Inclusive Testing of Next-Generation Myki Fare Validators

Victoria's public transport network serves millions of people with vastly different needs, from confident daily commuters to people with specific accessibility requirements. As the state prepared to deploy next-generation fare validators, the Department of Transport and Planning needed rigorous evidence about which validator designs would be most accessible, safe and intuitive. This was not a typical usability study. The prototypes weren't fully working, the setting was new to participants, and whatever the department chose would be on every train, tram and bus for years.

Paper Giant designed an inclusive research methodology combining observations with semi-structured interviews in a purpose-built simulated transport environment, complete with fabrics, imagery, ambient noise and representative seating. Working validators that read real myki cards let people tap on the way they would on a tram. 44 participants represented Victoria's full spectrum: 21 people with disabilities (mobility, psychosocial, intellectual, developmental, vision, speech, hearing, acquired brain injury), 7 youth, and participants from metro and regional Victoria. In each session, people used the validators first, then compared them and talked the researchers through what they noticed. Collaboration with Conduent ensured findings were operationally grounded.

Paper Giant's recommendations gave the Department of Transport and Planning and Conduent clear, evidence-based guidance on which validator design to take into manufacturing, and why it would work for the widest range of travellers. Paper Giant also developed the customer value propositions and messaging for five phased releases of the new myki system. The test method itself, with a simulated transport setting, working prototypes and a group recruited for its range of needs, can be reused to evaluate other public infrastructure before it's built.

Purpose-built test environment: A simulated transport environment with fabrics, colours, imagery, ambient noise and representative seating gave realistic context while keeping research conditions controlled. Working validators read real myki cards, so people tapped on as they would on a tram. Deeply inclusive cohort: 44 participants including 21 people with disabilities (10 mobility/physical, 8 psychosocial, 4 intellectual, 3 developmental, 3 vision, 2 speech, 2 hearing, 2 acquired brain injury), 7 youth aged 13–19, and participants from both metropolitan (38) and regional Victoria (6). All research sessions were documented with 2 fixed cameras and 1 researcher-worn camera. Two-stage session design: Each 60-minute session started with people tapping on as they normally would, with the order of designs rotated to reduce bias. They then compared the designs side by side, including a card-sorting activity. Comparing designs on several measures: People rated each design on several measures instead of picking one favourite. That showed where a design worked for one group of travellers and not another. Recommendations grounded in what people said: The recommendation drew on both the ratings and what participants told the researchers in conversation.