User Experience Research Projects

Reducing Clutter in the Student Buff Portal

Background

The University of Colorado Boulder (UCB) provides students with a tile-based portal that allows them to access all of their online tools from one location. The students had provided feedback through surveys and interviews that the portal was too cluttered. There were 61 descriptions of clutter in the survey results, which included issues of consistency, organization, and categorization of the tiles. In 2020, the development team asked me to suggest ways they might address students’ concerns about clutter.

Action

The survey and interview feedback from students gave me a sense of the scope of the problem, so for my next steps, I decided to conduct a review of literature to see what other researchers and designers have done to identify and address interface clutter. I synthesized my findings into two categories: definitions of clutter, and strategies for reducing clutter. Next, keeping in mind the literature review, I conducted a heuristic review to suggest changes to ameliorate clutter.

Results

My heuristic review recommended that the development team:

• Clarify the function a tile might provide (some were simply providing information while others could complete a task).

• Change the way they arranged the tiles on the screen to follow easily discernible patterns.

• Allow students to filter the view of the tiles they see to reduce the amount of extraneous, distracting tiles they had to cognitively process.

The design team decided to address clutter by allowing users to designate a tile as one of their favorites. This allowed users to filter their view and see only the tiles that they wanted to at one time. In testing, students rated their satisfaction with favoriting:

• Overall — 6.9 (7.0 is best)

• Ease of use — 6.4 (7.0 is best)

• Helpfulness — 5.8 (7.0 is best).

Improving the Usability of Chemistry Concept Videos

Background

The Learn ChemE team at the University of Colorado Boulder has amassed over 17,000 instructional videos on chemistry concepts, which have been viewed over 15 million times. Students can watch these videos on their own time, pause them, and re-watch them until they understand the concepts. In 2012, as part of a NSF grant proposal, the team asked me to conduct an inquiry to describe how the videos were used and to see if they could improve the quality of their videos.

Action

In 2015 I worked with my research team of Mark Gammon and Kate Allison to conduct a mixed-methods inquiry including analytics reports, surveys, interviews, and usability tests. We analyzed analytics reports from Apple’s iTunes University and YouTube to gain a macro sense of how the videos were used, including which videos were popular, where they were accessed, and how long people viewed them. We examined the comments posted below the videos as well to look for hints about issues with quality and usability. Next we interviewed faculty members and surveyed students to determine how and why they used the videos. Finally, we ran 11 usability tests on CU Boulder chemical engineering students. We selected the most popular videos that were relevant to their studies. After each usability test, we prompted students with cued recalls to ask what happened when they appeared to struggle with the video. Based on all the data collected, we made several recommendations for improving the videos.

Results

You can find our full report on our findings here. A few examples of our recommendations were to:

• Keep the length of videos between three and five minutes, but no more than 10.

• Vary the pace of the videos. Use a crisp cadence for general narration and overview, but slow down for difficult concepts, and to give students time to think.

• Encourage students to pause the video and think at key points before continuing.

• Prioritize high quality audio.

• Include explicit statements connecting concepts, linking to other videos, and forecasting the content to come.

The research team received our report and has implemented many of our recommendations.

Improving A Library Commons Space Through User Input

Background

In 2012, the administration of the University of Colorado Boulder (UCB’s) Norlin Library asked me to help them understand how their patrons were using the library’s information commons, and suggest changes to the commons and to the services offereed there. The commons had been open for three years, and they surmised that enough time had passed to learn from patterns of use.

Action

I collaborated with Mark Mabbett, the librarian in charge of the commons to conduct a participatory design study. We interviewed 13 patrons who were using the commons on two separate days. We asked them about the environment in the commons, how well it supported teaching and learning, and we asked for their opinion of the technologies available in the commons. We walked alongside them through the commons and stopped at ten locations. At each stop, we asked what they liked about that area of the commons, what they disliked, and what they would change about it. We recorded photos and written notes at each stop. We then compiled and analyzed the interview responses as well as the photos and comments. We produced a report and then shared our initial findings with the library administrators.

Results

In the full report we outline the following themes. Patrons:

• Like the Norlin Library information commons. However, it is too crowded at times. 

• Want to know the full range of services that are available to them. 

• Are interested in a range of consultations on technologies. 

• Enjoy being able to checkout study rooms and technologies, and would like to reinstate the laptop checkout service, which had been recently retired.

Based on our findings, and the subsequent interviews of library administrators, we recommended that the library administration should:

• Consider repurposing existing spaces to add more chairs and tables.

• Consolidate two information desks into one, and enhance the services available at that desk.

• Strategically advertise all commons services with a renewed vigor.

We also used this experience as an opportunity to share our unique method of inquiry with a nationwide community of library researchers. This was published in Chapter 4 of an edited volume of participatory design studies.