MyTU Faculty/Staff User Research Findings

MyTU Faculty/Staff User Research Findings

November 19, 2009

2

Introduction

3

Concept Refinement

To continue to refine the prototype concept and steer the product to eventual launch, a User Experience test took place from November 4 – November 19, 2009.

The purpose of the test was to gain iterative user feedback on the product functionality in order to aid refinement and ensure an efficient, effective, and easy-to-use product.

4

Testing Objectives

5

Methodology

A series of 28 individual user tests were conducted with participants working from their personal work computers.

Each session ranged from 45-60 minutes in length and notes were manually captured by a note taker

Participants were selected to represent various roles, departments and user groups throughout the campus, with varying levels PeopleSoft experience.

Although the scope of the project focuses on faculty and staff, a few students were tested to understand the impact on their path through MyTU and login

Participant breakdown:

15 staff (2 dual staff/student, 2 dual faculty/staff)

10 faculty (2 instructors)

3 students

6

Participant Details: Staff

7

Participant Details: Faculty

8

Participant Details: Students

9

Methodology

10

General Findings & Themes

The long-term goal should be to make it as personalized as possible. All users expect it to be personalized to their multiple roles, and expect much more customization than currently available. We will need to put a phased and continuous plan in

place to achieve this.

If PeopleSoft is unable to meet long-term needs, we need to begin planning for the use of OpenText - LiveServer

Users did not easily recognize it as customizable. They need more visual cues and direction from login

to their home page.

Web 2.0 expectations cause disappointment

11


The amount and types of information expected and required on the home page varied by user, role and preference. Should we default to “all” and have them remove items rather than add?

Fear of losing content is a barrier to customization.

Overall it is seen as a visual improvement. However, the expectation of simply moving content from the existing Faculty Staff

gateway page as the end solution will not be enough. Expectations are for more functionality.

There are issues with sign-out we need to solve immediately. Users were confused when signing out of an application; the portal wrapper

appears “on”, but the user is actually signed-out.

Unclear who the audience is for the login page. The login page needs clarification for target audience.

12


Virtual Workspace is widely unrecognized and a communication plan reminder should be put in place. Many did not know what it was or what it does.

It is perceived as being unreliable, and often down.

The login page needs simplification and redesign. Users were confused by the duplication of content from login to home.

Need a clear value proposition to login. What am I getting? For Faculty, is there great enough improvement to make changes to their current

behavior?

Expect more single sign-in. Expect more customization.

If PeopleSoft is down, what happens?

13


PeopleSoft Menu is not seen, and nomenclature is confusing. Users were confused by “Campus Solutions”, and the within the Faculty tab there

were issues with permission for some of the links. Because it is not the real PeopelSoft menu, it can’t display links dynamically based on user profile.

Various user groups all have different terminology for PeopleSoft. Finding one common language will be part of the challenge.

In its current state, the portal may be more useful to staff, not faculty. Faculty need to be sold more on why this better for them. The current

improvements seem more weighted to staff.

Overall the users understand the concept of a portal as centralization of things that useful to them. But the expectations of personalization and customization are high.

14

User Types

Overall the user groups fell into the following 3 behaviors:

“Explorers: Explorers will will investigate and play, and will take greatest advantage of the customization features, but also have great expectations of personalization and functionality

“Defaulters”: Defaulters live with what’s given to them. Often fearful of losing things, they are hesitant to explore the interface and customization features. They usually need to be prompted to do so.

“Searchers”: Searchers use and expect a search option. They will explore, but want quick and relevant results. They won’t read or drill through layers of navigation.

Our solutions will need to bear in mind those behaviors as an additional layer to user roles.

15

Login Page Overview

Uncertainty of the login page, am I in the “foyer”? Users are uncertain of where they are.

There’s an expectation of customization even at this point

What is the value proposition to login?

Unclear they are gaining access to PeopleSoft.

They like the tool icons, but if they have those and aren’t getting single-sign on for the majority of apps, why bother signing into the portal?

If main users of current MyTU page are students, messaging needs to be clear what they can and can’t do.

16

Login Page Findings

Pros

Icon tools were well received

Perceived as more organized and digested than the Faculty & Staff Gateway

Because the current MyTU page is used primarily as a pathway to Current Students Gateway, there’s opportunity to introduce the new concept.

17

Login Page Findings

Portlets

DailyDigest expected, but seen as duplicate via email delivery, and question its completeness.

Alerts, Policies and Emergency Resources is valuable if it offers dynamic content. Police would like editing capabilities.

Value of OTS Alerts was perceived as low.

18

Login Page Findings

Portlets

Campus Calendars surprised at number, not required at this step

Weather was seen as useful but nice-to-have. If kept switch to 5 day forecast

Webcam, nice-to-have, valued by anyone without a window

19

Login Page Findings

Cons

Confusion of audience. Faculty & Staff? Students? Both?

Login is unclear—what am I logging into?

Confusion of duplication of content pre-login and post.

Confusion of nomenclature with PeopleSoft. Various names per audience.

Not reading copy.

20

Login Page Findings

Cons

Expectation is to personalize it even at this point in process

Entry into PeopleSoft content is unclear.

21

Login Page - Recommendations

22

MyTU Home Findings & Recommendations

Most said it was visually appealing and better organized than the Faculty & Staff gateway

Common confusion--Where am I and what did I just log into?

Common behavior was to look for what’s relevant or missing.

Duplication of tool and other portlets was confusing.

Common question: Am I seeing portlets based on my profile?

They liked single-sign in when they noticed it. However since it isn’t consistent, they weren’t always certain when to expect it.

They like the value of time saving with fewer logins.

Time out questions persist; they still want it to be longer.

23

MyTU Home Findings

Excited about the concept of personalization features, but not always realized functionality for the users; often they had to have those features pointed out to them. “A ha, iGoogle”.

They couldn’t see how to personalize easily even though they would discuss that as a need.

24


25


26

Tabs Findings & Recommendations

27

Tabs Findings & Recommendations

If the Faculty Center tab cannot be implemented as originally designed with Faculty Center PeopleSoft content in the body of the page, the recommendation is to remove the tab and surface those portlets on the home page, based on user profile.

Recommend cutting the Employees tab and replacing with a “My Stuff” tab

28

Portlets Findings & Recommendations

Overall would like to see ALL portlets customizable at the link level

User expect and want the ability to drop and drag

29


30


31


Don’t want anything locked down—allow me to customize!

Sharepoint is overall well-received but confusing because expect default view to be most commonly used sites.

Are interested in having a Directory portlet or Directory as tool.

Role issues—if I am dual staff/student, give me the Gmail tool too.

32


Fear of the “X” remove icon. How best to communicate “undo”.

Intranets portlet was confusing, maybe nomenclature, if in SharePoint they get it already

Want to build their own portlets by department

Highlight forms repository, seems jumbled in portlet

Graphical size issues came up (too big and tool small) wanted liquid design based on content container

“insider” content for login

33


List of new portlet suggestions

New faculty portlet

Registrars

Procard as separate

Courses & catalogs

Maps & directions

A search portlet to search content within the portal and outside too (igoogle)

34

Add More / Layout Findings & Recommend.

Moderate success rates when given this task. Not high completion rates without assistance

The interface needs redesign for further success. They are not intuitive as defaults.

80% completely missed the preview portlet links Simply changing the name linked to static text and adding [preview] link next to each could solve this.

Wizard step-by-step

Surprised when they added portlet, its default placement on them page forced them to scroll to view it.

35


Users could not easily find the “Save” button

If possible would like to be able to redesign this page

36


Users could not easily find the “Save” button

If possible would like to be able to redesign this page

Moderate success rates when given this task. Not high completion rates without assistance

The interface needs redesign for further success. They are not intuitive as defaults.

User’s didn’t like the 2 column lay-out, but recommend keeping it for now

#* were not seen as indicator of locked content

Placement of Delete Page button was confused for “save” several times

37

Miscellaneous

Font size on login could be bumped up a point

508 compliance testing needs to take place.

Alt text issues in Mac, and Safari content display issues

Documents

MyTU Faculty/Staff User Research Findings