Two interfaces were presented to users in this user test. The first one has two modes – one for preparation and one for presentation of media-. Below is a diagram of the preparation mode.

The preparation mode has:
* A media library with a collection of images relevant to a particular station. It also has a text search that dynamically shows relevant images.
* An intermediary workspace between the Media Library and actually presenting the images to students, known as the stage. The stage contains “concepts”, which can be created, named, and populated by dragging media from the media library.
* Concepts can be ordered in a queue for presentation.
* A button to bring up a dialog box to change stations.
* A button to go to presentation mode.

The presentation mode has:
* The concept queue
* The selected concept
* The selected image, which is also shown on a secondary larger display. An image is made big by tapping.
* “Right-tapping” of a media item to add it to the display without replacing the item currently there.
* Notes on the selected image.

The second interface represents a non-modal approach to the solution.

The interface has:
* A stage with “bubbles” that can be arranged spatially. Images can be dragged to them from the media library.
* A media library that allows the user to browse by media type and concept, in addition to a text search.
* Tapping to make an image big, tapping a selected image to remove it from the display, and right-tapping to add an extra image to the display.
* An area for users to keep notes.
* A drop-down to switch programs.
* Tabs to switch stations.
* An annotate icon on each image to allow annotation.
*Controls for renaming, zooming into and deleting bubbles.

Our goal was to get some insight into how usable and intuitive the different approaches were, as well as feedback on the conceptual divisions of the interfaces – the stage, the media library and media groups.

The specific features we wanted to address were:
* Finding things in the media library
* Switching stations
* Using notes
* Having a personal view of what is being shown on the secondary display
* Using a queue structure
* Interface modality

Our two users were asked to perform tasks with both interfaces, with one of them seeing Interface 1 first, and the other seeing Interface 2 first. They were given a scenario which asked users to imagine that they were preparing for and teaching the Macroinvertebrates station, with tasks which involved creating, populating and organizing new media groups, switching stations, presenting, annotating images and using notes.

* Users found things easier in the categorized media library, and only resorted to text search when categories were not present.
* Users preferred tabs for changing stations, as it involved fewer clicks.
* Users found the use of the unstructured personal notes as well as the media specific notes to be intuitive.
* Users did not display any preference regarding having a personal view vs. not. This is something that will be better tested later, when there is actually a secondary display showing the image.
* Users expressed desire for being able to have a queue which controlled the order of presentation, as well as for a system which supported flexibility while presenting.
* Users had a difficult time associating the media group names in the queue with the actual groups of images.
* We found that users had an easier time intuitively understanding a non-modal interface.