Cycling and the City
Helping Uppsala Municipality Increase the Usage of Central Station Bike Garage

Ideation

We applied repeated convergent and divergent thinking to develop a solution that addresses the garage’s problems while meeting the course requirements and it was harder than we expected. 

In hindsight, we spent too much time on ideation instead of moving on to prototyping. We rejected several ideas based on secondary research and our own assumptions rather than testing them, since we didn’t yet see them as viable.

Prototype 

App

We created paper sketches and a clickable low-fidelity prototype for the bike-sharing solution. It included the basic functionalities to rent or return a bike, purchase a subscription and temporarily lock the bike when the user reached a destination. We chose low fidelity so we could focus user testing on the flow, concept and functionality rather than aesthetics.

Zoned Parking

To simulate the zoning concept for the parking area at Central Station, including the bicycle garage and the outside racks we used the lab room and physical props to explore different signage options. The role play method was a valuable learning experience: it let us try new prototyping techniques, collaborate in a realistic setting and have fun imagining the future space.

User Testing

To test our proposed solution we created a three part testing process consisting of evaluating the proposed concept of implementing a bike sharing service through a survey, user testing of the low-fidelity prototype, and evaluating the idea of dividing the area into different zones by role-playing.

1. Survey

We surveyed commuters to Uppsala, selected by convenience and snowball sampling. The survey gathered contextual data about their commutes and estimated acceptance rates. We conducted a thematic analysis of the open-ended responses. Most participants said they weren’t interested in bike sharing due to previous experiences with high fees, reluctance to pay extra on top of SL/UL tickets, long end-destination distances or simply preferring to walk (Appendix H). Rather than abandon the idea, we used these insights to identify critical success factors for the service.

2. Low-Fidelity Prototype Testing

We ran task-based user tests with think-aloud protocols and follow-up questions, using a convenience sample. We conducted an affinity diagram analysis to surface usability issues and improve the app flow. Users generally found the app’s core functions acceptable but suggested improvements to the home screen and copy. Interestingly, they brought a mental model of flexible pick-up/drop-off locations and pay-per-hour pricing—different from our fixed-location, subscription-based proposal.

3. Role-Playing the Zoning Concept

We set up the HCI lab with physical props to simulate three distinct parking zones and test different signage designs. Four participants each “parked” a chair (our stand‑in for a bike) according to how long they’d be away from Uppsala, with a countdown ticking down to their train’s departure to introduce a bit of urgency. After they completed their tasks, we talked through their choices and how what cues helped them in take decisions. Although the goal wasn’t to predict real‑world behavior, the exercise gave us valuable insights into their thought processes and let us experiment with a new method.

What stood out was how clear information empowers people to make informed decisions: participants relied on multiple cues such as signage, ground markings and the countdown to pick the most suitable zone. We also noticed that small details can easily be misread, so every element of the setup must be carefully planned. Ultimately, our hope is that, by providing the right tools, we can give people a genuine chance to do the right thing.