-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
phaseI
A common problem with University websites is that they often make it difficult for students to find specific campus resources like printing services, study room booking, and tech loaning, as these are often scattered across different pages . In addition, these pages have user interfaces with inconsistent quality and style. The goal of this campus resource manager is therefore to create a single website which consolidates all commonly used online campus services into a single webpage where students can access everything they need. This phase of the project focused on defining the problem which the website is trying to solve, defining the user base, analyzing competitors and alternatives, and drafting sketches for our initial design.
To better understand how students currently access campus resources and what problems exist with those systems, our UX team used a few research methods. These methods helped us learn how similar services are currently designed and what usability issues students might experience. The main research methods used were competitive analysis and heuristic evaluation.
The first method used was competitive analysis. The UX team (n = 4) analyzed four existing systems that provide campus services: the Chico State website, the Meriam Library website, the Cat Prints website, and the Technology Lending Items page. The Chico State website mainly provides general information about the university, such as campus locations, degree programs, and other school information. The Meriam Library website allows students to search for books (online/physical), reserve study rooms, and access other library services, and it also contains links to technology lending resources. The Cat Prints website allows students to upload and print documents through the university printing system. The Technology Lending Items page shows a list of technology items available for students to borrow and allows users to view where those items can be checked out from, although the items cannot actually be reserved directly from the page. During this analysis, we recorded the strengths and weaknesses of each platform and considered factors such as quality, cost to the user, and the platform being used. This helped the team compare how different campus resources are currently presented and identify common usability issues.
After completing the competitive analysis, the team performed a heuristic evaluation on each of the competitors to further examine their usability. The evaluations used Nielsen’s ten usability heuristics, which are common guidelines used to evaluate how user friendly a system is. Each heuristic was reviewed and given a score from 1 to 10 based on how well the website followed that guideline. Notes were also recorded to capture usability strengths and weaknesses observed during the evaluation. These evaluations allowed the team to compare usability across the different systems and identify common issues that students may encounter when using campus resource websites.
The team also created personas and scenarios to better understand the types of users who may interact with the system. Several fictional users were created to represent different types of students and campus staff, and each persona was given a short background, goals, and a scenario describing how they would use the Campus Resource Scheduler. This helped the team think about how different users might interact with the system and what features would be most useful to them.
These research methods helped our team better understand how current campus resource websites work and what issues students may face when trying to use them. The insights gained from this analysis helped guide the design decisions for our Campus Resource Scheduler.
The competitive analysis revealed that campus resources are currently spread across multiple websites, which can make it difficult for students to quickly find the services they need. Many of the existing systems provide useful functionality, but they often require users to navigate through multiple pages before reaching the correct resource. This creates unnecessary steps and can make the process confusing for students who are trying to complete simple tasks such as printing documents, reserving study rooms, or borrowing technology.
Another finding was that many of the current systems are very specialized and only focus on one service. For example, the Cat Prints website is only used for printing services, while the Technology Lending page only lists technology that can be borrowed. Because these services are separated across different websites, students must already know where to go before they can access them. This reinforces the need for a centralized system that brings multiple campus resources together in one place.
| Competitor | Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|---|
| Chico State Website | Official university website with a large amount of information about campus services and resources. | Difficult to navigate and resources are spread across many pages, often redirecting users to other websites. |
| Meriam Library | Allows students to search for books (online and physical), reserve study rooms, and access other resources in one place. | Navigation can still be confusing and requires multiple steps to reach certain services. |
| Cat Prints | Provides all printing options students may need and focuses only on printing functionality. | Only supports printing services and has limited mobile support. |
| Technology Lending Page | Shows available technology that students can borrow and where it can be checked out from. | Items cannot be reserved directly and images can take time to load. |
Overall, these findings showed that many campus services are not well integrated with each other. Users often need to move between multiple websites to complete different tasks. This supported the main goal of our project, which is to create a single system that makes campus resources easier to locate and use.
While heuristic evaluations were done for multiple competitors, the Meriam Library system provided the most relevant comparison because it already acts as a partial hub for campus resources.
The evaluation showed that the system performs reasonably well in areas such as error prevention, documentation, and visibility of system status. For example, the system clearly shows which study rooms are available and prevents users from selecting time slots that are already reserved or have already passed. However, the evaluation also revealed several usability issues related to navigation and efficiency. The system relies heavily on users already knowing where to go, which makes it harder for new users to quickly find the resources they need.
| Heuristic | Score (1-10) |
|---|---|
| Visibility of System Status | 7 |
| Match Between System and the Real World | 2 |
| User Control and Freedom | 4 |
| Consistency and Standards | 5 |
| Error Prevention | 9 |
| Recognition Rather Than Recall | 1 |
| Flexibility and Efficiency of Use | 2 |
| Aesthetic and Minimalist Design | 6 |
| Help Users Recognize and Recover from Errors | 8 |
| Help and Documentation | 8 |
One of the biggest issues discovered during the evaluation was that the system relies heavily on recall instead of recognition, meaning users must remember where certain features are located rather than being guided by the interface. The navigation process also requires several steps before users can reach the booking page, which reduces efficiency. These findings highlight the importance of designing a system where important campus resources are easier to discover and access from a single location.
Across both the competitive analysis and heuristic evaluation, a consistent issue emerged: campus services are functionally effective but distributed across multiple independent websites. Students are often required to rely on prior knowledge of where services are located, increasing cognitive load and reducing efficiency. The primary usability problem is not a lack of features, but rather limited integration and poor discoverability.
The heuristic evaluation reinforced this finding, particularly in areas such as recognition rather than recall and flexibility of use. These results indicate that students would benefit from a system that reduces navigation steps and supports intuitive discovery of services.
Based on these findings, the Campus Resource Scheduler should prioritize:
-
Centralizing commonly used campus services into one interface
-
Designing navigation around recognition instead of recall
-
Reducing the number of steps required to complete common tasks
-
Using consistent layouts, navigation, and interaction patterns across all services
Future design work should focus on prototyping streamlined task flows and testing whether students can quickly locate and access services without prior knowledge of the system.
Several limitations should be considered when interpreting these findings. First, the competitive and heuristic evaluations were conducted by a small team (n = 4), which may introduce bias in scoring and interpretation. Although Nielsen’s heuristics provide a structured framework, our ratings are still based on evaluator judgment rather than user testing.
Second, this phase did not include direct user interviews, surveys, or usability testing with actual students. As a result, conclusions about user frustrations and navigation difficulties are inferred from system analysis rather than validated through observed user behavior. This may limit the validity of the findings. Additionally, the personas developed were based on assumed user types rather than primary research data. While they help guide design thinking, they may oversimplify the diversity of student needs and usage patterns.
Future phases should include usability testing with representative students to validate assumptions about navigation difficulties and task efficiency. Gathering real user feedback will help confirm whether the identified issues accurately reflect student experiences and will allow the design to be refined accordingly.