I helped turn research about fragmented recruitment into a connected study workflow—contributing interaction decisions, testing synthesis and the story of how the product works.
- Key insight
- Finding a participant is only one step. Researchers also need a clear path through consent, scheduling, sessions and records.
- Design response
- Connect the workflow, clarify navigation and action labels, and make study setup more adaptable.
- Outcome / status
- Three fidelity stages of a team prototype. Five participants in the mid-fi round; one in the final formative check. No launch or measured business impact.
What I contributed
- Contributed research and interaction decisions
- Participated throughout usability testing
- Organized testing findings through a journey map and helped communicate design implications
- Contributed brand positioning and the simulated company environment
- Co-created the commercial storyboard, script and video edit
- Operated and explained the prototype during the final presentation
Methods & making
Six-person team · Iterate Bold, a simulated company environment. Individual contributions are described separately from collective work.
The question worth asking
Participant recruitment, scheduling, consent and session documents can become a disconnected workflow. MyUXERS explored how these activities could fit together in one research platform.
From scattered friction to a product structure.
The team combined survey breadth with interview depth, then organized 200+ synthesized insights into 15 thematic groups. That synthesis shaped the information architecture and the Create → Recruit → Schedule → Conduct → Document workflow.
- 31
- valid survey responses38 received; duplicates and invalid entries excluded.
- 6
- in-depth interviewsTeam research into recruitment and coordination.
- 200+
- synthesized insightsOrganized into 15 thematic groups.
- 3
- prototype stagesLow, mid and high fidelity.
Find suitable people
Researchers struggled to find people who matched study criteria and relied on familiar networks.
Put study requirements, recruitment criteria and screener questions into project setup.
Team synthesis · research report, pp.11–15. No measured reduction in sampling bias.
My contribution: project research, interaction decisions and synthesis. These research counts and the overall architecture describe collective team work.
Research report, pp.12–15. The 200+ count describes synthesis volume, not independently validated findings. Findings are paraphrased; raw responses, recordings and the confidential report remain private.
Give each research activity a place.
Architecture
Research connected recruitment with scheduling, sessions and research documents.
Original team information architecture. The testing journey map is a separate artifact.Use the recurring research needs to organize destinations before refining individual screens.
My contribution: research and interaction decisions. This IA is a team artifact.
The same task. Three levels of clarity.
Choose a workflow, then move between Low, Mid and High. Compare adjacent stages to see what changed. The original interface content stays intact; Inspect opens each screen at full size.
Testing exposed unclear setup progress and too many competing navigation destinations.
Keep the study goal central, reduce the primary navigation, and clarify the four setup milestones.
Study details · Low fidelity
The first structure groups the research goal, method and location beneath four milestones.
What changed Establish the information a researcher needs to define a study.
The original screen says “Step 1 of 3” despite displaying four milestones.
Team research report, pp.23–26 and 47. Supplied original Low / Mid / High screens.
My contribution: research and interaction decisions, usability-testing participation, and journey-map synthesis. All three interface stages are team outputs.
Low-fi think-aloud tested the basic structure. The mid-fi round involved five participants, as confirmed by me. One participant completed the five final high-fi tasks. These were formative rounds, not a controlled before/after experiment.
Keeping the next research task in reach
The later prototype screens make the research workflow concrete: approved participants lead to scheduling, consent templates can be previewed, and a completed session leads to its documents. These are original product artifacts from the team project.
Approved participants → Schedule
Low-fidelity testing exposed a broken connection between approving participants and scheduling them.
The approved-participant list places a Schedule action beside each participant. Names and initials are redacted.The team connected approvals directly to scheduling; the final participant list shows that relationship through its Schedule actions.
Shows the direct approval-to-scheduling connection described in the low-to-mid iteration; it does not establish a measured improvement.
A heading should explain the task.
Mid-fi testing found that the project name obscured the purpose of the To-Do heading. The team moved project context inside the list.
Mid · task and project combined
“To-Do List–Transit App Usability study” combines the purpose of the list with a specific project.
Native crop of the original mid-fidelity dashboard.Separate the action area from its current project context.
Finish the action. Show what happened.
The original high-fi flow makes the review and project-creation result inspectable. This is evidence of a completion state, not proof that every action communicated success.
Review before publishing
The researcher can inspect the study setup and see whether documents are attached before choosing Publish Project.
Original team prototype. Demonstration content, not live research data.Make the consequences and missing selections visible at the commitment point.
Historical headings and progress text are preserved. Consent preview is separately documented in the report.
Team prototype. I contributed interaction decisions, testing synthesis and the final explanation of the product.
Completion needed to be easier to notice
One participant completed all five high-fidelity tasks, but still needed to check whether scheduling and transcript downloading had worked. The original screens contain feedback states; their presence did not settle whether people would notice them at the right moment.
Scheduling with visible completion feedback
The scheduling screen includes a completion notice well below the send action. The crop preserves that original separation.
Available slots and a send action sit above a completion notice. The original distance between action and notice is preserved; identifiers are redacted.Keep confirmation close to the action, then test whether it is noticed without scrolling.
The screenshot corroborates an existing completion state. It does not prove a post-test correction or a retest.
The same thinking, applied to a studio.
In the course’s simulated company environment, the adjacency concept places visitor access at the front, research and collaboration in the middle, and focused work at the back.
Use circulation, acoustic separation and related activities to explain where people and work belong.
My work: the proposal explicitly credits my floor-plan concept, interior approach, zone creation and rationale.
A simulated company environment and design proposal, not employment or a built studio.
Make the product relevant to a working day.
We compared two commercial concepts. The selected story brought the product closer to a researcher’s everyday work.
Explored · future ambition
A student imagines a future shaped by research achievement.
The aspiration was understandable, but the immediate workflow problem sat too far from the story.
Concept explored, not selected · report, pp.33–36.
My contribution: co-created commercial storyboarding, scripting and editing, and supported final-presentation storytelling.
Concept summaries are adapted from the original storyboards. Third-party storyboard illustrations and the full commercial are not reproduced.
See the team prototype in motion.
Read description / transcript
Silent visual description: the cursor explores the project workspace and its workflow destinations, moves to the Participant Manager project index, then returns to the dashboard. This is original recorded prototype footage, not an independently functioning embedded product.
The original screen footage moves through project work, participant management and the dashboard.
Show the continuity between destinations without replacing the authentic interface.
My contribution: co-created the commercial storyboard, script and edit; operated and explained the prototype during the final presentation. The interface is collective team work.
A clearer prototype. A specific next question.
The team developed Low, Mid and High prototypes around connected research tasks. One participant completed the five final tasks, but that small check still exposed uncertainty after scheduling and transcript download. That is useful direction for iteration, not evidence of product-wide effectiveness. The report’s mid-fi numerical charts conflict with the confirmed five-person round, so no comparative improvement percentage is claimed.
Concept / tested team prototype. Demonstration figures, company language and branding inside the original UI are not evidence of a launched service, registered company or commercial impact.
What I’d do next
I would test whether researchers recognize completion after scheduling and transcript download, then check progress labels across the whole setup flow. I would recruit a broader range of researchers for connected, end-to-end tasks—especially where customized criteria and consent preparation add complexity.