Team

Individual

Time

1 week

My Contributions

Human Computer Interaction, User Testing, Icon Design

Tools

Figma, Qualtrics

Context

Icons are the visual representation of an object, action, or idea. Utilizing icons saves space, are fast to be recognized at a glance when well designed, universal, enhance the aesthetic appeal of a design, and more. Good icons can be defined as ones that follow a standard convention, have text labels (even if it is a hover), are easy to recognize, universal, have a consistent design language across the set, and enhance aesthetic appeal. Bad icons include those that already have a different, established meaning, are too esoteric, blurry, repeated for every item in a list, and only work as a set. To identify whether icons are good or bad, usability testing can be done in a few different ways. The first is through findability where people try to find the icon on the page (present a page of icons to search from so it is more in the natural setting/in context). The next is recognition where people understand what the icon represents (out of context). Third is information scent where users correctly guess what will happen once they interact with the icon. Fourth is attractiveness, where the more attractive an icon is leads to higher perception of usability (even if it doesn’t).

Problem

Change is wanted, but needs are NOT being voiced effectively

Currently, University of Miami requires all students who live on campus to have a meal plan. Students have a fixed number of meal swipes per week to use at 2 dining halls and are unhappy with the meal plans because they feel that the food isn’t enjoyable. However, they are not expressing their frustrations to the dining services in an effective way. The lack of specific feedback from students hampers the dining team’s ability to identify the core issues within the dining halls that contribute to student dissatisfaction. As a result, dining services struggle to understand the necessary changes required to enhance the overall dining experience for students.

Solution

Redesigning the feedback system with KIOSKS

Rate Specific Aspects of the Dining Hall

• Easily and quickly provide feedback catered to your specific needs

• Avoid broad reviews that yield limited impact

Get Notified When Your Feedback is Reviewed

• Staff must mark feedback as reviewed, ensuring thorough evaluation of your input

• Your need for change will be duly acknowledged and considered

• Receive a confirmation email to your linked address, assuring you that your feedback has been carefully assessed

Organize Data More Easily

• Built-in AI organizes the data, eliminating need for time-consuming manual organization

• Common themes + top pain points are identified efficiently

• Pre-established feedback categories simplifies process of locating specific data

Research & Problem Finding

Students WANT to have a voice

We went to the dining halls and collected photos of food options offered that were deemed unacceptable by students…

Competitive Analysis

Current feedback channels are too SCATTERED and BROAD

There are multiple ways that students can provide feedback to the dining halls: surveys, the DineOnCampus app, the "Text and Tell" direct texting option, and the HappyOrNot rating system. Despite the availability of various feedback channels for the dining halls at the university, the process of gathering feedback through multiple channels poses challenges when it comes to timely review and analysis during critical moments.

20 Students

• Have you ever provided feedback to the dining halls, and if so how?

• How often do you provide feedback in the dining halls?

• Did you feel your feedback was taken into consideration or addressed?

• What feedback mechanisms do you use the most to make changes to the dining halls?

• How is the feedback processed, implemented, and reviewed?

• What do you look for when processing feedback?

Key Findings

After 21 interviews & 72 survey responses, we identified 3 key findings

Lack of Awareness

Students lack awareness of the available feedback channels for the dining halls, resulting in a lack of valuable feedback. They gradually lose motivation to provide any further reviews because they perceive their efforts to have little to no impact.

Extensive Time Reviewing Feedback

The absence of a dedicated analytics personnel creates the challenge of reviewing scattered feedback across multiple platforms in a timely manner. Feedback often goes stale by the time the dining services looks over it.

Specific Feedback is Important

Feedback on specific aspects is crucial for dining services to understand where improvements are needed. The auxiliary services are interested in students' opinions on quality, sanitation, taste, services, and overall experience.

Personas

Students living on campus & auxiliary department members as target users…

Early Design Concepts & Solutions

We began ideating using the “SCAMPER” method

Before arriving at our final solution, we came up with a few preliminary ideas:

1. Incentives

2. Feedback App

3. QR codes leading to feedback site

Changing “Options” selection to “Stations”

• Based on feedback, students want to be able to leave even more specific feedback for individual stations

• When reviewing feedback, staff can look back at menus for stations with poor ratings

Making the “Open Feedback” option more readily available

• Previously, users had to slide up to access the “Additional Comments” and “Link Email” features

• Students stated they’d be more encouraged to leave open-ended feedback if the option were more readily available without additional actions

Enhancing staff flow and data organization

• Separation of feedback data into two tabs: Categories and General

• Addition of the "Top Pain Points" section while removing the "Reviewed Feedback" section prioritizes the most critical information for making necessary changes

What I Learned

1. Importance of Researching and Defining the Problem: Initially, my team and I faced challenges in pinpointing the core problem that we needed to focus on. We started with a broad issue, struggling to narrow it down to a more actionable problem statement. Our focus seemed to be on envisioning the end solution without a well-defined problem at hand. It became clear that without a specific problem to tackle, we couldn't expect to find a viable solution. With extensive research and interviews, we gained valuable insights that clarified the direction we should take. These efforts aligned our focus and set a solid foundation for the next steps.

2. Importance of User Feedback: Through user interviews and iterative testing of different design versions, we were able to gain valuable insights and align the direction of the feedback system with the specific needs and expectations of our users.

3. Importance of Iteration: UX design is a continuous journey, not a one-time affair. Our research phase involved plenty of trial and error to identify and define the core problem we aimed to solve. Similarly, creating a design that perfectly aligns with the user's needs required multiple iterations and attempts. Just as it takes time and effort to fine-tune a design, our research process involved backing up our decisions with solid evidence and insights.

4. Importance of Working AS a Team: Collaborating in a team of diverse skill sets, personalities, and opinions proved to be instrumental in creating an exceptional product. However, it wasn't always smooth sailing. Given that each team member had their own unique perspective, we often encountered challenges in reaching agreements on the next steps. Yet, through our experiences, we came to recognize the significance of embracing everyone's ideas. This realization ultimately paved the way for a more inclusive and successful collaborative process.