The Summer Studio facilitates the transformation of cutting-edge research into design innovations that have the capacity to change the world. Bringing together interdisciplinary teams of designers, the Studio
develops and delivers design recommendations to researchers working on some of society’s most pressing challenges.
In this project my team created a “now, near, far” roadmap aimed to facilitate collaboration
and align stakeholder interests in the Drinking Water Industry, with a goal of improving the health and safety of Michigan residents over the next 10 years. To do this we applied design research methods
to conduct 70+ interviews, synthesize 2000+ data points, and ideate on our key insights. From the insights we created 4 tools that build empathy and increase collaboration between stakeholders. We validated
our tools through usability testing with key stakeholders, and created a business model for smooth integration with private sector stakeholders.
Moxxly is a female founded start-up that builds products for badass women. Their first product was a discreet, smart breast pump which released in December 2018.
At Moxxly, I was a Mechanical Engineering
Intern. In my work, I supported and co created prototypes for different types of mating components for a detachable electronic housing for the Moxxly Flow and iterated on the features. In preparation for product launch, I designed, iterated and automated testing stations using Arduinos and 3D-printed modular test fixtures and constructed test plans and protocols for manufacturers in
China. I also assisted the development of a prototype soundproof enclosure for acoustics testing to ensure the pump fixtures stayed silent.
Whirlpool Corporation (NYSE: WHR) is the world’s leading major home appliance company. The company markets Whirlpool, KitchenAid, Maytag, Consul, Brastemp, Amana, Bauknecht, JennAir, Indesit and
other major brand names in nearly every country throughout the world.
I worked on the Sustainability team in Whirlpool’s Advanced Engineering department. Part of my project was to create a 5-10
year roadmap to increase usage of solar energy. To do so I conducted a literature review to analyze usage of renewable energy in commercial households and researched emerging technology at the Purdue ReNEWW
House. From my research, I developed pathway for a DC Architecture Dishwasher by converting electronic systems and components from AC to DC, and also found that this technology could also be used to create
highly efficient battery powered appliances for power outages.
In my Junior year at Michigan my Co-founders and I started Arc Innovations, a company aimed to create and advance the technology used in non-engineering research labs at Michigan. We noticed that large research labs
lacked the coding and fabrication skills to make custom lab equipment, and would often abandon projects when they didn’t have the right tech. While at Arc, we built custom equipment to monitor fruit fly eating habits
in response to neural modulation for the Dus Neuroepigenetics Lab.
The HaptiX Lab at Umich studies and designs interfaces between human users and machines. They focus is on the mechanics that come into play when a human uses a manual control interface to control, interact with, and
effect change in
their environment.
In the Lab, I helped design a PID controller and 3D-printed a “Squeeze Band” that recreated proprioceptive feedback on amputees’ residual limbs. We collaborated
with kinesiology and neuroscience labs to test prototypes on amputees and able bodied participants. I made dynamic models in MATLAB to test the effectiveness of haptic feedback on prosthetics and developed fixtures
to improve current testing methods for prosthetics devices on able bodied and amputee participants
The goal of the SpaceX Hyperloop competition is to eventually have pods of people and cargo travel between cities at transonic speeds in a network of low- pressure tubes, while self-driving electric cars transport goods
from Hyperloop stations to their final destinations around the country
On the team, I led a small student sub-team to assure controls feasibility for the pod, and generated 3 iterations of Simulink/MATLAB
models that tracked the pod’s movement and vibrations in 6 axes of direction. I also performed thermal and operational analysis on pod’s external electronics to assure no overheating occurred in the vacuum
BLUElab India Project’s mission is to co-design sustainable, culturally appropriate technologies with people in and around Kalol, Gujarat, India to improve quality of life.
I was a part of the engineering team,
where we designed, developed, and implemented easy-to-make stoves to reduce lung cancer from smoke. To do this, we created prototypes and manufacturing plans for production of the stoves.
Founded in 2013, I’ve Got Your Back (IGYB) is a student run STEM tutoring organization at the Umich that focuses on teach students through collaboration
As President, I led a team of liaisons, tutors and study
group leaders to organize 300 students a semester. Pairing tutors with tutees, hosting review sessions, and creating student led study groups
Overview: In this project my team and I ran a large scale conjoint survey to determine if Skullcandy should expand its product line to include a true wireless earbud, and determine which
features their customer base would prefer. The team used SPSS and Excel for the analysis, using crosstabs, conjoint, factor analysis and cluster analysis to make our final decision. In the end, we found
that Skullcandy should not pursue a high end, true wireless earbud as it doesn’t fit with their target audience.
Team: Market Researcher on a team of 5
Research Methods: Survey
Design and Analysis
Tools: Qualtrics, SPSS, Excel
Timeline: September 2018 – December 2018.
The project was part of Marketing Research Design
and Analysis, a course designed to teach students how to manage the marketing research process and provide information as an input to marketing decision-making.
Key Learnings: Research
design and implementation, usage of commercial data sources, qualitative research (attitude measurement), survey methods, and the burgeoning uses of internet and web-based data.
Skullcandy is looking to expand their product line to include a true wireless earbud, and is trying to determine whether this line extension makes sense. If so, they want to determine what features their customer
base would prefer. The product should be in line with their current target demographic and market, primarily action sports and the general consumer market. They also want to maintain their brand of rebel
punk. Decision Problem: Should Skullcandy introduce true wireless headphones?
Research questions to support our decision problem:
1. How many people use the headphones that come with their phone?
2. How long do people keep their headphones?
3. Do people prefer wired, wireless, or true wireless headphones?
4. How important is sound
quality? (clarity and level of treble and bass in headphones)
5. Do people want fitness features? (heart rate, temperature, GPS, etc)
6. How important is water protection?
7. Does the shape of the
earbud affect the decision to buy a pair of headphones?
8. Is there a demand for smart features? (i.e. Alexa compatibility)
9. How much are people willing to pay for those features?
The global headphone market is expected to grow at a CAGR of ~7% from 2018-2023. As one of the top five headphone brands, Skullcandy is poised to increase its profits in the expanding market. With the earbud
segment expected to grow at a CAGR of 30%, Skullcandy can capitalize by offering a new product in the sector.
The 4 Ps for Marketing:
Product:
We define earphones as speaker units that sit within the ear and headphones as speakers with cups that sit on or over the ear connected by a headband. At the current state
a standard feature across all styles is a microphone and buttons for pause and play actions. Additional button actions include answer or hang up phone calls, move to next song or move to previous song. Smart
features include voice control and fitness features. The latter is a subjective measure, however it is often judged as one of three common sound profiles among bass-heavy, v-shaped, and flat. Aside from
sound, a common premium feature is noise cancelation, which can be active or passive.
Promotions:
Skullcandy offers three promotions:
1. Buy two, get 20% off for Smokin Buds 2 and Strum earphone products
2. General sale discounts ranging from 30% to 55% for different products
3. Free Android phone with purchase provided the customer pay $50 for the first month of service and enroll in autopay.
Price:
Placement:
Skullcandy offers products through both online and traditional retail outlets. These include general goods stores, like Amazon or Target, electronic retailers like
Best Buy, and outdoor or sporting retailers like REI.
3C’s Gut Check (Company, Customer, Competitors)
We used the 3C’s model to gut check our findings and assumptions.
We found that…
• Skullcandy’s target customers generally include cheaper younger people, people who want a colorful headphones, and - more generally - the skateboarder, surfer, rebel demographic
• Its primary target market may be fruitful, as many skateboarders and surfers live active lifestyles and could use a flexible alternative to Skullcandy’s current set of earbuds
• If Skullcandy makes an affordable product that can withstand swift movements without tangled wires getting in the way, this demographic would likely be receptive to trying it
• Many of Skullcandy’s competitors make true wireless headphones typically priced over $100.
• Skullcandy competes on price and style with other headphone brands and could do so in this category, especially given the high price point for most true wireless earbuds and the fact that many Skullcandy users
do not yet own true wireless earbuds
Conjoint
We used SPSS to build conjoint variables, and ran the survey using Qualtrics. We created a baseline of wired earphones with no features at $19.99. This left six variables
among the four categories: Connection type (wireless or true wireless), Earfit (earbud), Health Features Via App (yes), and Price ($99.99, or 199.99). Then the partworths for each of the variables were found
and those were used to determine people's willingness to pay for each feature.
Crosstabs
The crosstabs and T-test allow Skullcandy to determine which combination of variables
show significance allowing them to target specific groups for specific products. We performed these tests on 14 combinations of variables from our survey. These combinations based off the following variables:
Income, brand, ownership time, gender, time listened to per day, age, connection style, and earfit. To run the tests we used a One-way Anova or Chi-Square for each of the combination depending on whether
they were a continuous or discrete variable.
Factor Analysis
Factor analysis was performed on two sets of independent variables: first, psychographics and lifestyle, then
importance of various features. The factors were then used to in a regression of willingness to pay from the conjoint analysis.
Cluster Analysis
A cluster analysis was
performed on the four categories from our conjoint survey. This was performed twice, first creating three clusters then with four clusters. The cluster analysis utilized the K-Means technique to iterate
and find clusters.
Our raw data produced some interesting findings that helped guide our recommendations.
• 60.5% of our respondents use the headphones that come with their phone
• 37.2% of respondents keep their headphones between 6 months and a year
• 39.5% prefer having a headset that forms a seal in their ear canal
• Sound quality is the most important attribute when buying headphones followed by price
• People are willing to pay more for wireless headphones over true wireless
• Wired headphones were the least preferable
Our factor and cluster analysis validated that respondents answered consistently to the lifestyleand conjoint questions, as the lifestyle factor analysis and the cluster analysis found the same number of factors.We
created three personas:
Routine-Based Homebody Cares about health features and not about sound Quality
Media Pioneer
Passionate about true wireless, sound quality and is willing to pay for better headphones. Always on the hunt for the next
new thing
Traditional Fitness
Not worried about most quality features except for earfit, as they want comfort when they are moving
We flatly recommend that Skullcandy does not pursue a true wireless headphone at this time. As a company, Skullcandy has positioned itself as a budget-friendly, affordable brand, marketed towards the often low-income
outdoor action sports enthusiasts. These customers are not likely willing to spend more for a set of true wireless headphones.
Our primary limitation was a lack of demographic diversity. Most of the respondents to oursurvey were Marketing 618 students. As a result, nearly every respondent had the same education level, approximate age,
and income. Our team at times had trouble in finding significant results in our survey data - especially when looking at demographic data - and lack of diversity may have been a contributing factor.
Many
headphone purchasers make their decisions based on packaging, fit, and overall aesthetics. These traits are mostly visual and are difficult to describe in a survey without letting the potential customer
see them in person. While we were able to gather information about other desired qualities in headphones, design is a vital aspect that was difficult to glean from a written survey. We therefore would advise
Skullcandy to supplement this survey with focus groups among its target customers in order to better understand their desired feel and look of headphones.
Title: The Safe Drinking Water Initiative
Client: Raskin Research Group
Timeline: May 2019 - August 2019
Team: Business Researcher,
Experience Designer, and 2 Design Researchers
Role: Design Researcher
Responsibilities:
• Plan and led customer discovery, contextual inquiry, and user research processes to develop deep empathy for the user at hand
• Synthesized user research findings to distill information into the most salient insights
• Developed and implemented a communication strategy to deliver project findings and deliverables
• Articulated the customer pains and gains in order to establish clear design criteria for the project
• Shared the stories and experiences of the user throughout the process to ensure the user perspective is always front of mind
Tools: Stakeholder discovery, interviews, prototyping, validation, and data visualization
Background/Motivation for Project:
Michigan is in a national water crisis, where citizens are dealing with The Flint Water Crisis, Legionnaires’ disease, PFAS contamination, and frequent boil water advisories. In the midst of these crises, drinking
water utilities and other water professionals are working together to tackle these water quality challenges. Their role is to produce clean water, distribute it to consumers so they can use it safely for
drinking and bathing, and communicate water quality information to the public at large. Although the utilities are working to perform their roles, there is a gap in communication between the utilities, academic
professionals, and other resources. The use of these resources and academic professionals could greatly help water utilities make better and more informed decisions regarding Michigan’s water crises.
Project Goal:
The overall goal was to create a roadmap for professionals and researchers to follow in order to ensure their work improves the health and safety of all Michigan citizens.
The objectives of the project were to gather insights, understand needs, and design and test prototypes that allow end users to collaborate toward effective bridging strategies.
Approach & Methods:
The bulk of our time was spent in the early stages of the process, spending 8 weeks in the discover/define stage, iterating back and forth as we found new insights from new stakeholder interviews. We then
spent 2 weeks in the developing stage of the process and 2 weeks creating our final deliverables.
Initial Primary Research:
Initial primary research was done in the first two weeks of our discover stage consisting of a client meeting with Lut Raskin and attending two conferences. One conferences brought researchers from across
Michigan, community members, practitioners, decision-makers, and investors from the region to explore new innovations addressing water issues. The other conference brought together drinking water utilities
and university researchers to spark discussion on future collaboration. We then met with our faculty-client, where she discussed her current pain points, and solutions she had already explored. This
information was used to create a landscape map, which was used to find a cohesive and consistent view of the main organisations, stakeholders, and pain points in the industry.
Interviews:
As a team we conducted a total of 70 interviews lasting roughly 45-60 minutes and consisting of:
15
14
13
9
8
6
5
4
4
1
1
Environmental Organizations
Water Utilities
Policy Experts
University Researchers
Regulators
Professional Societies
Consultancies
Consumer Voices
Funding Foundations
Government
Official
Journalist (Media)
Synthesis:
From the 70 interviews, over 2000 data points were collected and analyzed, marking the peak of our divergence between our discovery and define stage. At this point we started converging on the knowledge
separating it into themes, points of tension, and areas of intersection. After two days we had cohesive groupings we synthesized 2000+ data points into 10 key insights. Next, “How Might We” (HMW) statements
were written for each key insights marking the end of our discover and define stage, and starting the ideate stage.
.jpg)
.jpg)
Brainstorming
We used brainwriting techniques to diverge on the HMW statements and over the course of a few days generated 8 design principles which list as follows:
1. Understand shared goals and motivations for partnership
2. Set up expectations and shared knowledge & language
3. Develop shared metrics for what constitutes success
4. Understand the needs of a project before committing
5. Strategically leverage the strengths of existing structures, gatherings, & organizations to work toward a common agenda
6. Engage each other through organized yet informal networking
7. Bring in a diverse voices of expertise early on & throughout the work
8. Dedicate time and people to build knowledge and relationships
We used a combination of these design principles and the collective impact framework to create our final deliverables.
Results
The team created a deliverable packet with 5 tools including a final insights and explanations section, a wicked problem map, an interactive stakeholder map, a key priorities tool, an opportunity map, and a recommendations
list. The deliverable packet was shared with our client, the Blue Sky Initiative, stakeholders we met at the conferences, and all of our interviewees. The information is shareable and each tool is built in a way that
can be iterated in the future.
This tool simply shows the explanations to our 10 key insights. An example of the format used to share the information is shown below:
The goal of this tool is to show the complexity of Michigan’s current drinking water industry via insights around PEST factors that contribute to the challenge of collaborating in this space.
• Political factors included domestic political climate, regulation, and legislation.
• Economic factors that affect the DWI include labor market/rates, economic effects on supply, customers, and rate changes.
• Social factors include demographic patterns, water taste, usage habits, and social attitudes and behaviors.
• Technological factors include effects of product, processes, and distribution channels.
Each block of text and its connections represent a collection of our insights from the stakeholder interviews. The tool gives examples and focuses in on the different factors as a user moves through it.
To prepare for future enhancements, we made a few recommendations to our client for upkeeping. First, keep this map updated by listening to people in each sector as interactions in the industry change. Second, build
in the ability to click on each insight or need statement to see which players should be involved to address that issue.
The goal of this tool is to clearly map the communication that occurs between key stakeholders in the drinking water industry and show areas for potential collaboration and improvement. Stakeholder profiles were made
by categorizing our interviewees based on position, work area, company, etc. Data describing the interactions between stakeholders was gathered from our interviews.
The tool is interactive and allows users to explore their own group and other groups. When clicking on a group, the user can see which other stakeholders their group interacts with. The user can click on the arrows
to get a small description of the interaction. Black arrows indicate interactions that are currently occurring between stakeholders and green arrows indicate areas for potential improvement or collaboration.
To build on this tool for the future, we recommend our clients incorporate real-world examples in each connection, make stakeholder buttons more sensitive, add interactions, and add to the stakeholder groups.
The tool was used using Google Slides, given more time, further improvements would include building a website to showcase the tool.
The Key Priorities tool was made to provide a way for stakeholders to view the key issues of diverse stakeholders groups across the drinking water industry. Stakeholders can use this tool to identify other groups
with similar priorities as themselves or use this to identify important topics to discuss at conferences, research, and put resources toward. This tool highlight similarities and differences at a general
level that people may not have known about beforehand.
When maintaining this tool, we recommend our clients incorporate ways to highlight key stakeholder groups that share the same issue so one can navigate it and get suggestions on who to reach out to in other
stakeholder groups.
The last, and most important tool we created was our opportunity map. The goal of this tool is to provide clear recommendations to stakeholders about ways to support and engage in collaborative research initiatives
between utility professionals and drinking water researchers. To do this we created a framework that combines a design process with our design principles, and shows the nuances in the process from
utility and researcher perspectives.
The tool is interactive, utility professionals and drinking water researchers can use the opportunity map to identify steps they can take to get started in collaborative research. Researchers can use the tool
to gain an understanding of the steps utility professionals will take and vice versa. Other stakeholders can see how they may contribute to the efforts by examining leverage points that express collaborative
needs. The homescreen of the tool is shown below, where each dot represents an important step in the process. Users can click on the dot to see which design principle they should be using, a recommendation
for how to move forward with collaborative research, and an example showing successful partnerships.
For the future, we recommend our client incorporate real-world examples of each step. At the end of the internship a Google Form was created asking our stakeholders about real world examples that have seen in
each step.
Recommendations:
Because the research was very exploratory, our client did not give us a timeline for implementing the roadmap. To help guide the stakeholders to fit this vision, we created a “Now, Near, Far” set of recommendations.
1. In the short term (“Now”) we recommend our client and other stakeholders get familiarized with the collaboration tools. This would be anywhere from a few months to a couple years. Next, identify potential gaps in current spaces and opportunities to disseminate. Using the tools will help users see gaps in their current processes and areas where they can reach out to others for collaboration.
2. For the near future (“Near”), we first recommend that the client and stakeholders integrate these findings into their current and future work to create backbone support for better collaboration. An example is including this work/tools in conference presentations and when writing academic or grey literature.
3. In the far future, we recommend that stakeholders continuously reflect and assess collaborative efforts in each project they complete.
Overview
Title: Usability Evaluation for ProPublica’s Miseducation Tool
Client: ProPublica is an independent, nonprofit news organization that seeks to “expose abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust by government, business, and other institutions” through
the use of investigative journalism.
Problem: ProPublica has asked our team to run a usability evaluation on Miseduction to optimize its design for future iterations of this product and similar future products.
Product: The Miseducation tool is an interactive database that visualizes US Department of Education data to highlight racial disparities in discipline and educational opportunity
within public and charter schools across the United States. The database allows users to find and understand data at the national, state, district and school levels, and compare that data with other states,
districts and schools nearby that differ in poverty rate and percentage of non-white students. The goal of the Miseducation project is to make racial disparity data in educational institutions easier to access
such that those with the ability to create or incite change can use this as a resource to do so.
Role: UX Researcher on a team of 4
Timeline: 4 months, Jan 2018 - April 2018
Client Goals:
1. Understand how the application could be most useful for individuals seeking to create change in our community
2. Establish a baseline understanding of the current use of the application
Research Methods
Interviews:
In our first client meeting with the managers of Miseducation, they identified 4 user groups
With the users given, we conducted 4 user interviews, and later interviewed the developers of the tool.
After synthesizing our interview data and curating personas from this data, it became clear that each of the target users identified by ProPublica originally did not have as much of a proclivity for using the Miseducation tool as we thought. They all had developed their own best practices for seeking out and collecting data and given the specific dataset used in this tool, it wasn’t large enough to compete with the tools they already have established.
Meanwhile, our Stakeholder interview offered another route to explore - millennial and generation z individuals who are closer to the K-12 experience and might use this tool to spark conversation and incite change through the sharing of social media. We focused the rest of our research on exploring this group of users aged 18-35.
After conducting interviews, we utilized five additional research methods to understand this new population: Comparative Evaluation, Survey, Heuristic Evaluation, Card Sorting, and Usability Testing
Comparative Evaluation:
For our comparative evaluation we compared the Miseducation project to Indirect, Partial, Analogous, and Parallel competitors which allowed us to understand how the Miseducation Project stacks up to other sites
with similar functionality in three main areas:
• Search
• Data visualization
• And presentation of methodology/data sources
The team found that many sites lacked or had limited comparison metric options, and that explanation of content, portrayed information, and maps are key to a clear user understanding & use of the tool. We also
found that missing information or broken links affects the trust of the website.
Surveys:
A survey was conducted to better understand how our new target population of 18-35 year olds use the site. By recruiting from our individual networks, posting in Facebook groups, and utilizing the power of ProPublica’s
twitter, we were able to get 265 respondents to the survey and utilize that data to understand how 18-35 year olds...
• Find their news
• Which platforms they use to share the news they find with others
• And see if there is any correlation between having an awareness of racial disparities and frequency and methods individuals use to share news with others
With this research technique we found that individuals aged 18-35 are most likely to source their news through social media, websites, and podcasts. We also found that news consumption and the sharing of news is
something the target audience engage in on a regular basis. Also, individuals share news in personalized way.
Heuristics Evaluation
We utilized Nielsen’s 10 heuristics to identify potential usability issues before conducting full usability tests with actual users. To do this, members of our group compared Miseducation features with Nielsen’s
heuristics, giving scores (1-5) on how the tool embodies each one. When convening, we shared our experience with the tool and gave final scores.
In particular, we were testing how easily users aged 18-35 were able to
• access their school data on the miseducation website
• compare that with state & district data
• and then share that data with others on social media
We separated our findings into 3 levels of usability issues:
1. Usability Catastrophes
User Control & Freedom and Aesthetic & Minimalist Design heuristics
2. Major Usability Problems
Consistency & Standards and Flexibility & Efficiency of Use
3. Minor Usability Problems
Visibility of System Status, Match between Systems and Real World and Recognition versus Recall
Card Sorting:
We utilized card sorting with seven users aged 21-30 to understand how they would layout the Miseducation website given just the headers and statistical labels on the website. An example of the layouts given are
shown here.
From this method, we found how participants from our target audience organize and arrange headings and statistic labels from the Miseducation website. Key findings from this test include:
• Some terms are confusing, ie. Inexperienced teachers, Chronically absent teachers, Average AP courses, Credit Recovery Program, Non-white students
• Category Ranking Consensus , ie. Racial Divide, Outcomes and Resources, Opportunity, Teachers and Resources, Discipline
• Students section didn’t make any sense to participants
Usability Tests
The team conducted usability tests with seven participants, two of which also took part in the card sorting activity. Participants ranged in age from age 21 to 32 and represented a variety of races, spanning the
range of Miseducation’s target audience. Questions and survey responses are shown in the screenshot.
After the completion of the tasks, participants were asked to complete a questionnaire to gather more information on their thoughts about the tasks and Miseducation. From this final test, we found that…
1. Participants found it frustrating to search names of their school, it had to be exact.
2. Navigating through district and school information is difficult without a clear visual path
3. Finding specific statistics and information took longer than expected, and irritated users
4. Participants did not understand how to use the comparison feature and we frustrated that they couldn’t pick what statistics to compare
5. Participants couldn’t figure out how they could share the information on Miseducation, but they had the desire
6. Participants were unaware of the features available to them within the interactive map
Findings and Recommendations
Finding #1: According to our survey we learned that users aged 18-30 are most likely to find their news via social media platforms, websites, and podcasts, but will share their news via more
personalized outlets such as word of mouth, text, and direct message.
We also found in our usability test that when users went to share this data the majority of them searched for share buttons, and when they weren’t able to find them, resorted to screenshotting or linking to
the data via text and email.
Recommendation #1: in concert with finding number one is to spread the word about the Miseducation project, ProPublica should utilize podcasts and social media campaigns if they’re looking to
reach users aged 18-30
In order to better facilitate conversation among millennials and gen z regarding these statistics, the Miseducation project should add a share button to each page, and make it even easier to share by text or
direct message by auto-populating a template that neatly packages the data
Finding #2: Many users found the search functionality confusing.
Recommendation #2: Improve search functionality by providing:
• Predictive search
• A results page when the user hits enter
• Clarity that the search options can be scrolled through
Finding #3: The informational architecture and some design choices made digesting the information difficult for many users
Recommendation #3:
Improve information clarity by providing:
• Consistent, bolder style for text and buttons
• Hover-over text with descriptions for confusing terms
• Ability to toggle on and off statistics so less are displayed all at once
Finding #4:Users want to be able to compare specific schools/districts and statistics.
Recommendation #4: This final recommendation is two-fold:
1. Offer a comparison tool that allows users to select their own school/district/state etc. to compare it to.
2. Allow for side by side comparison of all statistics, not just the ones that ProPublica chooses for the user, or provide high level summaries.
Prototypes:
Reflection
While we feel strongly about the findings and recommendations we have identified, there are a few weaknesses in our data collection. Our interviews were conducted with users who didn’t end up in our final user groups (18-30-year-olds)
for which we conducted the vast majority of our research. As such, we weren’t able to create personas or scenarios for this audience. While we were able to get a lot done in a small amount of time, we had small sample
sizes. Also, we were only able to conduct the card sort and usability tests with Michigan residents, which is not a representative sample of who would use the tool. Finally, for our survey, given that we got most of
our respondents through ProPublica’s twitter feeds, the survey respondents are likely strongly biased to using social media for news.
Next Steps:
Given all of this information, We have three suggested next steps for further research
• ProPublica could consider conducting focus groups with 18-35 year olds to further understand if the use of the miseducation tool would incite action among that population
• ProPublica could also replicate the card sorts and usability tests with a larger, more representative sample of participants
• Finally, ProPublica could utilize our findings as a guideline for features to include or change for future news applications.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur.
Use this area to describe your project. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Est blanditiis dolorem culpa incidunt minus dignissimos deserunt repellat aperiam quasi sunt officia expedita beatae cupiditate, maiores repudiandae, nostrum, reiciendis facere nemo!