SIMS 213 Assignment 5

First Interactive Prototype

Introduction

Revised Interface Design
     Differences between First Interactive and Lo-fi Prototypes
     Storyboard for Scenario 1
     Storyboard for Scenario 2
     Storyboard for Scenario 3

Prototype Overview

Screen Shots

Running the Interface and the Scenarios

Presentation Slides [Powerpoint, 209kb]

Introduction

We are developing BriefBank for the Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Cinic at Boalt Hall to facilitate the sharing of legal briefs within the technology and public policy community. Based on the results from testing our lo-fi prototype, we revised our interface and developed our first interactive prototype.

Revised Interface Design

Scenarios

For the interactive prototype, we essentially retained two scenarios from the user testing of the lo-fi prototype. For the third scenario, we modified the other search scenario to test the interactive prototype's browse interface. Following are the three scenarios:

• Name: Wilma Donahue
• Organization: Acme Law School
• Email address: Wilma@acme.edu
• URL: www.acme.edu/~wilma
• Brief title: Educators' Amicus Brief for ACLU v. Ashcroft
• Case Name: ACLU v. Ashcroft
• Case Number: 6000-20
• Moving Party: American Civil Liberties Union
• Responding Party: John Ashcroft, in his capacity as attorney general of the United States
• Court: Supreme Court
• Brief Description: Amicus brief for ACLU v. Ashcroft; relevant issues: First Amendment, copyright.

Differences between First Interactive and Lo-fi Prototypes

The primary difference is the inclusion of the search capability on the home page of the interactive prototype and the deletion of a separate page for advanced search. All three testers of the lo-fi prototype expected to be able to execute a search from the home page. In addition, the testers indicated that the lo-fi's regular search page did not provide enough structure for them to understand which facets could be used for searching. Consequently, we incorporated some of the structure from the lo-fi's advanced search page into the search capability on the interactive's home page. The additional structure explicitly specifies the viable facets for search. The following images show the home and regular search pages for the lo-fi prototype and the home page for the interactive prototype.

• We changed the format for legal brief listings in the search results page and the browse pages by deleting the fields for moving party, responding party and court. We deleted the fields for the parties because this information is contained in either the legal brief title or the case name. We are still evaluating whether to include the information for court. In addition, we added information indicated whether the link for each legal brief led to a HTML file or a PDF file.
• For the browse by court page, we changed the mechanism for selecting a court. In the lo-fi, users selected a court from one of two pick lists. In the interactive, users select a HTML link.
• We dropped the recently viewed briefs function based on a lack of interest from the lo-fi testers.

Storyboards of the Scenarios

Prototype Overview

We developed our prototype as a web interface to a database. The prototype is designed to allow users to easily accomplish the following two tasks:

• Search for a legal brief for a known case or party to a case: We did not design the prototype to compete with existing legal information services that allow users to search for cases by subject. The existing services already meet this need. The prototype is designed to allow users to locate legal briefs for cases or parties of interest.
• Submit a legal brief: Submitting a legal brief to a web site will be an infrequent activity for many users. Therefore, we designed the prototype to clearly lead users through the submission process.

In addition, the prototype allows users to browse the collection of legal brief using case, court, and contributor. We continue to include this function even though the need for it is uncertain.

What was Left Out and Why

The exact wording for the terms and conditions page and privacy policy page are not included because our client is still drafting the wording.

At the completion of the submit process, an email containing the submitted brief should be sent to the briefbank administrator. We are still working on this capability.

"Wizard of Oz" Techniques

Most of the web pages are generated dynamically. However, the search results page is hardcoded to provide the results of a search for the party "ACLU" and sections of the browse pages are hardcoded.

Tools

We developed the web interface using HTML and ColdFusion. With ColdFusion, we were able to create header and footer files which we included on all prototype web pages for consistency. In addition, we were able to capture the information provided during searching and submiting without using cookies.

We developed the database using Microsoft Access.

Screen Shots

The pages associated with the search, submit, and browse functions were provided in storyboards for our scenarios. In addition, the prototype includes the following support pages:

Interactive About Us Page

Interactive Contributors Page

Interactive Terms and Conditions Page

Interactive Privacy Policy Page

Running the Interface and the Scenarios

To use the interface, simply use the following link and perform the following three scenarios. Please note the web site is designed for MSIE 5.0 and the search results are hard-coded at this time..

Link to Prototype

Scenarios

• Name: Wilma Donahue
• Organization: Acme Law School
• Email address: Wilma@acme.edu
• URL: www.acme.edu/~wilma
• Brief title: Educators' Amicus Brief for ACLU v. Ashcroft
• Case Name: ACLU v. Ashcroft
• Case Number: 6000-20
• Moving Party: American Civil Liberties Union
• Responding Party: John Ashcroft, in his capacity as attorney general of the United States
• Court: Supreme Court
• Brief Description: Amicus brief for ACLU v. Ashcroft; relevant issues: First Amendment, copyright.