Explanation

For this example of the learning outcome Professional Standard, I will be showing the project organization I did, the exploratory research, the brief communication with the stakeholders, and the reporting in the form of a presentation for the second project—Fix UX from Hike One.

Action

First, I made a Word document dividing the elements we needed to analyze. Then I shared this document with my team members.

The research I did involved user testing the website Het Zilvere Kruis myself, then checking whether the website adhered to Nielson Norman's 10 heuristic rules, and finally, testing the website with a possible user.

For the individual analysis, I calculated my premium, explored all the options, and generally went through the process. For the 10 heuristic rules, I again went through the process and checked all the points with the website. For the user testing with a possible user, I went to my father and asked him to complete two tasks and I noted down what he encountered and how he walked through the process.

After completing this part of the research I went to a teacher and asked for feedback. The feedback I received was:

The structure is correct and the way you do it is clear. You analyze all the points in an orderly manner.

Something you should add is a summary or an overview of the points so it will be nicer to read. Just an overview of the most important things.

For the user research, gather input from a diverse group of users, including younger individuals and those from different backgrounds. This will provide a range of perspectives on how different people interact with the product.

When describing the users, provide details on why they were selected and describe their backgrounds, including their age group and other relevant characteristics.

After I received this feedback I summarized the information and improved the structure. I also wrote a little on why I chose the specific user to test the website with. I did however decide to not conduct any more interviews with this website, for now. This is because my group and I decided not to choose the website “Het Zilvere Kruis”. In this link you can find the old and new versions of the analysis I did.

After selecting the website we were going to improve on, we needed to do more research. At first, it was unclear how we had to do this research, so I went to the teacher and tried to figure out how to tackle this problem. The main thing the teacher said was that we had to make research questions.

After speaking with the teacher it became a little clearer to me what we had to do. So, I made a research document and gave my groupmates the task of making three research questions each. After this was done I combined all the questions we came up with into three final questions. Then we split the group up into three groups of two and we went to work, researching the questions. I also told my group to write down all the CMD research methods they used.

I had the first question to do research on, “How can user interfaces and forms be designed to be intuitive, accessible, and user-friendly for diverse audiences, including older adults, less tech-savvy users, and those with disabilities?”. The research methods I used to conduct this research were design pattern research, literature study, and competitive analysis. The main platforms I used to do the research were Google Scholar and YouTube.

After completing the research, I told my group to summarize their findings per question and that's how we made the research summary.

Finally, I made a requirement list from the findings of our research and I also made a 'CZ needs' list from the analysis and the research combined.

For communication with the stakeholders, at some point, it was unclear to me and my group if we could change a certain part of the design and it was unclear which pages exactly we needed to redesign. So, I contacted Hike One.

In the pictures above you can see I sent an e-mail to Marco from Hike One. After his response, it was clear what we had to do.

For the reporting part of this learning outcome and this project, we did two presentations the first one being a sprint demo, for which I wrote some of the text that needed to be said, and the second one being the final presentation which I also helped make.

Reflection

Reflecting on the first part of my research, I believe I analyzed the websites well and gathered some useful information.

Going back to the fact that I didn't test the websites with more users. I left the research as it is, for now, because this part of the project was to find out what website we wanted to improve on. Out of this research, we found out that this website (Het Zilvere Kruis) was the best, so we won't be using it. During future research, I will ensure to test the website with different kinds of users.

Reflecting on the second part of the research, I believe I did very well. I set up this research and then we received positive feedback, so I believe it was a job well done.

For communication with the stakeholders, I also have not much to say other than that it went smoothly.

For the presenting part, I believe I can still improve my skills. The PowerPoint itself was mostly acceptable, but there is still room for improvement. Additionally, I need to learn how to manage my nerves during the actual presentation, as I tend to get very nervous when speaking in front of large groups.

Overall, I think this project went well except for the time management which was due to the fact that we focused too much on the research.

In the future, I plan to make sure we have enough time for all the necessary parts of the project.