UX Designer
Writing Toolkit
Web Product Design
PERSONAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Served as team communicator and meeting facilitator:
-
Coordinated room bookings.
-
Scheduled and set up meetings to keep the team aligned and organized.
Conducted user interviews with two key stakeholders:
-
Gained insights into the challenges Writing Program Administrators (WPAs) face, particularly in adaptability and crisis planning.
Synthesized research findings to guide design decisions building adaptable writing programs.
Led discussions to clarify team goals and ensure alignment.
Created prototypes using Figma:
-
Developed low-fidelity and mid-fidelity prototypes.
-
Designed a toolkit to support WPAs in building adaptable writing programs.
Overview
PROCESS
Secondary Research
Primary Research
Ideation
Sketching & Wireframes
Mid-fi Prototypes
desk review, user journey mapping
interviews, task analysis
prioritization matrix
whiteboarding
figma prototyping
BACKGROUND
This project aims to create an online toolkit for new and under-resourced Writing Program Administrators (WPAs). By creating a toolkit, we aim to equip administrators to confidently navigate uncertainties like pandemics and budget changes. The toolkit offers crisis planning, assessment advocacy, outreach strategies, and fosters adaptable writing education programs. It empowers administrators to proactively tackle challenges, streamline solutions, and share best practices across diverse contexts.
Why are Writing Program Administrators important?
Provide Resources
Supervise
Support
English Department Faculty
Problem Space
How might we design a web toolkit that centralizes resources and effectively supports the unique needs of WPAs?
Main Goals
Create a resource that supports WPAs in their current work
Streamline resources to help facilitate crisis management
Improve communication between WPAs
Secondary Research
We began by studying the National Census of Writing to grasp the roles of writing program administrators. Then we examined our sponsor's dissertation to identify challenges, leading us to create a user journey map highlighting current gaps.
User Journey Map
The goal of this user journey map was to highlight gaps in our stakeholders’ journey to help our team further grasp what WPAs do on a given task and in which areas we need to learn more.
-
Explored scenario: In one example, a WPA contacting another WPA revealed gaps in engaging with resources and uncertainties in sharing experiences.
-
We used insights to develop an interview protocol focused on communication, strengths/weaknesses, and crisis management.
User Journey Map to identify any gaps
Primary Research
Interviews
We first conducted interviews with current WPAs. Our goal was to investigate how our stakeholders communicate with other WPAs, navigate challenges, and fulfill their roles while also highlighting current strengths and weaknesses.
-
Goal: Drive our user journey and understand their current process for connecting and supervising.
-
Conducting: Throughout our interviews, we inquired about their current communication methods, day-to-day processes, and strategies for overcoming challenges.
-
Insights: Our three interviewees shared similar pain points but had different ways of addressing their needs.
Main Takeaways
-
No sustainable means of communication between WPAs.
-
No single source for all resources WPAs need.
Task Analysis
We conducted a task analysis to understand how our users currently complete tasks and identify potential pain points in their workflow.
-
Main issue: Communication gaps among WPAs.
-
Overlapping tasks: Professional development and studying writing and rhetoric.
-
Designing questions and identifying gaps in WPA mentorship prompted us to create a priority matrix workshop.
Troubleshooting and crisis management
Troubleshooting and crisis management
Resources for instructors
All of our tasks were leading back to the main overarching problem
involving communication between WPA’s
Prioritization Matrix
We conducted a prioritization matrix activity with three of our WPA stakeholders. In this activity we had our stakeholders rank different activities, features, and tasks that we found through our research as high value, high urgency, low urgency, and low value. This allowed us to see which features were most important for our prototype.
Me conducting this activity with one of our stakeholders
We color-coded each feature to help easily distinguish how sticky notes of the
same color vary across the chart from both stakeholders
Key Findings
-
Quadrant I (High Urgency & High Value):
-
Priority features: Crisis Communication Plans, Advocacy, Streamlining resources.
-
Emphasizes the need for immediate inclusion in the design.
-
-
Quadrant II (High Urgency & Low Value):
-
Urgent but low-value: Troubleshooting one-on-one needs.
-
Acknowledged but not prioritized in favor of high-urgency, high-valued aspects.
-
-
Quadrant III (Low Value & Low Urgency):
-
Low priority: Explaining programs, external links, FAQ.
-
Deemed least important with no immediate implementation needed.
-
-
Quadrant IV (High Value & Low Urgency):
-
Valued but not urgent: Communication forum, mentoring tool.
-
Recognized as high-value, requiring time for development.
-
Our research into the Writing Program Administrators experience revealed that existing tools don’t fully support their complex roles.
What if WPAs had a one-stop resource hub that evolved with their needs?
Creating a Solution
In our first sketch session, inspired by insights from interviews, our team generated ideas, reviewed sketches on Figma, ideated on sketches, and started wireframing based on design questions and group insights.
Sketching
Wireframing
Key Insights from Wireframing:
Our wireframe provided a clear layout and organization for our toolkit website, guiding the placement of buttons and interactive features, addressing potential issues like the inclusion of a sign-in page and incorporating advocacy into the design space, ultimately shaping a well-organized prototype from our ideas.
Sitemap
