GotToGo Project
How can we address the issue of the lack of public bathrooms in Toronto?
- Help people find the nearest bathroom as quickly as they would find a place on Google Maps.
- Provide the community with the agency to voice their opinions on local bathroom issues.
- Let users pick their favourite bathrooms, so they can enjoy a consistent experience every time they are in Toronto.
Project Details
Course
INF1602: Fundamentals of User Experience
Sector
Public Health
Platform
Mobile
Team
- Russell Lau
- Iqra Malek
- Saman Zubair
- Nina Bouseh
- Ummen Naseer
My Role
Primarily lead the research and research analysis of the project. Helped gather primary and secondary research data for analysis. Developed and designed a functional digital medium-fidelity prototype for testing purposes with data-driven decisions.
Skills
Secondary Research, Competitive Analysis, User Interviews, Survey, Usability Testing, Sketching, Wireframing, User Flows, Prototyping
Tools Used
Figma, Miro, Office365
Results
Researched, designed, and tested a potential mobile application that allows users easy access to public bathroom data in their community.
Users can…
- Search for nearby bathrooms, compare options, and get directions.
- Review bathrooms based on cleanliness, accessibility, and amenities.
- Favourite a bathroom and add it to a personal list.
- Immediately navigate to the closest bathroom in an emergency.
Secondary Research
After discussing what sort of issue my group wanted to tackle, we decided on tackling the issue of public washrooms in Toronto based on our shared experiences with them. To determine the viability of our issue, my group and I conducted exploratory secondary research into the problem space and found, through multiple online articles and public forums, that:
- People felt unsafe using public washrooms in Toronto, especially at night.
- There was a reliance on shops and services to provide public washrooms.
- Public bathrooms were often dirty, unreliable, inaccessible, and lacked maintenance.
- Young Adults (18-25) were the primary populace affected by public washroom issues.
Primary Research
Using the secondary data as a starting point and proof of our problem space, we created a user research plan that involved using both a survey and user interviews to collect data. As part of
- Surveys were used to collect a large amount of diverse quantitative data within a short amount of time, as we only had two weeks to conduct primary research. This survey was distributed through local networks, online forums, and QR codes.
- User interviews were used to collect contextually rich qualitative data that surveys could not provide. This would help us better understand the inner motivations and thoughts users had about using public bathrooms. To validate participant eligibility, a screener was prepared to help filter respondents who were 18+ years old, lives in or commutes to Toronto, and has experience using public washrooms.
Survey
The survey was created on google forms and consisted of 22 questions ranging from yes no questions to short answer prompts. In total, 42 participants responded to the survey. Here were the three major findings:
- Participants ranked cleanliness, location, and amenities as the top three concerns when looking for bathrooms.
- 34 participants would refrain from using public bathrooms due to cleanliness and accessibility concerns.
- 32 participants mentioned that they regularly had to to wait in line to use the bathroom, with an average expected wait time of 9 minutes and 19 seconds.
User Interviews
For our user interviews, we planned out a 15 to 25 minute semi-structured interviews online through Zoom. There were 10 questions that covered multiple different aspects of using public washrooms alongside potential follow-ups that we could use to delve deeper into specific part of the interview. In total, we conducted interviews with 10 participants.
To ensure that the data we collected was ethical and properly used, we created a consent form. Since our topic was on public washrooms, which could be seen as sensitive private information, I made sure that the participant’s agency was prioritized. All personal data was anonymized, participant were allowed to skip questions, and would always have the ability to remove their data at any point.
To help synthesize our interview data, we used a Miro board to organize common responses between our participants. Each sticky note represented an issues, with the tags at the bottom representing similar issues encountered by other participants.
Through this, we were able to get a high-level view on what sort of considerations people have when deciding to use a public bathroom. There were six major themes which were:
- Locating a washroom: Most looked for washrooms on their phones using general map apps.
- Preference for location and type: Cleanliness as the biggest deciding factor when picking a washroom.
- Exclusivity of access: The more barriers to use a washroom (e.g. Cost and Location), the cleaner it was perceived.
- Accessibility concerns: A general lack of accessibility options like rails or automatic doors.
- Preference of amenities: Toilet paper being a necessity, alongside stall locks and toilet paper.
- User emotions around public washrooms: Annoyance when closed or having to wait, fear when going at night.
Persona
Using the data from our survey and interview results, we created a representative persona to help guide our future decisions. Each box (Goals, needs, frustrations and concerns) was backed by the data we collected from both the secondary and primary research. This persona helped the team identify and prioritize potential opportunities for us to improve on.
As-Is Scenario
To determine where potential pain points are throughout the user journey, we mapped out an as-is scenario of our persona trying to find a washroom to use in an non-ideal situation. Each group member were given three votes to place on where we thought were the most important pain points. The most voted pain points were the ones we prioritized for our initial ideation.
Ideation
Based on all the data analysis from the previous step, we synthesized them into four main findings we wanted to address with our solution.
- Public bathrooms were often dirty and broken due to a lack of maintenance.
- People felt unsafe using a random public bathroom, especially at night.
- Bathrooms in stores were cleaner and safer, but often required payment to use.
- It was frustrating to find and use public bathrooms in crowded areas.
Idea Prioritization
After coming up with multiple ideas, they were then grouped based on their similarity. To help narrow the scope of our project, we voted for which ideas we thought were the most feasible and had the most impact. Two ideas stood out, which were
- Reviews: Letting users leave reviews of the bathroom experience.
- Crowd Detector: Allowing people to see the crowd density of bathrooms.
Low-Fidelity Prototype
We first started designing a low-fidelity prototype with four task flows in mind based on the data from our As-Is scenario and persona. I was in charge of organizing each user flow and the user actions taken to progress through our solution. In total, there were four user flows mapped out.
- Navigating to a nearby washroom
- Reviewing a bathroom
- Saving a bathroom in favourites
- Emergency bathroom navigation
Low-Fidelity Evaluation
To make sure that our group were on the right path, I performed a remote evaluation with two participants of our representative user. Participants had to be:
- 18+ years old
- Either working or study in Toronto
- Regular commuters
- Had used public bathrooms in Toronto before
I used the think out-loud method as they go through each of the four task flows in our low-fidelity prototype to help get a better understanding of the user’s perspective in real time.
Based on the notes, Both participants had generally positive feedback about our app, with only some minor design recommendations suggested.
- Would like to see a “Bathroom History” as page would make it easier to favourite bathrooms after usage
- Would like to see more back buttons to allow for more seamless navigation
Medium-Fidelity Prototype
Using what we found during the lean evaluation, my group and I began making the medium-fidelity clickable prototype in Figma based on the low-fidelity prototype. As the participants recommended, we implemented a bathroom history button under profiles and added more back buttons to help with navigation throughout the app. I helped design the sub-pages, set up the prototype sequencing, and made sure that each major task flow worked on the prototype.
Mid-Fi Evaluation
To close off this project, each group member performed a usability evaluation. Similar to the lean evaluation, we gathered ten participants between 20-30 years old who commute or live in Toronto. To collect data, we made use of two UX research methods.
- A 30-minute think out-loud session similar to the previous evaluation. Each participant were given an scenario and ask to navigate through our app. This gave us rich contextual data and a window into the participants thoughts and feelings in real time as they experience the prototype in real time.
- A 10 to 15 minute semi-structured interview to let us ask more in-depth questions on what they thought of our design and allowed us to focus on specific areas of the prototype that may have came up during the thing out-loud session.
This evaluation uncovered new issues that were not encountered or addressed in the previous evaluations.
- Participants were confused between the GotToGo emergency button and the “See nearby” button.
- Icons not being representative enough of their intended purpose such as toilet paper representing nearby bathrooms.
- Changes to the layout are needed to reduce confusion over the “Stop Navigation” button and “Recent Searches” page.
Constraints and Next Steps
Due to the nature of the course, we were expected to make a digital mobile prototype. While it works in this context, a non-mobile design may have a large impact to solve our persona’s issue.
Next steps would be to implement the feedback obtained from the mid-fidelity evaluation and use it to create a high-fidelity mockup.
Reflection
Despite the project being almost a year old at this point, I look fondly back to my time working on it. As one of my first major academic projects in the Master’s program, this provided me with the opportunity to work with people from all different backgrounds.
Additionally, it helped teach me how to properly collaborate within a UX setting, and reinforce the importance of group communication skills. More specifically, group mediations in where each person has their own goals, wants, needs, etc for the project. It is important that every person is given the time and chance to voice their own opinions and thoughts.
And building on that, I came to better appreciate the iterative process of UX design. While it is one thing to talk about the iterative process and its importance to UX, for me, experiencing it first hand and the work that goes into it provided me a better understanding to its importance. For me, I work best in practical environment, learning best through doing work. By going through the process step by step, it has helped me learn what to prioritize and what to avoid.
Last, but not least, this project went beyond just an academic project. This project allowed me to meet four extremely talented and wonderful friends and I look back at our time with glee! From all the online and in-person meetings, it felt more like a get together with friends than a mandatory meeting. Every week, we would bring snacks and candies to our tutorials to share.
