Denis Cercasin
User evaluation
Table of contents
Evaluation approach
Formal end-user testing with the actual target group (nursing trainees) is scheduled after the project hand-in: a practice test is planned for 15 September 2026, organized together with Lily Dausch, Prof. Dr. Heike Wiesner, and Bundeswehrkrankenhaus Berlin (per the target agreement, the BWK tests the finished application with all stakeholders). During the semester, evaluation happened continuously through stakeholder feedback loops instead:
| Round | When | Who | Format |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Weeks 4–6 (May–June 2026) | Lily Dausch (project partner), Kaan Turan (technical advisor) | Joint requirement meetings, iterative feedback on patient models and scenarios |
| 02 | Week 7 (08.06.2026) | Course audience, Prof. Dr. Heike Wiesner, stakeholders | Interim presentation with live demo + backup video |
| 03 | Week 9 (22.06.2026) | Lily Dausch | Final requirements alignment (target agreement / Zielvereinbarung) |
| 04 | 14.07.2026 | Examination board and audience | Final presentation with live demo |
02: MVP feedback (interim presentation, 08.06.2026)
Feedback received and how we responded:
| Feedback | Response |
|---|---|
| Back the diversity motivation with concrete statistics | Added verified German studies (Zehnder et al. 2023; AXA 2025) to presentation and Value Proposition |
| Make communication barriers of patient groups more tangible | Patient F scenario: translator decision dialog in the patient file where only involving a professional interpreter is correct |
| Vein visibility differs by skin type — reflect it in the models | Considered in the patient model texturing, attempt to implement. |
| Suggestion: add an overweight patient | Implemented as Patient E (incl. heavy-duty-bed error scenario) |
Stakeholder feedback during development
- Error prioritization (week 6, preference of Prof. Wiesner): higher-priority errors must be treated first and the final report must show this ordering → implemented as the weighted evaluation engine with severity ranking in the results panel.
- Patient file in VR (week 6, Lily Dausch): the record should be an interactive object in the room, individual per patient → implemented as the clickable clipboard (
PatientFileUI). - Stability over feature count (week 6): fewer, reliable features preferred → guided the de-scoping decisions in the Requirements Catalog.
- Anamnesis material (week 8): Lily Dausch provided real anamnesis document structures as the basis for the patient file contents.
04: Final presentation (14.07.2026)
All MoSCoW goals of the target agreement were met (MUST 2/2, SHOULD 2/2, COULD 4/4 — “mission accomplished” / „Mission erfüllt”). See Goals Achieved and Missed.
Planned: practice test with trainees (15.09.2026)
The practice test — planned with Lily Dausch, Prof. Dr. Heike Wiesner, and Bundeswehrkrankenhaus Berlin — will provide the first data from the real target group. Suggested measurements (prepared, not yet conducted): errors found per patient profile, time to first critical error, evaluation-report comprehension, and subjective usefulness/motivation ratings.
Information sources
- Weekly Reports (weeks 4–9: feedback and agreements)
- Final presentation “Room of Horror 2.0” (14.07.2026, PDF)
Assumptions
- The mapping “feedback → response” reflects the implementation state in the repository; no separate feedback protocol exists beyond the weekly reports.
Missing information
- Results of the 15.09.2026 practice test are not yet available. This information is not available from the provided project.
- No structured usability metrics (SUS, task completion) were collected during the semester.
Suggested improvements
- Run the September practice test with a short standardized questionnaire (e.g. SUS + simulator sickness) and add the results here.
Last build: 19 Aug 2026, 05:20+00:00