1. Wolverine Access: Faculty Center School of Information | University of Michigan Tiffany Chao, Saurabh Koparkar, Jane Loegel & Megan Morrissey 18 April 2008

2. SI 622: Wolverine Access- Faculty Center Slide 2 Presentation Outline  Product Overview – User Population  Methods – Persona and Scenario  Findings and Evidence  Recommendations

3. SI 622: Wolverine Access- Faculty Center Slide 3 Product Overview  Faculty Center functions as an online University course management system for faculty and graduate student instructors (GSIs) to conduct administrative duties  Currently known as ‘Teaching Support’  Some new features are: – Class Search, Faculty Search, Browse Catalog – Also offers more customization capabilities, improved interface, and visual icons

4. SI 622: Wolverine Access- Faculty Center Slide 4 User Population  Faculty Center serves both faculty and GSIs – Faculty (full-time/part-time): 5,542 – Graduate Student Instructors: 2,234  Our target population was very specific and therefore the pool of available and willing participants was limited

5. SI 622: Wolverine Access- Faculty Center Slide 5 Methods  Generalized Transition Network  Personas and scenarios  Comparative Analysis – 2 indirect competitors  Heuristics Evaluation – 4 evaluators; 10 heuristic components  Online Survey – 50 respondents  Usability Testing – 3 GSIs, 2 faculty: 5 tasks  Vocabulary Analysis – Metaphor analysis, object/action analysis, & general vocabulary analysis Preparing for the Usability Test

6. SI 622: Wolverine Access- Faculty Center Slide 6 Persona & Scenario  Charles Shein, Assistant Professor – Comparative Literature, English Department  Single, enjoys old war movies  Uses Dell PC laptop computer to type assignments and check email

7. SI 622: Wolverine Access- Faculty Center Slide 7 Scenario  Time: Beginning of the semester  Professor Shein wants to download class and photo roster for the two classes he is teaching  Needs to print off both rosters to bring to class  Logs onto University wireless network with his laptop

8. SI 622: Wolverine Access- Faculty Center Slide 8 Summary of Findings  Successes – System provides useful functions – Improved interface compared with predecessor  Areas of Improvement – Finding 1: Inconsistency in terminology throughout system – Finding 2: The meaning of visual icon functions were inconsistent – Finding 3: The interface contained layout and color issues

9. SI 622: Wolverine Access- Faculty Center Slide 9 Finding 1- Inconsistency in Terminology  Inconsistency in function of terms used – Learning Management tab and the Learning Management icon – The two have the same name but represent two separate functions which causes confusion for users LM tab - takes user to external resources LM icon - takes user to CTools  Evidence: – Heuristics Evaluation of the Faculty Center System (violation of ‘consistency and standard’ heuristic)

10. SI 622: Wolverine Access- Faculty Center Slide 10 Finding 1- (contd.)  Confusing vocabulary  Evidence: – Usability Testing: user responses to task Class Search – a search function for finding courses Browse Catalog – a course catalog indexed alphabetically Both tabs essentially perform the same function

11. SI 622: Wolverine Access- Faculty Center Slide 11 Finding 2- Inconsistency in Visual Representation of Features  Icon does not convey function – 'download class roster' icon  Evidence (Usability Test): – Substantial amount of time required to find the icon – A tester’s comments - "This is ridiculous!” – The icon was identified only after the icon tool tip was encountered

12. SI 622: Wolverine Access- Faculty Center Slide 12 Finding 2- (contd.)  Lack of consistency among icons – Same icon is used for two different reasons: 1) to show that a class has a waitlist 2) to show that an error has occurred  Evidence: – Heuristic Evaluation of the Faculty Center System (violation of ‘consistency and standard’ heuristic)

13. SI 622: Wolverine Access- Faculty Center Slide 13 Finding 3- Aesthetic Value  Usability is compromised by poor visibility – Teaching Schedule and Exam Schedule tables difficult to distinguish based on same color scheme.  Evidence: "I wouldn't have known that was the exam schedule, it looks exactly like the class schedule." - A user from the Usability Test

14. SI 622: Wolverine Access- Faculty Center Slide 14 Summary of Recommendations  Recommendation 1 – Establish a visible ‘Help’ feature  Recommendation 2 – Enforce visual and vocabulary consistency across the system  Recommendation 3 – Improve the visibility of icons and color differentiation of features

15. SI 622: Wolverine Access- Faculty Center Slide 15 Recommendation 1  Establish a visible ‘Help’ feature for users Short-term goals – Visual ‘Help’ icon or link – Create a Glossary with explanations of features ‘Learning Management’ Differentiation between function of ‘Browse Catalog’ and ‘Class Search’  Long-term goal – Creation of a tutorial or information session for new instructors

16. SI 622: Wolverine Access- Faculty Center Slide 16 Recommendation 1- (contd.)  Current System  Faculty Center

17. SI 622: Wolverine Access- Faculty Center Slide 17 Recommendation 2  Function of icon should be effectively conveyed: 1) Include the 'download' icon in the icon legend 2) Use the typical University email attachment download icon; this would achieve consistency Download Roster

18. SI 622: Wolverine Access- Faculty Center Slide 18 Recommendation 2 - (contd.)  Enforce consistency among icons: 1) Use unique icons for different functions 2) Use standard error message icon for consistency

19. SI 622: Wolverine Access- Faculty Center Slide 19 Recommendation 3  Use a different color scheme to differentiate between Exam Schedule & Class Schedule  Make icons larger and more brightly colored to increase visibility and transparency

20. SI 622: Wolverine Access- Faculty Center Slide 20 Conclusion  Overall, an improved user interface compared to Teaching Support  Some usability issues such as inconsistent visual representations, aesthetics and terminology exist  Short term recommendations: – Improve the terminology inconsistencies – Change the color scheme to help differentiate the features  Long term recommendations: – Modify the visual icons – Implement ‘Help’ feature

21. Thank You! Questions?