By Gerd Waloszek, SAP User Experience, SAP AG – December 20, 2011
In this, the second part of my article about the "Employees' Commute Calculator" (ECC), I present ideas for a more advanced and hopefully more playful version. I would like to begin, however, by looking more closely at the requirements for the calculator, particularly with respect to offering greater flexibility in the way in which the data is collected and manipulated. I will then propose application modules that constitute the tools with which employees perform the various subtasks in the calculator. Here, I will also describe how these modules are represented in the simple version of the EEC, the E2C2, which I presented in the first part of the article. Finally, I will sketch a prototype of the EEC that represents these modules as rooms and is thus based on the room metaphor, which Kai Krause once explored in his regrettably short-lived Soap photo editing application.
To enable the ECC to answer questions such as, "How much carbon dioxide (CO2) will I save if I use my bicycle 75% of the time when commuting to work?" it has to be supplied with data about employees' personal commuting behavior as well as with general data:
The ECC will work with both precise data and estimates, because technically, there is no difference between the two. The tool might, however, offer an option for employees to flag results as estimates.
Further requirements comprise aspects that employees would be interested in exploring and how results might be presented to users. The table below lists initial ideas for these requirements, that is, the required data, the aspects that employees might want to explore, and – very crudely – how the results might be presented:
| Parameters | Specific parameters | Comments |
| Means of transportation: consumption, emissions, costs |
|
Data:
Missing data should be provided by the ECC (hard-wired or retrieved from the company network or Internet). Options that do not involve transportation like home office or that do not involve energy or fuel consumption like riding a bike or walking should be included. Presentation:
|
| Itineraries | Itineraries, a term that I will use throughout this appendix, consist of a combination of
|
In the simplest case, a route is assigned to one means of transportation, such as a car (as in the E2C2). Alternative routes between the employee's home and the company can differ in means of transportation and distance. Employees may also use several means of transportation in the course of one route, for example: a bus to get to the train, the train itself, a bicycle for the remaining route. The concept of itineraries covers all these complexities and combines routes or route sections with means of transportation. Users should be able to assign a symbol to itineraries and save them with names so that they can be recalled easily for later explorations. |
| Distance |
|
The distance may vary depending on the respective means of transportation or combinations thereof. It may also be different for both directions. Presentation:
|
| Time schedule |
|
Presentation:
|
| Exploration |
|
The tool should be easy to use and support exploration. For example, it should be far easier to use than a spreadsheet application (which might constitute the "back-end" of the prototype of such a calculator). Results should be presented in real-time to stimulate exploration. Users should be able to store simulations under a name and to compare these textually and graphically (two and more). |
| Presentation of results |
|
Traditional presentation modes comprise tables, charts, and textual descriptions. However, a more dynamic graphical presentation would be nice. |
Considering the requirements that I have collected so far, it seems appropriate to compose the ECC of several modules between which employees can navigate:
All in all, the ECC does not look like a trivial application. For comparison, I would like to return briefly to the E2C2 that I sketch in part 1 of the article and explain how it relates to the modules proposed here:
Next, I will sketch a proposal for an ECC that is more closely based on these modules.
The route for a more flexible and playful version of the ECC that I would like to pursue here is to make use of the room metaphor – in the same way as Kai Krause pioneered this approach in the Soap photo editing application (see Figures 1 and 2). In this version of the ECC, each of the modules described above is implemented as a room that has a specific purpose. The "rooms" version of the ECC would be implemented as a desktop application first. Later, one might attempt to transfer the concept to a mobile app, although this might prove difficult due to the packed screens.
![]() |
![]() |
Figure 1-2: Overview of rooms and presentation room in Kai Kraus's Soap photo editing application
Figure 3 provides an overview of the ECC's rooms:
ECC: Employees Commute Calculator |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
| Start in the vehicle room, go clockwise through the rooms and finally go to the presentation room. You can also switch between rooms at will. |
Figure 3: Overview of the ECC's rooms
In the following, I will briefly describe the purpose of each room and present a schematic sketch of it.
Please note that, in contrast to the E2C2 prototype, the rough sketches presented below are initial ideas only and are not backed up by functional prototypes. Note also that I include instructions on the screens (rooms) to help readers understand what employees are supposed to do in a room. The final screens should, of course, dispense with instructions. Last but not least, in the final versions of the screens, employees might arrange objects in the rooms more freely, not as rigidly as in these sketches based on HTML tables.
Note: The sketches that I present as images below can also be seen in their original, non-functional HTML version.
Employees start in the vehicle room. On the left, they can see predefined means of transportation that they might want to consider in their simulations and comparisons. On the right, they collect the ones that they really want to consider. They do so by dragging the appropriate avatars or names from the left-hand to the right-hand column.
Employees can add new means of transportation that are a better match for their commute situation to the list on the left by copying and modifying existing ones or by creating new ones from scratch. For example, they might want to clone a new car from a "default" car and supply it with the specifications of their own car. They can assign "avatars" (photos, pictures, or symbols of their choice) to means of transportation and give them a name (predefined means of transportation come with ready-made avatars that employees can change). Later, they use the avatars in the map room, where they assign them to routes or route sections to define so-called "itineraries".
Employees may also need to add data to a means of transportation to be able to run simulations. They do so by dragging an avatar to the center, where a property sheet appears for this purpose. Employees can do this with avatars on either side, but they only need to do it for those means of transportation that they want to consider and that are listed on the right (changes are also applied to the "originals" on the left). Missing values have to be provided by the EEC (either retrieved from external sources or "wired in")
Figure 4 presents a very rough sketch of how the vehicle room might look. For the sake of simplicity, I have used simple street-sign icons for the avatars.
Figure 4: Schematic sketch of the vehicle room
Next, employees move to the map room, which offers an interactive map (similar to Google maps) that allows them to define itineraries in a two-step process:
As an alternative, employees can enter distances into a form that is also updated according to the interactions with the map. When using the form, employees can assign means of transportation to routes or route sections by dragging avatars onto the respective fields.
Employees name and save itineraries for use in the calendar room.
Figure 5: Schematic sketch of the map room
In the calendar room, employees define commute scenarios that describe their actual and potential commute behavior. As in the map room, they either do this the drag-and-drop way and assign itineraries to time data using a calendar, which automatically counts the days, or they define scenarios using a form and enter the number of days that each itinerary is used.
The interactive calendar should offer flexible options for defining the number of days that an itinerary is used. For example, employees might select a certain period of time first and exclude specific days or weeks afterwards.
Commute scenarios are the ultimate entities needed for simulations and comparisons. Employees name scenarios and store them for use in the simulation room, where they can modify them and play around with them.
Figure 6: Schematic sketch of the calendar room
In the simulation room, employees play around with commute scenarios that they select from a list (left column), modify time schedules, and exchange itineraries (not shown), until they are satisfied with the results. They can store interesting variations of scenarios for comparisons with alternative commute scenarios and to tidy them up in the presentation room.
Employees can also select an "anchor" scenario, for example, a worst case scenario, to serve as a standard of comparison for other scenarios. This idea is taken from the E2C2 prototype in part 1 of this article. In my own case, the "anchor" would be using my current car all the time. This allows me to contrast using it exclusively with other potential scenarios and to compute and compare the respective savings.
In both cases – "selected" as well as "anchor" scenarios – employees can add further scenarios to the list if available and also remove them from the list. In the center is a simulation panel, in which they can modify a scenario and run simulations with it. As my ideas for this room are still very vague, this part of the simulation room has been "borrowed" from the E2C2 and serves as a placeholder only. Employees can save modified scenarios (with an "add to list" option) and also save simulation results for use in the presentation room.
Figure 7: Schematic sketch of the simulation room
In the presentation room, employees compare selected commute scenarios with respect to their environmental impact (mainly CO2 emissions) and possibly other parameters such as fuel and energy consumption. They can present comparison results using tables and different chart types. More dynamic presentation styles are conceivable, particularly ones that allow employees to change parameters without leaving the room.
Furthermore, employees can prepare and tidy up data for printing, saving, or sharing in this room. This data includes commute scenarios, means of transportation , routes, and – in particular – comparisons between different commute scenarios.
Again, the ideas for this room are still very vague, as shown in Figure 8, which also "borrows" placeholders from the E2C2 prototype presented in part 1 of this article.
Figure 8: Schematic sketch of the presentation room
I have left many details open in this coarse sketch of an ECC. Nevertheless, it is easy to see that this is far more complex than the E2C2. I will not go into further details here, though, because that would definitely exceed the scope of this already long second part of the article.
This design exercise was also an interesting experience for me and, once again, the journey from the initial ideas to the sketches presented here was a long one.
Of course, one question still remains: Would employees prefer the simple E2C2 or the "rooms" version of the ECC? I can answer this question only for myself: I prefer the E2C2 because it is simpler and delivers initial results faster – I am not a "playboy"...