
This dataset is from a study that intends to define, prototype and test a graphical user interface for a housing co-design system. To define the requirements of the interface, we conducted interviews with professionals of architecture, urbanism and social sciences areas, as well as with housing cooperatives and inhabitants of these institutions. An interface solution was prototyped, tested and refined. Then we conducted a heuristic evaluation and a summative evaluation. Such evaluations involved the testing of a high-fidelity prototype, to receive feedback from UX/UI experts, potential users (inhabitants) and architects. S1_File refers to the interview protocol used with the three groups of interviewees. We share the English and Portuguese versions of the interviews with professionals and the original (Portuguese) and translated versions of the remaining ones since these were conducted in Portuguese. S2_File is a dataset reporting the results of the interviews. Each question includes the answers given and the identification (anonymized) of the interviewees who responded to that question. S3_File describes the usability issues identified by the experts during the heuristic evaluation of the high-fidelity prototype. The first page organizes the issues by severity (left) and priority (right). The remaining pages have a table for each issue, including rows for problem designation, heuristic violated, problem description, solution proposal, severity degree, and an image of the interface pointing to the referred issue. S4_File refers to the results of the heuristic evaluation. It includes the identification of each issue, which expert (anonymized) identified such issue, and the heuristic it violates, with the sum of the times each heuristic was violated at the end of each column. At the right, a table presents the consolidation of issues, organized by priority, with columns identifying the issue, severity level, frequency, and priority. S5_File is the script given to potential users to experiment with the interface during the summative evaluation. This script guides the user through the tasks to perform since the prototype does not have all the features functioning. S6_File refers to the questionnaires applied during the summative evaluation with inhabitants. It includes a preliminary questionnaire, a Single Ease Question (SEQ) questionnaire, a System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire, and a Graphical User Interface (GUI) questionnaire. S7_File refers to the results of the summative evaluation with inhabitants (potential users). Page A refers to the preliminary questionnaire with demographic information such as age, gender, education, relationship with digital technologies, etc. Each field corresponds with each inhabitant (anonymised) and the sum and percentage. In the middle, a table presents a summary of the consolidation. In the right possible relations are presented. Page B presents the results of the SEQ questionnaire, identifying the ratings each inhabitant (anonymized) gave each task. A summary of such values is at the right. On page C, the result of each rating for the SUS questionnaire given by each inhabitant (anonymized) is shown. At the bottom is the calculation of the SUS score. Page D presents the GUI questionnaire results for each inhabitant (anonymized), with the average and SD identified for each question. A summary of such results is on the right. Page E holds the notes taken by the researchers based on their observations regarding task performance. The information is organized in tables for each step of each task and includes the completeness, attempts, and time taken for each inhabitant (anonymized) to complete such task. Also, the sum, percentage, average, and SD are registered. Next to each task is a table identifying how many participants accomplished the task at the first attempt. Page F refers to the strong and weak aspects identified by the inhabitants. Strong and weak aspects are identified, as well as which inhabitant (anonymized) has identified them. The sum and percentage are also given. At the right, there is a table with the consolidation of results by combining similar answers. S8_File refers to the results of the discussion with architects after experiencing the interface. Such results relate to the positive and negative aspects that the architects identified in the interface and its usefulness for architecture. The left table identifies the strong and weak aspects that architects (anonymized) identified and the sum and percentage associated with them. The table on the right consolidates such results, with similar responses combined.
Customisation, User-centred design, Architecture, Housing, Co-design, Digital tools, Interface
Customisation, User-centred design, Architecture, Housing, Co-design, Digital tools, Interface
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
