In the city of Chicago, people have relied on Ventra for navigating the city's intricate web of public transportation since its introduction in August 2013. As a lifeline for millions of commuters, Ventra has evolved to keep pace with the ever-changing urban landscape. In 2020, recognizing the pivotal role of smartphones and digital technology in modern transit, Ventra took a monumental leap forward with the launch of its mobile app.

However, despite commendable efforts to adapt to the digital age, the user experience of the Ventra app has left many riders yearning for a smoother journey. Fast forward to July 2023, and while the app boasts a fresh interface, users still grapple with the inefficiency and complexity of the application. As a result, navigating the Ventra app often requires more effort than the actual commute itself.

The numbers below are pull directly from Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) for the year of 2022. The data shows an increase of ridership for both bus and rail comparing to 2021. And the Ventra app has surpass 2 million + users since 2017.

However, even with a large user base, Ventra only has a 1.5 star review average on the Apple App Store, and a 2.8 star review average on the Google Play Store. This data shows that a large number of Ventra users are unhappy with the app even though Ventra can be considered a necessity for those who use Chicago’s CTA system daily.

After reading and analyzing the reviews on both the apple and google play store, I found with three major problem with the app relating to User Experience and User Interface Design as shown below.

Given the problem that the Ventra app faces, I decided to start by doing a competitive analysis. However Ventra has no direct competitor since it is the only way a user can buy a bus pass or Metra ticket for the city of Chicago. Also since February of 2024, when Chicago decided to close all its in-person ticket booth, it is now the only way to buy tickets and pass other than the touch machines inside of the train station.

However, there was indirect competitors, in which I choose MyMTA (New York) and SEPTA (Philadelphia). Which are the mobile transit app for New York and the city of Philadelphia.  

After conducting the Competitive Analysis, I concluded with a few pros & cons. Below I showed the most significant pros & cons of each app.

With all the information gathered, I decided to focus on the purchasing & payment process within the Ventra app, with two goals & objectives as shown below.

I conducted two separate Usability Tests, one on the original Ventra app, and a second test on the redesign prototype of the app. The tests are conducted in an effort to identify if the redesign increases the efficiency and usability of the purchasing & payment process of buying a Metra ticket or a bus pass. The protocol designed for both tests asks the users to perform the same task flows. Participants in both testing sessions are asked to buy a one day CTA/Pace pass and a one way Metra Ticket. The goal for conducting the tests was to identify if the efficiency and usability of the purchasing and payment process increased with the redesign prototype. There is a total of four participants, two per usability test.

The task flow requires users to utilize  the “Step-Wise Purchase & Payment '' modal, which is a redesigned guided process to assist the users in buying a bus pass for Metra ticket. The scenario instructs users that they want to buy a ticket to go home and also need a bus pass to go from their hotel in Chicago to the train station. The scenario combined with the task flow guides participants to focus on the goal of buying a Metra ticket as well as a bus pass.

Metrics that were measured include Time on Task (sec), Task Completion (binary), and User Satisfaction (qualitative data & likert scale). After these metrics are measured, researchers used cell-processing software such as Google Sheets to identify common trends and statistical measures. Qualitative data was analyzed through inductive analysis, analyzing the similarity of the response of participants during the testing. Software used includes voice-recording software such as Voice Memo, digital cameras, cellular devices, and digital stopwatches. Word-processing software such as Google Docs was also used to construct the Usability Report and express findings from the data.

With the data collected from both tests, we can see that for the task  (Buy a one day CTA/Pace pass), the average time it took on the prototype to complete this task was roughly 25 seconds. The average time it took on the original Ventra app to complete(or quit) the same task was roughly 187 seconds. This data suggests that the redesign prototype increased the efficiency and allowed users to buy a CTA pass faster than the original app by reducing the amount of time taken by roughly 87%. However during testing, the researcher realized that in the original app, an activation step is required for the user to use and show the bus pass. The user is required to add the pass to their apple/google wallet for validation, which is not designed into the prototype during the testing. Another aspect can be that in the prototype, to start the process of buying both a bus pass and Metra ticket, the user can start on the home page buy pressing the same button, there for using the same wizard, allowing the user to not have to relearn different purchasing experience to do two similar task, therefore increasing the usability of the purchasing experience.

When looking at task 2 (Buy a Metra ticket), we can see that the average time it took on the prototype to complete this task was roughly 31 seconds. The average time it took on the original Ventra app to complete the same task was roughly 64 seconds. This data suggests that the redesign prototype increased the efficiency and allowed users to buy a Metra (train) ticket faster than the original app by reducing the amount of time taken by roughly 51%. This can be due to the fact that all participants tested during both usability tests happened to the Ventra app frequently to buy Metra tickets and had prior experience to similar ticket buy experience. An aspect in the design that could lead to the reduction of time is that the prototype used a more guided wizard approach that assisted in purchasing the ticket. Another aspect that may relate to the reduction in time is that the prototype allowed the user to choose their start and end destination before choosing the train line, which reduces the time that user takes to guess their train line.

However the testing can be improved by acquiring more participants and collecting more data. Due to time constraints there was only data from four participants (two per test). With more data and participants, the above average and percentage of change and be more leveled out and more accurate, therefore will contain less bias and error.