---

**Software Solution Name:** Godot Tetris — a modern falling-blocks game (solo + two-player LAN versus), built in Godot 4.7

**Target Users:** students aged 12–18 who play casual games on school laptops; two players sharing a LAN for versus mode

---

**Primary Goal:** Confirm that the finished game is playable, understandable and stable in the hands of real players — the interface reads clearly, the modern mechanics (hold, ghost piece, hard drop, wall kicks) behave as players expect, and a two-player LAN match runs start-to-finish without failure.

- [x] **Appearance** (interface design, visual consistency)

- [x] **Functionality** (core features working correctly)

- [x] **User Experience** (ease of use, workflow efficiency)

- [x] **Performance** (speed, reliability, compatibility)

---

Testers judge whether the play field, next-piece preview, hold slot, ghost piece, score and level display communicate without explanation.

- **Step 1 — Preparation:** open the game on a school laptop; do not explain anything.

- **Step 2 — Starting Activity:** tester starts a solo game from the menu unaided.

- **Step 3 — During Activity:** after two minutes, tester points at each on-screen element and says what they think it shows (score, level, next piece, hold slot, ghost outline).

- **Step 4 — Ending Activity:** tester plays until game over and describes what the game-over screen tells them.

- **Step 5 — Post-Activity Review:** short survey items on visual clarity (1–5 scales).

**Specific Feedback Points:** Was the ghost piece understood without being told? Is the hold slot's "once per piece" state visible? Does the score/level area draw attention when a level-up happens?

- **Step 1 — Preparation:** hand the tester the one-page controls card (←/→ move, ↓ soft drop, ↑/X and Z rotate, Space hard drop, C/Shift hold).

- **Step 2 — Starting Activity:** tester attempts each control once in their first game.

- **Step 3 — During Activity:** set tasks — rotate a piece flush against the wall (wall kick), hold a piece and retrieve it, clear two lines with one drop, reach level 2.

- **Step 4 — Ending Activity:** observer checks the final score against the scoring table (100/300/500/800 × level, +1 per soft-drop cell, +2 per hard-drop cell).

- **Step 5 — Post-Activity Review:** tester reports anything that "felt wrong" (a rotation that refused, a piece that locked too early, a hold that didn't respond).

**Specific Feedback Points:** Did any rotation near the wall surprise the tester? Did the 0.5 s lock delay feel fair or frustrating at speed? Did the displayed score match the events observed?

- **Step 1 — Preparation:** two testers, two laptops, same LAN; neither has played versus mode.

- **Step 2 — Starting Activity:** testers follow the lobby screen to connect to each other unaided (host + join).

- **Step 3 — During Activity:** play one full match; observer logs any confusion, disconnection, or garbage-row event the players don't understand.

- **Step 4 — Ending Activity:** the match ends; testers state who won and how they know.

- **Step 5 — Post-Activity Review:** paired interview — what nearly stopped you, what would you change?

**Specific Feedback Points:** Time from "open game" to "match running" without help; whether incoming garbage rows read as an attack; whether the win/lose screen is unambiguous.

---

| User | Who are they? | Why selected? | Available when? |

|------|---------------|---------------|-----------------|

| **User 1** | Year 8 student, plays mobile puzzle games, has never played Tetris | Reads the interface with fresh eyes — the learnability test can't be faked with an experienced player | Lunchtimes this week |

| **User 2** | Year 11 student, experienced Tetris player (plays online guideline Tetris) | Knows how hold, ghost and wall kicks *should* behave, so deviations from expectations surface immediately | After school Thu/Fri |

| **User 3** | Parent, plays no games, uses a laptop daily for work | Extreme-novice check on menus, controls card and game-over flow; also my weekend tester | Saturday |

**Why these users represent your target audience:** the target users are casual players on school laptops — Users 1 and 2 bracket that range (novice → expert), and User 3 tests whether the interface survives someone outside it. Users 1+2 together also form the LAN pair for Scenario 3.

---

Ask in person this week; confirm each session time by message the day before. Consent forms handed out and **signed before any session is recorded** — no consent form, no session video.

- [x] **Direct observation** (watch users during testing)

- [x] **Interviews** (verbal feedback sessions)

- [x] **Surveys/questionnaires** (structured feedback forms)

- [x] **Error logging** (track problems encountered)

**Method 1:** Observation sheet (printed, one per session) — one row per event: time, what happened, tester reaction.

**Method 2:** Post-session survey (Google Form, 10 items: 1–5 scales on clarity/controls/fun + two open questions) — link sent as the session ends.

**Method 3:** Recorded interview (audio) using the six-question interview sheet; ~5 minutes per tester.

**Method 4:** Error log (spreadsheet) — every crash, disconnect, or "that's wrong" moment with steps to reproduce.

**Comparison Method:** survey answers cross-checked against what the observation sheet actually recorded — a tester who rates controls 5/5 but fumbled hold for three pieces gets a follow-up question in the interview.

**Known Benchmarks:** final scores checked against the scoring table; gravity/level progression checked against the level formula (level = 1 + lines ÷ 10).

**External Validation:** User 2's expectations from mainstream guideline Tetris act as the reference for "standard" mechanic behaviour.

---

| Phase | Duration | Activities |

|-------|----------|------------|

| **Setup** | ½ day | Print observation sheets + controls cards, build the survey form, collect signed consent forms, test the LAN pairing on two school laptops |

| **Active Testing** | 3 days (two weekdays + Saturday) | Users 1 & 2 individually (Scenarios 1–2), Users 1+2 paired (Scenario 3), User 3 on Saturday (Scenarios 1–2) |

| **Results & Feedback** | 1 day | File raw data into the evidence folder, complete the error log, write the deviation note |

---

Two school laptops on the same LAN (versus needs both); the exported game build installed on each; any keyboard works — controls use physical key positions, not letters.

One-page controls card; consent form; the tester never sees the code or the plan.

---

- Every tester starts a solo game unaided in under 1 minute (learnability).

- All set mechanic tasks (wall-kick rotation, hold, double line clear, reach level 2) completed by Users 1 and 2.

- One full LAN versus match completes with no disconnection and an unambiguous result.

- Displayed scores match the scoring table in every observed session.

- Visual clarity and controls both average ≥ 4/5 on the survey.

- No tester abandons a session.

**What results would indicate success?** All primary measures met and the error log holds only minor items → proceed to recommendations with priorities from the survey's open questions.

**What results would require major changes?** Any crash or LAN failure, a mechanic that confused both novice testers, or scores that don't match the table → these become the top recommended modifications in the C9-3/C9-4 report.

---

- [x] **C9-1-1:** Components clearly identified for testing

- [x] **C9-1-3:** Plan targets software appearance AND outlines potential users

- [x] **C9-1-5:** Plan targets functionality AND explains why users were selected

- [x] **C9-1-7:** Plan targets functional AND non-functional requirements AND documents how results will be collected

- [x] **C9-1-9:** Test scenarios target user experience characteristics AND documentation is clear and concise

- [x] All user selections include clear rationale (**"why selected"**)

- [x] Multiple data collection methods documented (**"how collected"**)

- [x] Test scenarios focus on relevant characteristics of your software solution

- [x] Timeline is realistic for user coordination and testing

- [x] All sections completed with clear, professional information