Usability Evaluation

Purpose

The purpose of this evaluation is to understand how people interact with Microsoft Teams’ calendar feature in a real-world setting. We aim to discover whether new users can easily get started without dedicated training, identify where the experience might be improved, and assess the quality of feedback provided during connection hiccups.

The evaluation involved six participants aged 18–30, all based in Lund, Sweden, who were familiar with other digital calendar tools like Google Calendar but new to Microsoft Teams. Participants completed a series of tasks designed to replicate typical usage scenarios, such as scheduling meetings, checking attendee availability, and handling connection disruptions. Data collection methods included the Think Aloud protocol, task completion metrics, and pre- and post-test questionnaires, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of user experiences.

Testing was conducted in a controlled lab environment to minimize distractions and standardize conditions across sessions. Each task was framed as a real-world scenario to capture authentic interactions. Observers documented user behavior, while participants provided feedback through structured questionnaires and open-ended discussions.

The evaluation identified several patterns in user behavior and task performance. Basic tasks, such as joining a meeting, were completed with high success rates, with most participants relying on intuitive features like pop-up notifications. However, even in these tasks, minor interface ambiguities caused delays. For instance, some users initially overlooked meeting notifications, mistaking them for unrelated alerts.

Creating a meeting was moderately successful but revealed critical usability issues. Participants were often uncertain whether the invitation had been sent, as the confirmation dialog lacked clarity. This led some users to duplicate efforts, manually copying links or recreating meetings to ensure the task was completed.

Rescheduling meetings emerged as the most challenging task. Participants struggled to locate RSVP details and check attendee availability, with some navigating to unrelated sections, such as the “Events” tab. These difficulties highlighted inconsistencies in how information was presented and accessed within the calendar interface.

Connection loss further complicated task completion. Although all participants eventually identified the issue, many only realized it after repeated failed interactions. The system’s feedback was subtle and easily overlooked, contributing to frustration and wasted effort. Similarly, the “Leave” and “End Meeting” buttons confused participants, as the interface did not clearly differentiate their functions.

The evaluation provided a detailed understanding of where the Microsoft Teams calendar succeeds and where it falters. Joining meetings was the most intuitive function, benefiting from clear notifications and streamlined workflows. However, creating and rescheduling meetings required additional effort and introduced opportunities for user error. The lack of clear guidance during connection disruptions compounded these challenges, especially for participants who expected real-time syncing or prominent error messages.

Labeling and navigation emerged as recurring themes in user feedback. For example, the term “Join” led some users to believe they were interrupting an ongoing meeting rather than starting a new one. Similarly, the “Events” section was mistaken for a calendar feature, as its icon closely resembled the calendar symbol. These findings underscore the importance of aligning interface terminology and iconography with user expectations to reduce cognitive load and improve task efficiency.

RSVP tracking was a significant pain point in the free version of Microsoft Teams, where the absence of real-time RSVP updates drastically impacted usability. Unlike the paid version, which integrates RSVP responses seamlessly into the calendar, the free version forces users to navigate between the chat and calendar views to find this information. This disjointed process led to confusion, with participants often doubting whether their invitations were successfully sent or received.