ReseaRch and insights

My approach was to review feedback from the latest staff and student survey and gain insights. Analysis uncovered that the system did not meet user needs and was essentially abandoned by users. Support requests in JIRA were high and admin were responding to high call numbers as the system was not providing functionality for students to manage their digital communications.

I then evaluated the existing portal system and conducted comparative analysis on gateway systems and investigated new functionality and information architecture for university ecosystems.

I conducted generative research within the faculty to understand and define the problem and gain insights to inform design. This involved meeting with staff and conducting a task analysis to understand their work flow and barriers and stressors.

I analysed and synthesised data using a Thematic Analysis.

Insights - There were 3 distinct personas/users with different needs and work flows, which was the most crucial aspect to consider.

Multi-Persona Challenge - Student, Academics, Staff.

Identified the three user types and designed a service to serve vastly different audiences. Created user flows and

Navigation Taxonomy

Used an Information Triage to prioritise data and used Widgets on the Home pages to serve each audience. Designed a dashboard layout and colour scheme to suit the audience.

value proposition

Identifying Pain Creators and Pain Relievers

Value Proposition Canvas allowed me to consider opportunities for gains and understand the pains that my design fixes the problems. It helped with ideation and consider how and where to add value to the service/product.

Discovery & IDEATIOn PhASE

Brainstorming - Card Sorting and Voting exercises

Partnered with the Product Manager to plan and facilitate a workshop with the Web Services Team who received customer support calls and queries via JIRA which I believed their input would be useful during the brainstorming of a new system.

The agenda:

1) Multi-Persona Challenge 2) Navigation IA 3) Features - Widgets 4) Increasing user engagement - Personalisation

The group mostly agreed on navigation, and felt the UI reflected the university brand,

The challenge was around the features and what to include as participants became hyper focussed on adding too many features as a priority.

As the UX Design Lead, I guided them in the following ways:

1) I presented my analysis using the MoSCow framework to help prioritise features and reduce cognitive load. I was for-seeing a 'Feature Bloat' situation which would impact development.

2) Discussed Hicks Law helped the group to consider what features the users would benefit from, without increasing cognitive load.

As facilitators, we moved to the Voting excersie which narrowed the design to 5 features for each auidence group.

rapid prototyping

Development of system

We agreed that a Minimum Viable Product would be developed and worked in a Lean UX Agile manner when devloping the systen.

To ensure that the correct portal categories features were built I used the MoSCoW framework.

usability testing

Validating designs

Developed an A/B test of two designs and one variation which isolated specific features, to establish What option performed best statistically.

Tests were conducted in a Student Hub/Computer room.

First Session: Group 1/ Students x14

Second Session: Group 2/ Staff x12 (split 50/50 academics and admin)

To clarify design decisions, I wanted to understand Why the design was perceived to be better, and I explored this by conducting Post-experiement inquiry to gain insights.

User acceptance testing

Considering multiple user roles and technical skill levels

In collaboration with the Senior developer, we created a test/staging area which mirrored that of the Beta MVP.

Tests were conducted in a Student Hub/Computer room. IT support officers (colleagues) were present to address any technical issues.

First Session (AM): Group 1/ Students x19

Second Session (PM): Group 2/ Staff x16 (split 50/50 academics, technical and admin)

A consideration when testing with real users was to ensure that as a team, we included users as varying technical skill levels to uncover usability issues with sign-in process and tasks.

The goal was to ensure that the user roles could complete their daily tasks without errors. I isolated the distinct workflows of the 3 user groups and developed the pages and implemented widgets for each role.

Conclusion

Key Insights: Feedback supported my concerns of Feature Bloat and Students clarified in the interviews that they thought there were far too many features/widgets on the Student Dashboard.

1) Group 1/Students: Prioritised Blackboard system to access course content, then Real-time news within the faculty, Calenders and access to communicate with Professors and Admin.

Visually, the students liked the colour scheme and design, and found it intuitive and the targeted questions relating to navigation were positive in terms of findability.by conducting Post-experiement inquiry to gain insights.

Students wanted a Quick and Easy system as had little time to orientate themselves around a new system. I would with a mental model that matched their experience and kept the brand ing and styles consistent with the university websites.

I had recently completed a 9 month project to overhaul and re-design all faculty websites and co-ordinated with the central team with the design of templates and involved in the UXR/consultation groups and Product Owner.

The knowledge gained supported my work on this project.