# User Testing Output

## Sign in User
- the button can be bigger and probably add more margin (or just center vertical align in the whitespace)
- 
- margin
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

## The Rest
- interface to see who created outing step

- Linear gradient for voting is showing wrong distribution

- remove human face
- 

- Margin for the timestamp set it close to 0 but not 0
- Remove kebab options from Social Post
- 

- More spacing here
- 

- When the message is "", there should not be a sendMessage request made

- Posts
- 

- Replace Title in Create Social Post with Caption
- Your Groups
- Add app bar
- 
- Friends
- Friends Request Button
- Remove AppBar
- 
- 8-16dp
- Horizontal margins

- Customized ''

- Remove InkWell for Profile numbers
- 

- Use badges for Friend Requests (to see how many friend requests are present)
- 

- Clicking on user that is not a friend (because the user is not a friend)
- 

- Make friends requests page friendlier (or more obvious)

Suggestion
I feel that one of the bigger aspects of planning an outing is the clash of schedules and lack of ideas for outings. This app appears to be tackling this problem, and beyond by implementing recommended activities based on the experiences of other users. The chat function is also a good way to tackle the potential problem of such rigidly formed outings feeling soulless, as well as a good way to keep in touch with friends.
Response
We agreed with the clashing of schedules and how we resolved this was through voting consensus for outing cards that clashed.

Their feedback on the chat function affirmed our decision that we were correct in tying an outing to a particular group as well as the group chat feature.

Suggestion

Feature #5: Recommendation System
Strongly Agree - One of the more important aspects of the app, which tackles one of the issues of not knowing of places to go to when planning for outings. Rather complex to implement and would be very useful if done well.

Feature #8: Fairness algorithm
Neutral - Seems a little too complex and difficult to implement. May not be absolutely necessary too as there is already a voting system.

Response
We agreed with the feedback for both features.

For feature 5, we found that the quality of the data that we had obtained from TripAdvisor and Google Maps was not sufficient for a true machine learning solution. As there is no pre-existing dataset for recommendations among Singaporeans, we decided to shift to a simple distance metric solution that is commonly used as a recommender solution.

We ultimately decided to scrape Feature 8 as we decided that it would possibly add more cognitive overload to our users and that we should ultimately stick with a simple voting interface, something that the average user would likely already be familiar with.

Suggestion

Feature #2: Sign Up Page: Works in the video. Small suggestion: Have the username check immediately after user inputs desired username, and not 2 screens after. This might hinder user experience due to needing to go back multiple screens.

Feature 2 (Creating account details with multi-select form): Accepted
Can improve it by having input validation at each page. Eg. if a username is already taken, your system can show an error message in the same page where user is entering their username, instead of only at the final page. This will improve user experience as they will not have to keep navigating back and forth to check whether a username is acceptable or not.
Response
We agreed with the feedback and promptly implemented it.

Suggestion

No explanation on what would happen if conflicting cards have the same number of upvotes. It is not clear which step would be selected in this specific case.

Should users be limited to only voting one time in the same conflicting window?

Users could also be notified when a conflicting step has been added so that they will know to go in and vote for their preferred step.

Response
For conflicting cards with same number of upvotes, they will be resolved by choosing the outing step that is earlier.

A user can vote for multiple outing steps in a conflicting window since this is similar to real life. Imagine a conflicting window as such: McDonalds - KFC - Daily Cut (all at the same time slot, 8am-10am). If the user loves fast food, he will vote for McDonalds & KFC, and would not vote for Daily Cut. Thus, despite all 3 of these being conflicting outing steps, the user must still be able to indicate his preferences by voting.

If a conflicted step has been added, one can see it in the UI without page refresh. Unless the original suggestion means to use Push Messaging to put an actual notification into the user’s system notification area, in which case that seems like an excellent idea.

If there is only one step in the outing and it is filled with downvotes, then that step is not included after the deadline. Currently, we will show the ‘Create a new Step using +’ text, but without the actual + button to add an outing. We will improve on this message.

Suggestion

Users should have an option to toggle their privacy regarding being added to a group.

Response

We do agree with this and will be adding a toggle to allow the user to control what groups he can be added to automatically.