Pass 2: Portfolio
Project name: Close Campus Rentals
Group Members:
Sangeetha Kamath (49871835)
Martin Eccleston (16798134)
Adil Kydyrbayev (65512155)
Yufei Qiao (48857130)
Yixin Zhao (49427140)
Section A: Horizontal or Vertical Prototype, plus Re-Design Rationale A1: Redesign rationale
The biggest problem identified in Pass 1 was our unclear conceptual model. The design in Pass 1 covered searching, communication and comparison in one model, which made the interface confusing and unclear. Moreover, we attempted to include as many types of users as possible which created confusion in the application’s purpose. Therefore, in Pass 2, we decided to target on the specific conceptual model of searching for rentals for post-secondary students, which makes our design more consistent. It is much easier to develop the conceptual model because the designers are all university students.
There are other problems raised in Pass 1. Our design came across as cluttered as no specific component was highlighted. Several feature choices were also not made clear, for example, the reasons or benefits of creating an account. Our title “Rentals Everyday” gave our professor the impression that it could be used to regulate the rental market stocks. Our initial design was not comprehensive enough and did not address a typical or specific problem. The feedback from the heuristic evaluation identified several problems with our low fidelity prototype such as missing back buttons and cluttered forms.
Our reason to diverge from our original idea into focusing on one type of users, students, is that this specific market is not yet saturated. There are many rental sites yet few of them are made specifically for college students. College students are a large group of users with their own specific needs regarding to renting a place. Since they hardly have any stable income resources, the places are expected to be cheaper than the general market, and they care about the location based upon how close it is to their campus. A unique feature of college community is that words spread fast. Once some students get to experience our website, and if it is well-designed enough to fit the college students’ demographics, we believe the website will receive great popularity.
There are reasons that we believe the product will meet college students’ demographics. Major concerns for students, based on our own experiences, are the price of the place, furnished or not, and the time takes to get to school. We decided to let students choose their desired travel time from the places to their school, which is more intuitive comparing to distance. We also incorporated the combination of a map view and a listview from our Pass1 because it not only shows the basic information such as the rent, the amenities, but also the relative locations of them. It makes comparisons, which happens a lot before a decision can be made, much easier. A sorting functionality will be added to the list of results, with which users can sort results by their own priority. Although the lease term of college students’ rental generally follows time of the semesters of their schools, yet schools have different length of semesters across Canada, therefore, we decided to go with a calendar which is more flexible.
We are planning to use the questionnaires as well as both structured and unstructured interviews to evaluate our design. There are many things that need to be tested by a sample of users in order to adjust our design and make it more attractive to college students. Such as their preferences between different color schemes, whether they have preferences between using time
to show the relative distance and using distance. We will carry out quantitative evaluation and measure a list of quantitative variables. For specific evaluation plan, please refer to the section B1, evaluation protocol.
For the Pass2, we decided to use medium fidelity prototype which provides better interactions. From what we observed in Pass1, when having low-fi prototype, it is hard for users to complete a task independently because the designer interacts directly with the prototyping, such as changing screens, and users tend to ask questions as they perform the task. It is hard to measure the total time they need for completing a task, and it requires more human resources. As for medium fidelity, however, after a briefing, the designer acts as an pure observer, who has zero interaction with the prototype. Timing becomes easier, and it only requires one person to monitor the process. A2: Prototype Illustrations . To validate the changes to our design the following walkthrough was designed:
Consider Jack, a university student going into his second year. He is looking for a room to rent near his university for the 8 months. He would like to minimize his commute so that he can spend more time studying. He intends to begin his search in july.
First time using this website, Jack navigates to the homepage and sees some search
options. He sees a box for his school name and travel time, so he specifies 30 minutes each way using transit and a price range of less than $1000.
A3. Screen snapshots for our medium fidelity prototype. (Can also be accessed at link: https://yk0vhk.axshare.com)
Figure A3.0: Home Page
He clicked search button and he saw a simplified map of the area around his school and
some listings on the side with the specific price and travel time.
Figure A3.1: Search Results Page
Wanting to know more about the listing, he clicks on it again. Now he sees a full page
with details about the listing. He notices at the top of the listing that says “2 users suggest caution with this add”. Being weary, he clicks “back” and returns to the map and listings and selects another.
Figure A3.2: Full Details Page
This listing doesn’t have any warnings, so he decides to send the owner an email. He enters his email as the return email, and adds his message, then clicks “send”. A small window pops up that says “your email has been sent” and an “Continue” button. He clicks this and returns to the map and listings view.
Figure A3.3: Preview Ad Before Posting Page
Figure A3.4: Send Email Pop-up Page
Figure A3.5: User Feedback Upon Successful Operation
A landlord can use create and review the post using our website, which also requires the
user to login.
Figure A3.6: Create Post Information Page
Figure A3.7: Create Post Upload Pictures Page Section B: Plan User Evaluations B1: Evaluation Protocol type of study, size, tasks, independent and dependent variables, approach to analysis, etc), in enough detail that someone else could replicate your evaluation. (1-2 pages) There are two broad categories of target users for our application. They include:
● Students or university staff members ○ Given that the project is due within a month, the number of subjects will be
limited. We will consider 5 - 10 subjects that fulfill the criteria. We will select subjects from different faculties or disciplines and make the assumption that a subset of the target users will have the same response as those who do not participate in the interview process.
● Landlords who are looking for respectable students or university staff members ○ Similarly, we will consider a limited number of subjects who have rented to
students in the past or who prefer students/university affiliated members over other types of tenants. Since our interface focus more on the tantents side instead of the landlord side, we will consider 1 - 2 landlords who fit the criteria and make a similar assumption that they speak for those who fit the criteria but have not participated in the interview process.
● Each interview process will not exceed 15 - 30 minutes. If we cannot meet the participants in person, they will be emailed questionnaires that they can fill at their leisure.
It is crucial to decide in advance on a "protocol" for any evaluation, as the validity of the data depends on it: 1. Determine the type of data you need to collect (e.g. the quantitative performance metric).
In order to improve our design, we chose a more specific target audience for our project and renamed our title. The website will now be called “Close Campus Rentals” and is meant for university students to find rentals near campus. This is a huge step in the right direction as it narrows down our intended users and allows us to make a cleaner and simpler design.
To ensure that this product is a success and that the prototype is accepted by users, we will be analyzing and collecting data with the following criteria:
● Navigation and core functionality - how easy is it for users to navigate the site and reach the functionality they need?
● Performance - Measure the time they use to perform task, should be able to complete in xxx seconds. Cookies to save email and other information that is automatically filled when filling forms?
● Cancellation and recovery from errors - where and what kind of assistance would users require?
● Form fields and validation - would users prefer to not disclose certain information such as phone numbers (make it optional) ? Would it be easier for students find a rental based on travel time rather than distance in terms of kilometers ? Are they notified when provide an invalid input.
A detailed table of applicable variables is included in section 4 (Table b.2).
2. Pre-determine the tasks you will want your users to perform in order to elicit actions that will allow you to measure this property.
Task Navigation - how many steps can it be achieved in? Is this intuitive for the user.
What forms do they have to fill? Is the error handling able to protect the user from making mistakes?
Is the user motivated to perform this task?
Does the user have all the knowledge required to perform this task?
Task 1
Search for a furnished, internet and utilities included, 2 bedroom/2
-> user fills details on “home page” and clicks
-> Search form, select fields where applicable
Yes Yes
bathroom apartment under $2500 in the SFU area, distance should be within 5 km / less than 30 min by transit.
“Search” ->user compares available ads and clicks on item in list view
and field types specified
Task 2
Search for an unfurnished, internet and utilities included, pet-friendly, 1 bedroom/ 1 bathroom apartment under $1200 in the UBC area.
Similar to user’s Task 1
Similar to user’s Task 1
Yes Yes
Task 3
Contact the landlord -> user clicks on “Send Email” after examining details -> user enters his email and message in modal and clicks on “Send” user views successfully sent message
-> Contact form is populated with generic
message and has email field
Yes Yes
Table b.1: Tasks 3.How you will analyze your data and how to collect data in a form amenable to this analysis. In order to evaluate whether our interface is effective to the target users, we will undertake the following procedures:
1. Unstructured interviews a. For our low fidelity prototype we asked several people to fill a questionnaire.
However, what was particularly insightful was their initial observations to the
prototype. By means of an unstructured interview, intended users can give their first impressions on the prototype and their initial reactions to the design. We can gain a better understanding of how intuitive the interface is to use without using structured questions. This will help us view the mental model that users come up with on first interacting with the interface.
2. Structured interviews and questionnaires a. In order to analyze the interface in concrete terms, we will design a list of
questions and conduct structured interviews or questionnaires to identify independent and dependent variables.
b. There will be a separate questionnaire for students/staff members who are looking to rent and those who wish to post ads. Since this is an application designed for university students, we will make assumptions that landlords are looking for respectable and serious students or staff members. What students or potential renters are looking for in a rental site will be different from what landlords or those looking to rent out rooms are looking for it. The factors in both case complement each other but are not necessarily dependent on each other.
c. In terms of coming up with an aesthetically pleasing design, we will provide users with several options and ask them which they prefer.
d. For branding and advertising, we will provide users with several pre-designed options and ask them which design grabs their attention quicker and is easier to remember or provokes a greater interest.
e. Some of the questions designed before the interview and accompanying assumptions are included below:
i. What are some of the problems/difficulties they face with rental sites? Since our target audience is university students/staff members, is there any website that can address their specific concerns when it comes to renting that is close to “Close Campus Rentals”? We have designed our interface keeping the target audience specifically in mind. In other words, is there any special conditions applicable to our target audience that we have already not taken into consideration? For example, should we include an option where users have to fill in their affiliation with the university near which they want to be situated. Will this serve of better purpose to renters who would like to be better informed of their potential tenants?
ii. In terms of performance, most users would like it if they could accomplish their task within minutes? Is it important to them that the browser saves cookies such that the information they entered in one form is automatically filled the second time they fill a form?
iii. In terms of error handling for the forms, is it easier for users if the error fields are highlighted in red or if an alert pops up for the fields not filled correctly?
iv. In terms of navigation, users should be easily able to go back to the previous page and make changes as necessary. It should be easy to navigate and each task should be accomplished within a minimum number of steps.
In terms of quantitative or measurable variables that will form the basis of questionnaires/interviews, they are discussed in the table below:
Variable Expected Value/Range of available options
Minimum number of steps to search for rentals
Available options: 3 - 5 steps or pages to first select and then compare rental options
Minimum time to search for an ad Less than 3 minutes
Minimum time to post an ad/edit an existing ad/remove an ad or mark it as rented
Less than 5 minutes
Ways to enable landlord to maintain their posts
1. Shareable link 2. Encoded email address
Error handling methods 1. Highlighted form fields 2. Alerts 3. Pop ups 4. Warnings
Ways to detect inactivity 1. Alert to confirm user is still using the site
2. Automatic cancellation if user does not respond within a set time limit
Options for search fields ( which are necessary and which are helpful )
1. Select University 2. Type of travel 3. Preferred travel time length vs
distance from university (which field makes it easier for students to assess how far from campus the rental really is)
4. Price
5. Stay duration 6. Start/end dates 7. Amenities 8. Utilities 9. Safety 10. Nearby locations
Cookies to remember previously entered email and other information
1. Include cookies and automatically fill form
2. There is no need to remember information
Ways to contact landlords for a given ad post 1. Fill a form 2. Provide them with the landlord’s
email and phone number and assume they will contact the landlord independent of the site
3. Schedule a viewing using the site itself without contacting the landlord itself
Ways to mark a post as spam 1. Report an ad by flagging it as spam (generic)
2. Have specific flags to educate others - for example the one who posted the ad is not responding to messages, or the address provided is not valid, etc.
Table b.2: Applicable Variables Section C: Carry Out and Analyze User Evaluations C1 Subjects The representative users are students of the University of British Columbia majoring in engineering, business/commerce, and nutritional science. There are 5 male and 2 female students participated in the experiment. All the users have been living in Vancouver including and more than four years. Most of them use a transit to commute which means they live off-campus and it is the most likely that they will use a Close Campus Rentals to find the place at their campus area for the next learning term. Before testing our tool, the users were finding their apartments through Craigslist, Kijiji, or etc. All the users haven’t been involved in Pass 1 because our goal was to check how fast the users, being unfamiliar with the tool, can complete the task given them
during the experiment. The study results provide us with the information such as how the new user can easily adopt the tool and navigate through the interface. C2 Evaluation Results
The data collection was done via a google docs survey. Two different surveys were completed by our users, a general survey given to students and a post-experiment questionnaire. The general survey is used to target hypothesis one and two, and the post-experiment questionnaire targets hypothesis three.
Hypothesis one: users prefer measure distance using time instead of kilometers, is tested using three questions, they are as follows:
● How long does it take you to get to campus
● How far away do you live(in Kilometers)
● When describing how far away you live from campus, do you prefer time or
distance
The first two question answers are compared for subjects that do not live on campus to
determine whether time or distance is more accessible. With 12 subjects identified as living on campus, there are 22 subjects to compare. 21 subjects knew the time, or 95.4%; 18 subjects knew the distance, or 81.8%. This shows that time is a more accessible measure to determine how far away somewhere is, but it is not significantly more accessible. The last question determines preference, the results were 32/34 subjects preferring time and 1 subject preferring distance, or 94.1% time and 2.9% distance. The results support the hypothesis one over the null hypothesis one.
One concern with these results is that subjects were not monitored or isolated while completing the survey, therefore the time and distance could have been looked up in an attempt to answer the questions; moreover, it is unlikely that subjects know these values exactly so the value accuracy is different between subjects.
Hypothesis two: users prefer to use the location of their colleges instead of a postal code or address when searching a place, is tested using two questions, the are as follows:
● Do you know the neighbourhoods around your school
● Do you know your school postal code
The first question indicates that more subjects knew the area near their campus, however
many did not. When looking at individual questionnaires of subject that knew the area around their campus, the data shows that 14/23 of those subjects live on or in the area near their campus. This tells us that users that live a moderate distance from their campus are less likely to know the area near their campus. The second result shows that unless required, users are not likely to know their schools area code. Therefore, we can say that users are likely to know the area where they currently live, and unlikely to know a new area.
These results indicate that the null hypothesis is incorrect and that users prefer using a landmark location such as their school when searching for rentals.
For our third hypothesis, we chose to conduct a controlled experiment/survey where we asked target users to perform two specific tasks on our prototype and popular rental sites such as Craigslist and UVRentsline. We measured time taken to perform each task on all three interfaces as well as the number of keystrokes involved. Hypothesis three: Close Campus Rentals is an easier interface as compared to other competitive rental sites such as UVRentsline, used by university students and Craigslist, a very common and well known rental site. Users should also find Close Campus Rentals quicker to use than the other two. The two tasks include:
● Please search for a furnished, internet and utilities included, 2 bedroom/ 2 bathroom apartment under $2500 in the SFU area, distance should be within 5 km / less than 30 min.
● Please search for an unfurnished, internet and utilities included, pet-friendly, 1 bedroom/ 1 bathroom apartment under $1200 in the UBC area.
We interviewed 7 candidates. All 7 candidates were students in different majors
including Engineering, Commerce, Nutritional Science and Business. 5 out of 7 candidates have
been residents of Vancouver for 5 years and the other 2 for 2 years. The major means of transport was transit. The figure below depicts this:
All 7 candidates were familiar with Craigslist whereas all of them were not very familiar
with UVRentsline. While, all users were familiar with Craigslist, they took longer to perform the two tasks on Craigslist. For the purposes of this experiment, results from users using Close Campus Rentals is compared to UVRentsline as both sites are targeted towards university students. Since, all of our candidates did not have prior experience with UVRentsline, the learning curve was the same for using Close Campus Rentals.
Although the experiments designed were biased towards the Close Campus Rentals
prototype, the main aim was to establish that users would take less time and find it easier to perform a given task on the Close Campus Rentals as compared to other rental sites such as UVRentsline.
In the figures below, time taken to perform Task 1 and Task 2 on UVRentsline and Close Campus Rentals have been compared. Users take less time of average to perform Task 1 using the Close Campus Rentals. There is room for error however as very specific instructions were given to users which were the few cases available for testing on our prototype. Had our prototype covered a larger range of values, the task description could have included a larger range of options which in turn could have lead to discoveries of potential error zones or resulted in more time taken to complete the task.
Similarly, in the figures below, the number of keystrokes involved in performing Task 1 and Task 2 on UVRentsline and Close Campus Rentals have been compared. The number of keystrokes are almost identical for both sites. Taking both time and number of keystrokes into consideration, users find it quicker to perform a task on Close Campus Rentals.
C3 Final design rationale and discussion of the state of your design The name of our application simple and direct, it reflects the main purpose of this design
and the major problem it tries to solve. In our search page there is a limited number of filters (campus or area, type of transportation, commute time, etc.) to meet the most urgent needs of college students. The result of search is displayed in a combination of map view and list view, which provides better consistency and performance.
The project design has its strength and weakness. Our application utilized ‘time to commute to campus’ to describe the distance of each listings received some positive feedback. It is a more straightforward and essential information for our target users. The prototype supports basic interactions, it has a clear conceptual model and a simple interface.We started our design with a specific group of user in mind, university student who are looking for rental housing. The project also developed around the need and preference of this type of user. For college students, how fast they could get to campus along with price are always two of the most significant factor. Our prototype’s whole design is based on this assumption. We believe that our design will provide better and faster service to student users from certain universities. And, the experiment result in a way supported this prediction.
That been said, the design requires some improvement to proceed. The med-hi fidelity prototype doesn’t simulate all the workflow we’ve designed. The listview in our prototype is somewhat confusing to some of our interviewee. It should have a better representation of all the valid results and how the are located on the map. And the prototype’s lack of aesthetics may hinder its usability, this may also affect our evaluation result. The team should design layout with better quality and better color scheme. If the project has the opportunity to progress further, we should consider a more interactive high-fidelity prototype to support better justification of our design. C4 Reflection on your design process
Our design went through a major change from pass 1 to pass 2, where the conceptual module played an important role. At the beginning, we were trying to cover as many types of users as we can in order to get a larger market, and we included communication functionality for convenience. However, the design turned out to be confusing towards the major usage, whether it is for comparison, for communication, or for landlord to use because we also put effects on the service for landlords. After talking with our instructor and TA, a better conceptual model was generated. It is more important to target on one specific type of users and address the major issue to the best than generally design the product and try to solve as many problems as we can in one product.
When looking back to our design process, the biggest problem is that our experiments did not reflect the core of the problem being solved in the design. We identified the problem as comparison after the pass1, yet went towards the wrong direction for our experiment design. After pass1 we successfully identified that the major process for using rental website is the
comparisons after searching, yet our experiment failed to address it. Though specific requirements is given for the tasks, the comparison process was not asked to perform in the experiment. This is not reflecting the reality, where people spend more time on comparing the search results on rental website instead of filling form. It is also biased towards our design when it comes to the tasks. The requirements are explicitly shown on our website while the other website may choose to give it up for better flexibility. This idea was missing from our design.
Another possible improvement of our validation process is to select our user pool more carefully. It is important to model the actual usage in reality, where the gender, major, background of users should all match the real situation where our design will be used. The controlled experiment also has many other important parts that we did not notice, such as how fast the user learns new interface, how to address differences, which parameters should be compared between users and which ones should be compared within users.
The process went smooth for the first part, but not so good for the later part. We could have used our time more efficiently and maybe meet up more times to discuss the design of our experiments. Though our experiments managed to address some of the problem, yet we ignored the major part that we discovered before.
Generally speaking, experiment design is the activities that we learned the most, but it would be much more to learn if we have managed our time well. A great difference could be made if we get to talk about the experiments before we execute them. The conceptual model was also interesting and helpful when it comes to design interface or improve it. It would definitely be different if we are even going to design interfaces in the future. We now learned how small details could affect user’s experience and also influence the efficiency for users, such as how to better group the options, how to use different colors and sizes, where to place the button, etc. The idea of conceptual model is very helpful for designing towards a specific group of user. In the future design of experiments, we most certainly will pay attention to what learned from practicing it during the pass2. Section D: Resource Management Adil: worked on the mid-fi prototype and was updating it, hours spent: 5. He also contributed during the documentation writing and interacted with the representative users to conduct hypothesis 3 experiment, hours spent: 2. Total hours spent: 7 Martin: Worked on the documentation, on prototype illustrations and analyzing the results. Total hours spent: 7 Yixin:
Contributed to the mid-fi prototype and was testing it. Also constructed survey, and came up with the hypotheses. Documented the design rationale and the reflection for. Total hours spent: 9 Yufei participated in and carried out the questionnaire and experiment survey Worked on Documentation Total hour spent: 7 Sangeetha: Worked on the documentation, designing the variables and experiments, and analyzing the results. Total hours spent: 7
Pass 2 ExperimentThis is an internal survey.
* Required
1. Team Member Name: *
Mark only one oval.
Adil
Martin
Sangeetha
Yixin
Yufei
Subject Information
2. What is your major in school?
3. How many years have you stayed in
Vancouver?
4. What's your means of transportation?
Mark only one oval.
Driving
Transit
Other:
5. How familiar are you with Craigslist?
Mark only one oval.
1 2 3 4 5
Never used it before Very familiar
6. How familiar are you with UVrentsline?
Mark only one oval.
1 2 3 4 5
Never used it before Very familiar
1 Please search for a furnished, internet and utilities included, 2bedroom/ 2 bathroom apartment under $2500 in the SFU area,distance should be within 5 km / less than 30 min.
Using our prototype, Close Campus Rental:
https://x5ucn4.axshare.com
password: 441441
7. Time used to perform task: in seconds *
8. Number of keyboard strokes and clicks for this
task: *
Using Craigslist:
https://vancouver.craigslist.ca/
9. Time used to perform task: in seconds *
10. Number of keyboard strokes and clicks for this
task: *
Using UVRentsLine:
http://www.uvrentsline.com/
11. Time used to perform task: in seconds *
12. Number of keyboard strokes and clicks for this
task: *
2 Please search for an unfurnished, internet and utilitiesincluded, petfriendly, 1 bedroom/ 1 bathroom apartment under$1200 in the UBC area.
Using our prototype, Close Campus Rental:
Powered by
https://x5ucn4.axshare.com
password: 441441
13. Time used to perform task: in seconds *
14. Number of keyboard strokes and clicks for this
task: *
Using Craigslist:
https://vancouver.craigslist.ca/
15. Time used to perform task: in seconds *
16. Number of keyboard strokes and clicks for this
task: *
Using UVRentsLine:
http://www.uvrentsline.com/
17. Time used to perform task: in seconds *
18. Number of keyboard strokes and clicks for this
task: *
Skip to "Thank you so much!!! (*^0^*)."
Thank you so much!!! (*^0^*)
CPEN 441 Survey* Required
1. How important is the distance to school when you are looking for rentals? *
Mark only one oval.
Less important
Neutral
Very important
2. What is your main form of transportation? *
Mark only one oval.
Walking
Public Transit
Driving
Biking
Other:
3. How long does it take for you to get to campus?
Mark only one oval.
Living on campus
10 30 mins
30 min 1 hr
1 hr 1.5hr
More than 1.5 hr
I don't know
4. How far away do you live from campus?
Mark only one oval.
Living on campus
Within 5 km
5 km 10 km
10 km 15 km
More than 15 km
I don't know
Powered by
5. When describing how far you live from campus, do you prefer using time or distance? *
Mark only one oval.
Time
Distance
No preference
6. Do you know the neighbourhoods that are close to your college?
Mark only one oval.
Yes
No
Maybe
7. Do you know the postal code of your college?
Check all that apply.
Yes
Need to look it up
Controlled Experiment Instructions
Project: Close Campus Rental
Group 5
Examine Hypothesis 3: students will be faster with search using our interface than other
known ones
Null H3: students will be faster with search using other interfaces than ours Independant variables: search parameters Dependant variables: time to create search, keystrokes and clicks to perform the task 1. Select options 2. Search 3. Look through searches and find a match 4. Message the landlord Instructions for Subjects:
- For the not mentioned details, you can choose any or not care. - Any result that matches your search is acceptable, just click email option when you see
one. - You may have to go through some posts to find the matching result
Website to compare with: http://www.uvrentsline.com/
www.craigslist.ca Tasks:
Please search for a furnished, internet and utilities included, 2 bedroom/ 2 bathroom apartment under $2500 in the sfu area, distance should be within 5 km / less than 30 min by transit. Please search for an unfurnished, internet and utilities included, pet-friendly, 1 bedroom/ 1 bathroom apartment under $1200 in the ubc area.
- Time used to perform tasks - Keyboard strokes and clicks for task - Major, year in vancouver, transportation, experience with craigslist or uvrentsline
Fill in Survey (for interviewers): https://goo.gl/forms/Jy4zRlOGlM9IXB8n2 Notes:
Ask questions only after they perform the task; Ask any difficulty or hesitation you observed during the experiment; Take notes if necessary; Mark any unexpected problems or observation.
