on-task

In today’s face-paced world, the average person juggles countless tasks daily, from professional responsibilities to personal commitments. Research shows that the human brain can typically only manage about four things in its active memory at once. This limitation often leads to overwhelming feelings and decreased productivity, which is where effective list-making comes into play. A powerful tool in combating the chaos of daily life, lists not only help in organizing tasks but are proven to enhance productivity and mental clarity.

on-task is born out of the necessity to bridge the gap between cognitive limits of the human mind and the demands of our increasingly complex lives. Developed by a dedicated team committed to enhancing user efficiency, on-task is crafted for those who need a reliable method to manage daily chores, grocery lists, or personal projects. It eschews the features of more complex task management systems in favor of a clean, intuitive interface that anyone can use right from the start. Users can easily add items to their lists, organize these items into customizable folders, set reminders to ensure nothing gets forgotten, and even share tasks with family members to coordinate household activities effortlessly.

The initial phase of developing on-task involved a thorough research process where our team of four delved into understanding the real-world practices and preferences surrounding list-making and task management. Recognizing that list-making transcends demographic boundaries and is a universally relevant activity, we aimed to gather a broad spectrum of insights.

Each team member conducted interviews with two individuals from their network, ensuring a diverse mix of backgrounds to enrich our data. These interviews were designed to explore how different people use list-making to enhance their productivity and organize their daily lives. We asked about their current methods of managing tasks, the challenges they face with their existing tools, and what features they felt were missing or could significantly improve their experience.

Our interviewees included a wide range of individuals—from busy parents managing household tasks to young professionals balancing work and personal life, and even retirees organizing their daily activities. This diversity allowed us to capture a wide array of use cases and pain points, making our research comprehensive and inclusive.

The insights gathered from these interviews were instrumental in shaping the development of on-task. We learned that while everyone’s needs varied slightly, there were common threads in the desire for simplicity, reliability, and the ability to share or synchronize tasks with others. These findings not only validated our initial concept but also helped refine our feature set to ensure that on-task would truly resonate with a wide user base, making everyday list-making intuitive and stress-free. 

Our in-depth interviews with a diverse group of individuals provided valuable insights into the list-making habits and preferences that significantly influenced the design and functionality of on-task. Here are some key insights and their implications.

NEED FOR SIMPLICITY

A common theme across almost all interviews was the demand for simplicity. Users expressed frustration with existing list-making tools that were overly complex or cluttered. Many users also had a common process for list creation, which was to write down things in one complete list as soon as it came to mind so that they don’t forget. This insight led us to prioritize a clean and intuitive user interface and influenced our approach to the user flow based on the way our users go about writing things down in an unorganized list of tasks, and then proceed to organize their list items accordingly.

CUSTOMIZATION REQUIREMENTS

While simplicity was crucial, participants also desired some level of customization. This included the ability to create multiple lists for different purposes and to categorize items within these lists. As a result, we knew that we would need to allow users to create folders or categories, helping them organize tasks more efficiently according to their personal or professional lives.

SHARING FUNCTIONALITY

Many users mentioned the importance of sharing lists with family members or colleagues, especially for collaborative tasks like household chores or office projects. This feedback prompted us to integrate a sharing feature within the application, enabling users to collaborate on lists in real-time, enhancing communication and efficiency.

REMINDER INTEGRATION

Another significant insight was that users often forget about tasks unless reminded. Therefore, incorporating a reminder system in on-task became essential. We developed a flexible reminder feature that allows users to set one-time or recurring alerts for tasks, ensuring they never miss deadlines.

VISUAL APPEAL AND MOTIVATION

Several users indicated that a visually appealing interface could motivate them to use the app more frequently. This led to the idea of the interface looking more like a desktop, with an aesthetically pleasing image as the background rather than a blank canvas. There were discussions about giving the users the option to change the background, and although this feature was thought to add value in future releases of the application, this feature was considered secondary to the overall goal of the final project and set aside as a result. 

The user flow was crafted to guide the design of the interface and the interactions within our application. We aimed to streamline the process of list management while ensuring the app remained powerful enough to handle a variety of user needs. This balance was critical in avoiding an overly complex system that could deter users. Each step of the flow was aligned with our core design principles: simplicity, efficiency, and intuitiveness.

With a clear user flow established, we moved on to sketching the initial designs by hand. This phase allowed us to rapidly experiment with different layout configurations, interface elements, and navigation schemes. Sketching by hand brought a level of flexibility and creativity to the design process, making it easier to iterate quickly based on team feedback and insights gained from the initial user research.

The resulting design features a main screen dedicated to quick and easy input of tasks—mirroring the users’ natural inclination to capture thoughts as they occur. For organization, tapping on their profile image triggers a pop-up window where users can create and manage folders/categories. This feature allows for intuitive drag-and-drop sorting of tasks into designated folders, effectively marrying spontaneity with structure. Users could also edit/delete tasks from the main menu by swiping left on a task item, revealing edit/delete buttons that the user could tap in order to complete their desired action. 

These aspects of the design were deeply rooted in a thorough understanding of our users’ behaviors and needs. This methodical approach of researching and empathizing with our core user ensured that the app would genuinely enhance their productivity and overall list-making experience. 

After translating our hand-drawn sketches into a digital format, we created a low-fidelity prototype in Adobe XD. This stage was crucial for testing the practicality of the user flow and the intuitiveness of the interactions within the on-task application. Our primary goal was to ensure that the app’s design was not only aesthetically pleasing but also functionally sound and easy to navigate for users.

The initial user testing sessions revealed valuable insights into how users interacted with the prototype. While the feedback was predominantly positive, highlighting the app’s potential to significantly streamline task management, several areas required further clarification to enhance user understanding and interaction:

TASK MANAGEMENT GESTURES

Many users were unaware that swiping left on a task item would reveal options to edit or delete it. This gesture, while common in many mobile applications, was not immediately obvious to all users within the context of on-task.

ACCESSING FOLDERS/CATEGORIES

The mechanism for accessing folders and categories was another point of confusion. Users did not readily realize that tapping on their profile image would open a pop-up window allowing them to manage their folders.

ORGANIZING TASKS INTO FOLDERS

The functionality for organizing tasks by dragging and dropping them into specific folders was not intuitively discovered by users during their initial interaction with the app.

Based on these observations, it became clear that while our design was intuitive once explained, new users needed guidance to fully utilize the app’s capabilities. To address this, we decided to integrate a tutorial feature within on-task. This tutorial would activate upon the first use and be optional, offering a quick, interactive walkthrough of the app’s key features, including how to swipe for task options, access folder management, and organize tasks into folders.

This tutorial aims to ensure that all users, regardless of their familiarity with similar apps, can immediately benefit from on-task without the need for trial and error. By highlighting these features upfront, we anticipated a smoother onboarding experience that allows users to engage with the app more effectively from the outset. 

For the final prototype, we consciously chose a qualitative approach to our user testing methodology. As a fundamental activity, we believed that list-making does not typically yield meaningful quantitative distinctions, such as speed, between apps like on-task and established competitors such as Google Tasks. In our view, performance metrics like speed were likely to be similar across these platforms. Instead, we recognized that the subtleties of user experience, preferences, and interface usability held greater significance and potential for differentiation. By adopting a qualitative approach to our study, we aimed to delve deeply into users’ personal impressions and detailed feedback. This focus allowed us to explore their thoughts and opinions on the flow and functionality of our interface compared to Google’s, identifying what users truly value and dislike in list-making apps. Our goal was not just to compare, but to understand deeply—to capture the essence of what makes an interface truly user-friendly and effective in the eyes of those who use it daily.

We recruited eight participants, all regular users of digital task management tools and habitual makers of to-do lists. Each participant was given a series of tasks, including creating to-do lists, organizing items into categories, setting reminders, sharing lists, and editing, deleting, or checking off list items, to be completed using both on-task and Google Tasks. During these activities, participants were encouraged to verbalize their thoughts, expressing any difficulties or reactions as they navigated through the tasks. We carefully documented their behaviors, verbal feedback, and non-verbal cues that might indicate their preferences or pinpoint sources of frustration.

Following the practical exercises, we conducted semi-structured interviews to delve deeper into their experiences. These discussions aimed to uncover their general impressions of each app and identify specific features they liked or disliked. We also evaluated the ease of use and gathered their preferences between the two apps to better understand which functionalities stood out as most effective or appealing.

WHERE USERS PREFERRED GOOGLE TASKS

During our interviews, we unearthed several noteworthy insights regarding aspects of Google Tasks that our participants found preferential. One in particular stood out: users exhibited a strong preference for the Google Tasks interface when entering list items. This preference was intriguing because the Google Tasks screen offers several features at the task input stage—users can add notes to an item, set a reminder, and mark an item as a favorite. Initially, this finding seemed to contradict our earlier research, which suggested that these features might not be frequently used at the task input phase of the user flow. To delve deeper, we asked participants whether they envisioned themselves using these features regularly while inputting tasks. Surprisingly, they consistently responded with a simple “no.”

This response led us to probe further: “Why does the inclusion of these features, which you are likely to never use, make the Google Tasks input screen more appealing?” The unanimous answer was that having the option was reassuring, even if unused. This revelation aligned with my background in sales, where consumer perceived value plays a critical role in decision-making.

For instance, during my tenure at BMW, I noted that customers often compared our vehicles with Audi, and one feature in particular that was focused on was the infotainment system. BMW’s system, integrated into the dashboard, functioned just as well as Audi’s, which emerged automatically from within the dashboard when the vehicle was turned on. Although this eye catching feature had no impact on driving performance, its presence alone enhanced perceived value for many customers, swaying their preference towards Audi.  

Similarly, the additional features on the Google Tasks input screen did not enhance the list-making experience but did increase the perceived value of the app for our participants.

Another aspect where Google Tasks was perceived as superior to our design was its usability, particularly for new users interacting with the app for the first time. Participants noted that Google Tasks had a significantly lower learning curve due to the intuitiveness of its interactions. Unlike our app, which utilizes gestures like swiping and dragging, Google Tasks primarily employs tapping to navigate, simplifying the user experience. This straightforward interaction was favored by our participants who preferred tapping to edit tasks over the swiping mechanism in our app that reveals edit/delete options. They also favored direct access to lists from the dashboard in Google Tasks, as opposed to accessing saved lists via tapping on a profile picture in our design.

Moreover, our participants appreciated the granularity of control in Google Tasks, where they could set notifications and add notes at the task level. In contrast, our application only allowed these functions at the list level, not for individual tasks. This flexibility in task management in Google Tasks was another point of preference, demonstrating the need for us to reconsider certain design elements to enhance user satisfaction and functionality in future releases.  

WHERE USERS PREFERRED ON-TASK

While participants recognized the straightforward usability of Google Tasks, they also expressed a desire for more dynamic interaction capabilities beyond simple tapping. Although Google Tasks allows users to tap and drag tasks, it restricts rearrangement to within the currently viewed list only. In contrast, on-task was highly praised for its flexible drag-and-drop functionality, which enables users to move tasks across different lists directly from the dashboard. This feature aligns perfectly with our findings that users prefer to jot down tasks spontaneously and organize them into specific categories later, enhancing their overall list management experience.

Participants expressed frustration with Google Tasks’ limitation that requires them to pre-select a list category before adding tasks. This method demands that users temporarily disregard other pending tasks and focus only on the category at hand, increasing cognitive effort. One striking example involved a user who attempted to circumvent this limitation by creating a master list and then categorically recreating these tasks into new lists. This process proved cumbersome as it involved navigating back and forth to replicate tasks in category-specific lists and then deleting them from the master list, a workflow that was both time-consuming and frustrating.

Additionally, on-task was favored for its capability to share lists with other users, a functionality absent in Google Tasks that participants found particularly useful for collaborative planning and task management. The aesthetic design of on-task, featuring a visually pleasing background, was also preferred over the blank white interface of Google tasks as well. 

Our user testing confirmed several key aspects of our initial research, particularly concerning the natural habits of our core users in list-making. Consistently, users preferred to initially jot down tasks indiscriminately onto a master list and then categorize these items into organized lists. Our app design supported this workflow, enhancing the list-making experience significantly compared to Google Tasks, which offered less flexibility in dynamically organizing tasks post-entry.

Despite this success, our focused approach on streamlining the traditional list-making process revealed some critical oversights. Our minimalist design philosophy aimed to reduce cognitive load, a principle that initially guided much of our interface decisions. However, the user feedback from our comparative testing with Google Tasks illuminated a crucial insight: minimalism that sacrifices functional richness can detract from the user experience rather than enhance it. Users showed a preference for Google Tasks’ ability to blend minimalistic design with functional depth—such as the ability to add detailed notes and set reminders directly when entering tasks—features our app lacked.

Ironically, while our app’s design was minimalist, some of the interactions it required were complex enough to necessitate a tutorial. This was a significant realization, as it highlighted a disconnect between our design intentions and user interactions. Google Tasks, with its straightforward tapping interactions, exemplified a balance of minimalism and intuitiveness that our app struggled to achieve.

The completion of user testing marked the end of our group project, bringing mixed feelings. While we succeeded in creating a more tailored and potentially more engaging list-making experience, we also recognized areas where we fell short. Should we decide to iterate further, the insights gathered provided a clear roadmap for redesign: simplifying interactions to truly reduce cognitive load while integrating meaningful functionalities that our users have explicitly valued.