UX Development- Srishti Sign-Up System Case Study

Page 1

Redesigning the College Course Sign Up System A project by Aditi Singh, Divya Jakhotya, Nikhita Suzanne and Shubhangini Dhall


The Brief Redesign the existing ‘course sign up system’ for Srishti Institute of Art Design and Technology to improve USABILITY and EASE OF USE, using current and available digital technologies and systems.


Problem statement The current signup system is stressful and cumbersome, how might we intervene to provide a systematic and seamless experience?


What users (students) do today -

Problem points highlighted VeriďŹ ed by primary research


Research planning

1 What are our larger research questions and themes?

Research goal

User journey (can there be a customised + systematic experience), emotions throughout the journey, transparent preference system, first time users (can certain aspects be self explanatory?)

● ●

Understand the current pain points Understand desires and expectations of all stakeholders

User groups ● ● ●

2nd and 3rd year students(primary users) Academic deans / course leaders Faculty

What research methods do we plan to use? Primary research- User interviews for first hand qualitative data Secondary research- Internet, looking for existing products and examples


Secondary Research For our Secondary Research, we: (i) Looked through the Existing Srishti Website to identify ‘Management and Deans’ and ‘Faculty’ as well as understand their roles in the existing Course Sign Up System (ii) Searched online for existing Course Sign Up Systems On the basis of our findings, we: (i) Wrote down a set of questions to be asked to the Stakeholders of the current System- Srishti students, Faculty, Course Managers, Associate Deans (ii) Drafted emails to Manjari Singh (Dean, 2nd Year), Mary Jacob (Dean, 3rd Year), Srivi Kalyan (Associate Dean, IAIDP), Nawaz Aman (HEd Coordinator) and Santhanam (Head of IT) seeking an appointment for interviews (iii) Contacted Students from other Colleges to understand how their Course Sign Up Systems work


Primary Research For our Primary Research, we conducted User Interviews with (i) Srishti Students (6 in number) (ii) Interviewed Manjari Singh (Dean, 2nd Year), Mary Jacob (Dean, 3rd Year), Srivi Kalyan (Associate Dean, IAIDP), Nawaz Aman (HEd Coordinator) (iii) Students of other Colleges (4 in number) Each Interview was audio recorded for transcribing purposes with the consent of the interviewees.


Primary Research Some of the Questions we asked Stakeholders, respectively


Research analysis Noted relevant data points Generated insights Grouped insights for top ďŹ ndings Generated opportunity areas


Research Analysis


Insights Grouping the data points under broader categories

-Understanding the System -Sign Up Procedure -Counselling and Student Initiative -Information Architecture -Course Booklet: Content and Expectations -Course Booklet: Visual Layout -Digitising Platforms -Conict Resolution -Time Management -Scope for Human Error -Assigning Faculty

Colour-coding Stakeholders’ Data Points

Students CCA coordinator Academic heads/deans GS facilitator Other sign up systems- external interviews


Insights Example of Insight Grouping Digitising platforms

Students

-

Automatic credit calculation system in registration platform

-

Uninterested in new developments in the sign up system, used to existing system

-

Offline because it gives time for consideration, online can be stressful because of the fcfs basis, also gives time for discussion, get feedback and cross check it

CCA coordinator Academic heads/deans

-

Prefers digital sign up sheet to be able to edit easily

GS facilitator

-

Wants an easier way to calculate credits and keep track of them

Other sign up systems- external interviews

-

Online CCA portal has reduced the collation of data

Conflict Resolution -

Multiple questions about the same thing come at different times, explaining the same thing over and over again becomes redundant

-

Speed of resolving issues has not changed from paper to online sign ups

-

The follow up process for students who have not signed up is tedious


Top findings Orientation

Consideration

Submission

No induction process for any first-time users, course leaders and students.

Srishti students find that both the content and the visual layout of the course booklet lead to confusion.

No immediate feedback for students when they fill the sign-up sheets.

All information regarding sign-ups is not on one platform, multiple rounds of collating and cross-checking information manually.

There is no clear and transparent system for unit preferences.

All stakeholders (academic team, course managers and students) are not on the same page and pressed for time.

Mismatch of expectations with a unit base on abstracts for both students and faculty. There is no platform for conflict resolution and accommodation of students who are dissatisfied with their courses. There is a need for counselling; student initiative is expected.

Digital interface has made GS and CCA sign up process smoother.


Opportunity areas Orientation How might we-

Introduce ďŹ rst-time students into the system effectively Facilitate ease of use and understanding Make the system transparent

Consideration

Submission

How might we-

How might we-

Ensure that time is managed

Integrate all information

Avoid repeated collation and reduce processing

Improve conict resolution

Reduce load on the facilitator, course manager Ensure that there is no gap between digital and physical interaction and communication amongst stakeholders


Design Directions -

Induction Process: Designing a Workshop and set of Instruction Videos with the help of existing Associate Deans, Course Leaders and Senior Students to effectively induct first-time users into the current Sign Up System. Course List: Redesigning the Course List in order to segregate information effectively and increase readability and understanding. Additionally, the Course Abstracts will be rewritten to include Capabilities and Themes of a Course as Keywords. Sign Up Sheet/ Page: Creating a new Sign Up web page/ portal/ sheet that increases ease of understanding. Conflict Resolution: Creating a specific Platform dedicated to Conflict Resolution so that Faculty does not encounter Students’ Queries through multiple platforms such as email/ blackboard/ phone Universal Platform: Designing a Single Platform that integrates Timetable Drafting, Counselling, Timetable Verification, Timetable Submission and Conflict Resolution in order to streamline the entire Sign Up Process and ensure that all Resources can be found in one place.

Finalised Design Direction: Universal Platform


System that emerges from our IDEATION -

Rapid ideation Grouping everyone’s individual ideas Overall system Selected use cases


Use cases -

Information architecture of chosen use cases


Prototype Link to testable prototypehttps://xd.adobe.com/view/7767b0b6-aefa-450e-69a6-ce9013a96a1b-0156/


Sketches


Sketches


Low ďŹ delity wireframes for Query use case


Research for Digital Prototype FontsExisting college website-

Colour inspiration-


Prototype screens Query use case

Mock Instruction Video:

https://youtu.be/ex5FfzWQQMI


Prototype screens Timetable drafting use case

Mock Instruction Video:

https://youtu.be/2GF0nSEIMLo


What methods are we planning to employ?

Usability Test Planning Test goal ● ● ●

understand the level of usability see if user can make out the sequence of screens (information architecture) get an overall idea of whether our intervention helps in simplifying the sign up process

User groups ● ● ●

2nd and 3rd year B.Des students (primary users) Academic Deans / Course Leaders Faculty

We would use a combination of Guerrilla testing, Cognitive Walkthrough and Observation. We would also provide a task statement for them to start off with. This would be moderated testing. How are we planning to collect and document the feedback? We are planning to record a video of the user interacting with our product in hopes of being able to refer back and analyse emotions, confusions, etc that we can build on at a later stage.

Use cases TASK 1 : Draft your timetable. TASK 2 : You have a course related

query, how would you seek answers?


Questions To students -

Which of the two cases facilitated a smooth ow of working in your opinion? Why? Can you recall which aspects (actions, clicks) you found most confusing? What took you the longest to ďŹ gure out? Do you think this could ease the process of Sign Ups? Why? What aspects of the intervention made you think so?

To Faculty -

Do you think the interface could make the Sign Up process easier to explain? Would this reduce the load on faculty? Why? What aspects of the intervention made you think so? According to you, what are the most important aspects of the Sign Up process?


Testing Sessions Nivedita, 2nd Year HCD

Glena, 3rd Year BSSD

Time taken to complete Sign Up pathway: 2m 30s

Time taken to complete Sign Up pathway: 58s

Time taken to complete Query pathway: 54s

Time taken to complete Query pathway: 32s


Testing Sessions Shriya, 2nd Year IADP

Ayushi, 2nd Year CE

Time taken to complete Sign Up pathway: 49s

Time taken to complete Sign Up pathway: 51s

Time taken to complete Query pathway: 28s

Time taken to complete Query pathway: 39s


Testing Sessions Snehal, 2nd Year IADP | Abir, 2nd Year PSD

Ipsita, 2nd Year VCSB

Time taken to complete Sign Up pathway: 3m 30s

Time taken to complete Sign Up pathway: 2m

Time taken to complete Query pathway: 1m 34s

Time taken to complete Query pathway: 2m 25s


Testing Sessions Tulip, Facilitator IADP

RocĂ­o, Course Manager HCD


Feedback Overview From Students (7 no.) -

All Students felt that there was no clear indication of next / how to proceed All Students said that they understood the flow of the Query pathway better than the Sign Up pathway All Students said that FAQs made it easy to categorise doubts All students appreciated step by step process / grouping of information 4 out of 7 Students did not understand what ‘Verify’ stood for 2 out of 7 Students felt that physical confirmation is required (i.e sheets of paper to handle) 6 out of 7 Students said that the ‘Preferences’ / ‘Favourites’ page made prioritising Units easier There were moments of hesitation as ‘Hearts’ and ‘Clocks’ took some time to understand The journey from ‘Favourites’ to the timetable was cumbersome The credit calculator in the Sign Up pathway was not apparent, neither were the constraints (minimum/ maximum credits for majors/ minors/ electives)


Feedback Overview From Facilitator -

-

-

The ‘Preferences’/ ‘Favourites’ page made things easier and helped in prioritising units. At least 2 time tables need to be drafted in order for a Counsellor to evaluate a Student’s learning path The permutations and combinations of a Student’s time table takes up most of a course manager’s time. Constraints (minimum/ maximum credits, mandatory courses, ‘locked’ courses) were not apparent in the intervention. Did not understand what ‘Verify’ stood for The segregation of ‘Major’, ‘Minor’ and ‘Elective’ was not apparent in the Course List The inclusion of keywords in the Course List could bridge the gap of awareness regarding a unit between a Student and a Facilitator


Feedback Overview From Course Manager -

-

-

The headings of the Query categories are not descriptive enough The FAQs filter out a lot of redundant questions The ‘email’ option is not very apparent Confusion regarding which of the two faculty listed on the screen to send e-mail to As there are no clear examples of what a time table should look like, or what an email to a facilitator should state, it is difficult to know what to expect The Instruction videos are a necessity There are no indications of an action being successfully completed apart from when one moves on to the next stage Did not understand what ‘Verify’ stood for? The Query pathway was more intuitive than the Sign Up pathway In the Sign Up pathway, the logic behind chunking and separating information is understandable, but the interface does not make it apparent


Possible Refinements -

Schedule Builders in which you ‘lock’ certain courses (for example, mandatory courses) and give your unit preferences. On this basis, three timetables are generated, which can then be sent to concerned faculty to review (please refer to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e34OYZ_o3U4&feature=youtu.be)

-

Credit Calculator with Constraints (minimum/ maximum credits)

-

Rename ‘Verify’ as ‘Send to Faculty’

-

Search bar for FAQs to reduce the frustration from scrolling through the list

-

Only ONE facilitator’s e-mail ID should be displayed on the screen

-

Progress bar on top of each page indicating how much of the process has been completed and how much remains incomplete

-

Option to delete course names from the favourites list


Possible Refinements -

Priority list and mandatory courses to be mentioned first in the course list

-

Making Breadcrumbs clickable

-

Universal Navigation System

-

Making Components (buttons, icons) more apparent

-

‘Favourites’ page itself shows selection of Course instead of additional ‘Preferences’ Screen

-

‘Checking out’ Finalised Courses

-

Grouping FAQs under bigger themes to increase clarity and avoid scrolling


Learnings “Lubricating the channels of communication�


Learnings Student

Delegation of Responsibility How can each Stakeholder take appropriate accountability for their actions?

-Prioritising Courses -Arranging Timetable -Peer discussions -Counselling (only with Course Leader in room)

Associate Dean -Deciding Curriculum -Passing message on to Course Leader -Drafting Year Calendar -Assigning Faculty

Course Leader -Writing Course Abstracts -Negotiating for Classes -Leading Sign Up Process -Counselling Students -Inputting Students’ names into each Course

Facilitator -Understanding Curriculum and Crafting Courses -Providing Counselling if approached by Student


Learnings Information Architecture What is the most logical progression of Information presented to the Student in order to not overwhelm them?

Step by Step Process -Distributing Process on multiple Screens -Lesser time spent on each Screen so lesser frustration

Sequence -Multiple elements; prioritising which to present ďŹ rst -Thought process of Student while Signing Up; what actions follow a decision


Learnings Low-fi Wireframing

Ideating Converting ideas to Paper Wireframes and then proceeding to make a Digital Prototype.

-Chalking down Screens based on Information Architecture -Highlighting important features of the Platform -Trying to ensure intuitivity

Navigation and Components -Common Components (‘Home’) -’Next’, ‘Back’; how does a user move through Platform -Improving Ease of Use

Adobe XD -’Design’ mode and ‘Prototype’ mode -Connecting icons to Screens -Breadcrumbs


Learnings Creators v/s Researchers

Observer Effect How do we avoid forced positive reactions from Evaluators due to the presence of an Observer?

-Creators’ bias projected onto Evaluators -Forced positive reactions from Evaluators once they know that the Creator is observing them

Documentation -Camera Consciousness; Evaluators distracted from Task

Suggestions -Evaluators go off on a Suggestion tangent -Try to come up with their own Intervention; distracted from Task


Documentation




TEAM L-R: Divya Jakhotya, Nikhita Suzanne, Shubhangini Dhall and Aditi Singh


Thank You


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.