who are the users of MARTA?
What are users' general preferences?
What are users' ratings of the current systems?
What assisting tools do users use for MARTA rides?
What is the hardest part of the journey?
What user wishes are not currently fulfilled?
provide service disruption information in multiple formats and in multiple places.
provide planning details like current time, map, BRT routes, clearly accessible.
include a route map showing bus/train, and transfer points with transfer directions.
add visuals for non-English speakers and an option for Spanish translations.
graphically represent stops so it is easier for users to recognize upon arriving.
direct people to the multiple methods to buy tickets or reload Breeze cards.
Based on research, the design must …
Map Interaction
Service Alert
Plan Route
Bus/Train Transfer
So we began with some initial concepts.
After presenting the design requirements to MARTA, each teammate created sketches addressing specific requirements. My focus was on map interaction, emphasizing different levels of detail based on zoom—starting with a citywide overview and narrowing to specific station schedules. Other sketches explored trip planning with phone integration, non-intrusive service alerts, and customizable information displays. To gather feedback, we combined participatory workshops with sketch reviews. Participants shared detailed experiences and provided oral and written feedback. Key takeaways included clarifying unrelated BRT information, prioritizing content hierarchy, and addressing wheelchair accessibility by considering eye-level adjustments and user comfort.
Low-Fidelity Prototype
Feedback Sessions + Analysis
Feedback Sessions + Analysis
Feedback Sessions + Analysis
Finalized Concept
Finalized Concept
Finalized Concept
Finalizing the Information Architecture and Interface Layout
The user feedback session on our initial concepts provided valuable insights that helped us refine the information architecture. The diagram below illustrates the fundamental layout, where each information component aligns with the research-based design requirements. Given the limited timeframe of the school semester, we prioritized a few key user flows to focus on, highlighted with orange borders.
Testing the Low-fidelity Prototype
This activity focused on evaluating the effectiveness of the prototype by guiding participants through key user tasks from the perspective of a first-time user. Each of the 6 tasks was designed based on the key user flows/scenarios. Participants assessed the prototype based on predefined evaluation guidelines and provide feedback on its functionality, usability, and any issues they identified. We tested our ideas using a 65-inch screen to simulate real interactions, including scenarios for wheelchair users.
Testing Feedback Analysis
Insights were categorized into visual design, accessibility, and information architecture. High-fidelity prototypes should include better contrast, universal icon research, and consistent visual styles. The accessibility features should be designed to make accessibility services easy to locate while ensuring that users feel respected, valued, and not subjected to discrimination or patronization.
Spanish speaker
Close up
Far away
Wheelchair
To address the new findings, we added 3 more design requirements.
implement visual elements accurately conveying the purposes of the functions.
graphically represent stops so it is easier for users to recognize upon arriving.
Visual Design
Enable screen size adjustments to accommodate diverse physical abilities.
add visuals for non-English speakers and an option for Spanish translations.
Accessibility
provide service disruption information in multiple formats and in multiple places.
provide planning details like current time, map, BRT routes, clearly accessible.
include a route map showing bus/train, and transfer points with transfer directions.
direct people to the multiple methods to buy tickets or reload Breeze cards.
place information where users can intuitively find and understand.
Information Architecture
From Low-Fidelity to Mid-Fidelity
While the fundamental information architecture remained unchanged, improvements were made based on feedback from the low-fidelity prototype, incorporating newly added design requirements. Details of the mid-fidelity prototype are not covered in this section but are documented at the end.
The results of expert and user testing revealed areas where our prototype excelled and others requiring improvement. Overall, the design successfully met our requirements. Users completed tasks with minimal errors, finding the design both discoverable and learnable. Features like Live Tracking and Explore Atlanta received particular praise for their functionality, with users describing the prototype as engaging and expressing eagerness to see it implemented.
However, the prototype had shortcomings. Users often felt disoriented, struggling to identify their current station, map location, and the positions of buses in Live Tracking. Future iterations must improve spatial orientation to ensure clear navigation. Additionally, the design needs better accommodation for diverse accessibility needs, including non-English speakers, users with physical or visual impairments, and those less familiar with technology. Simplifying button names, reducing steps to complete actions, and making map icons interactable can also enhance usability and streamline the interface.
Design Iterations
(you've waited patiently for this)
Based on research, the design must …
provide service disruption information in multiple formats and in multiple places.
provide service disruption information in multiple formats and in multiple places.
provide planning details like current time, map, BRT routes, clearly accessible.
provide planning details like current time, map, BRT routes, clearly accessible.
include a route map showing bus/train, and transfer points with transfer directions.
include a route map showing bus/train, and transfer points with transfer directions.
add visuals for non-English speakers and an option for Spanish translations.
add visuals for non-English speakers and an option for Spanish translations.
graphically represent stops so it is easier for users to recognize upon arriving.
graphically represent stops so it is easier for users to recognize upon arriving.
direct people to the multiple methods to buy tickets or reload Breeze cards.
direct people to the multiple methods to buy tickets or reload Breeze cards.
So we began with some initial concepts.
After presenting the design requirements to MARTA, each teammate created sketches addressing specific requirements. My focus was on map interaction, emphasizing different levels of detail based on zoom—starting with a citywide overview and narrowing to specific station schedules. Other sketches explored trip planning with phone integration, non-intrusive service alerts, and customizable information displays. To gather feedback, we combined participatory workshops with sketch reviews. Participants shared detailed experiences and provided oral and written feedback. Key takeaways included clarifying unrelated BRT information, prioritizing content hierarchy, and addressing wheelchair accessibility by considering eye-level adjustments and user comfort.
Map Interaction
Service Alert
Plan Route
Bus/Train Transfer
Low-Fidelity Prototype
Feedback Sessions + Analysis
Feedback Sessions + Analysis
Finalized Concept
Finalized Concept
Finalizing the Information Architecture and Interface Layout
The user feedback session on our initial concepts provided valuable insights that helped us refine the information architecture. The diagram below illustrates the fundamental layout, where each information component aligns with the research-based design requirements. Given the limited timeframe of the school semester, we prioritized a few key user flows to focus on, highlighted with orange borders.
Testing the Low-fidelity Prototype
This activity focused on evaluating the effectiveness of the prototype by guiding participants through key user tasks from the perspective of a first-time user. Each of the 6 tasks was designed based on the key user flows/scenarios. Participants assessed the prototype based on predefined evaluation guidelines and provide feedback on its functionality, usability, and any issues they identified. We tested our ideas using a 65-inch screen to simulate real interactions, including scenarios for wheelchair users.
Testing Feedback Analysis
Insights were categorized into visual design, accessibility, and information architecture. High-fidelity prototypes should include better contrast, universal icon research, and consistent visual styles. The accessibility features should be designed to make accessibility services easy to locate while ensuring that users feel respected, valued, and not subjected to discrimination or patronization.
Spanish speaker
Close up
Far away
Wheelchair
To address the new findings, we added 3 more design requirements.
Visual Design
graphically represent stops so it is easier for users to recognize upon arriving.
implement visual elements accurately conveying the purposes of the functions.
Accessibility
add visuals for non-English speakers and an option for Spanish translations.
Enable screen size adjustments to accommodate diverse physical abilities.
Information Architecture
provide service disruption information in multiple formats and in multiple places.
include a route map showing bus/train, and transfer points with transfer directions.
provide planning details like current time, map, BRT routes, clearly accessible.
direct people to the multiple methods to buy tickets or reload Breeze cards.
place information where users can intuitively find and understand.
From Low-Fidelity to Mid-Fidelity
While the fundamental information architecture remained unchanged, improvements were made based on feedback from the low-fidelity prototype, incorporating newly added design requirements. Details of the mid-fidelity prototype are not covered in this section but are documented at the end.
The results of expert and user testing revealed areas where our prototype excelled and others requiring improvement. Overall, the design successfully met our requirements. Users completed tasks with minimal errors, finding the design both discoverable and learnable. Features like Live Tracking and Explore Atlanta received particular praise for their functionality, with users describing the prototype as engaging and expressing eagerness to see it implemented.
However, the prototype had shortcomings. Users often felt disoriented, struggling to identify their current station, map location, and the positions of buses in Live Tracking. Future iterations must improve spatial orientation to ensure clear navigation. Additionally, the design needs better accommodation for diverse accessibility needs, including non-English speakers, users with physical or visual impairments, and those less familiar with technology. Simplifying button names, reducing steps to complete actions, and making map icons interactable can also enhance usability and streamline the interface.
Design Iterations
(you've waited patiently for this)
© 2014-2023 Yijiang Xu
SCROLL TO TOP
© 2014-2023 Yijiang Xu
SCROLL TO TOP