Original Project: August to December 2018
Second Iteration: October 2019
Tools Used: Paper and Pen, Sketch, Adobe Illustrator, Recording Devices
Research and Evaluation: I led the initial user interview design and the final user testings design. I have worked with the whole group to support all research and analyzing activities, such as conducting interviews and user testings, recording, and transcribing the activities throughout the entire project cycle. Finally, I took charge of giving design recommendations after carefully analyzing the testing results with the group.
Design: I helped with the initial ideation process and supported the leading designer on interface design and labeling user flows throughout the project.
Iteration: Since our project ended with some design recommendations, I wanted to work on improving the overall designs and also want to see how much I have grown as a UX designer. I evaluated and improved on the original designs and conducted some heuristic evaluation sessions on the new iteration.
"Focus Brands is made up of independent brands/units that are all targeting the similar consumer groups. Research is being conducted that is redundant, while simultaneously, decisions are being made without any research. Focus Brands would like to figure out the best way to create a repository that can easily be accessed across the company for employees to find data related to potential business decisions."
By observing people going through the existing system, we hoped to:
We hoped to use the tasks observed to conduct a preliminary task analysis and performance estimations to establish a baseline. Additionally, we believed the remote observations might highlight implicit constraints that influence users' behaviors.
We realized that we needed to gain more insight into the different kinds of users who interact with the current research storage system. Since user needs and expectations may vary between users who occupy different roles, we want to make sure we capture as much breadth of the research experience to incorporate into our final design. Specifically, we want to gain understandings of:
We performed a hierarchical analysis to understand better and organize the different processes users go about retrieving and sharing research files in the context of creating a new research project using the current research repository. We also hope to learn the following questions:
We organized our data into an affinity map to identify common themes and behaviors between users. This process of data analysis would also allow us to separate information gathered about user aspirations (i.e., user's wants) from information about the status quo, leading to a more honest analysis of the problem space.
We also conducted a competitive analysis on the multiple platforms in use at Focus Brands to better understand the use cases and structure of each platform.
To gain a better understanding of our user group, we began to map out the data that we captured, including quotes, thoughts, feelings, and actions of people we interacted with.
We first created a set of sketches of feature ideas to address some of the common pain points we found in our data. Here you can see a few representations of our initial ideas. We had some ideas around searching for files, organizing files, and even thought about a dashboard interface and notifications for managing files.
Our solution is an add-on pack of features that would fit into existing platforms in use at Focus Brands. We wanted to utilize the existing infrastructure to eliminate the difficulty of learning interactions on an entirely new platform. We have divided the solutions into near-term and long-term user flows.
When the user runs the search, results are returned in a list format. The user can then single click on a file to get a content preview window, which gives a short excerpt of the file's contents. This interaction also works to get people's contact cards and showing a file/folder's access.
To address some of the frustrations we saw surrounding access of a file, we came up with a process for requesting access in the file list view.
The administrator can then accept or reject that request in their notifications, as indicated by the bell icon in the top right corner of the screen.
A user would add files and folders to the platform. They are presented with a window where they can tag the file to provide some brief contextual information and strengthen search results and suggestions by the system. They can also specify where the file should live and who should have access to that file.
We also wanted to improve on the current search behavior within each platform since it was a commonly used technique for finding relevant files with the users we spoke with. Here the user can enter a few keywords to search on, as well as filter their search across a date range, file type, and brand.
To relieve some of the burdens of managing a standard file structure, we had the idea of implementing an auto-organizer. This would identify files that appeared to be out of place based on their associated tags and suggest new locations for those files.
The user would then select which suggestions they would like to carry out by clicking the checkmark next to that file, hit movie, and then the organizer would carry out that move. Recommendations would continue to populate in this list until the organizer has gone through all of the files in the selected folder.
Although our sample size of participants was small, the scores gathered through the SUS and TLX surveys show that there were necessary improvements to be made across the entirety of our prototype.
Our recommendations for improvements to our proposed system are listed below:
The access point and the state for each feature was arbitrary (pop-ups and sidebars); thus it gave the user a hard time to navigate through their desired functions.
We organized a new spatial model and placed all main functionalities in a more permanent display (side-panel), and others can be more of an interstitial state.
On the folder view screen, we used a lighter grey to indicate the folders that users do not have access to. However, since we used a darker grey for regular files, it does not provide the users with enough color contrast to tell the difference, especially for users who are suffering from visual impairments and color blindness.
We realized that the text and icons for search results screen are very small to read. It is hard to even for users with normal vision abilities to read through the information presented. As we observed from the evaluation sessions, users were often leaning their heads towards the screen to try to identify the texts.
Made sure users can change display to facilitate their visual needs.
When we asked the users to search for a file, many users would ignore the search bar on the top left. Instead, they wanted to go into the folders and try to find the files. Although we introduced this new search feature into the system, it would be ineffective if users are not using it.
Improve the discoverability of advanced search to encourage users' searching behavior.
The folders lack a preview functionality, unlike files in the system. Folders, albeit different from files, afford certain features that parallel files'.
Rearranging preview window and adding preview for folders.
There were a lot of confusions around the auto-organizer due to the fact that it relies on new technology and is foreign to the users.
Uncovering the automation process, giving users more visibility of what's going on in the process and giving users more manual controls throughout the process.
Users were concerned about what happens after they hit the "Reject" button, as:
Guide users to write messages alongside with the request/reject.