Focus Brands Business Intelligence Tool Redesign

Because BI is not only about looking at data.
UX Design, UX Research
Sep–Dec 2018

Quick Summary

  • Focus Brands, a food franchising company, is hoping to improve the usability of its business intelligence (BI) tool to promote the use of data in their business.
  • Based on the findings from our user research, we redesigned the BI tool by proposing new features to facilitate the workflow of employees in three main ways: reducing cognitive load, facilitating communication, and building trust.
  • Multiple set of wireframes and a medium-fidelity interactive prototype were made to evaluate the design idea.
  • We tested our design using usability testing with actual Focus Brands' employees and heuristic evaluation. The result showed that the users are satisfied with the features we proposed.

My Roles

  • UX Designer: Brainstormed design ideas with the team and came up with features for the design based on findings. Created sketches and wireframes to communicate the ideas and gather feedback.
  • UX Researcher: Conducted interviews and contextual inquiry and designed the survey to discover user needs and pain points. Conducted usability testing sessions as moderator and notetakers.

Details

Team Tae Prasongpongchai (Me)
Anusha Vasudeva
Yangxin (Emily) Xue
Xinhui (Cindy) Yang
Tools Interviews, ­Surveys, ­Contextual Inquiries, ­Personas, ­Empathy Maps, ­Storyboarding, ­Low- and High-fidelity Prototypes, ­Adobe XD, ­Usability Tesing, ­Heuristic Evaluation, ­Affinity Mapping
Purpose Class project for PSYC 6023 Psychology Research Methods for HCI at Georgia Tech, Fall 2018, Dr. Carrie Bruce
Partners Focus Brands (Project Owner)
Timeline Sep–Dec 2018

Focus Brands BI Tool Redesign

Context & Problems

Focus Brands is a food franchisor company owning 7 different well-known restaurant and snack brands such as Auntie Anne’s, Cinnabon, and Moe’s Southwest Grill. At the massive scale with over 5,000 stores in more than 50 countries around the world, data is an essential tool for Focus Brands to run their business.

Focus Brands and its owned restaurant and snack brands

Recognizing this necessity, the company is currently trying to promote the use of data to its employees, hoping that it will help them make well-informed business decisions and pushing the business forward. Focus Brands established its own business intelligence (BI) team and a BI tool based on Microsoft Power BI a few years ago. However, according to Focus Brands’ BI team, the tool is still suffering from low adoption rate and they hope that improving the tool by making it more useful and usable will help address this problem.

Note: Business Intelligence tools (BI tools) are applications that help users analyze data by processing and displaying them into visualizations, helping employees make well-informed decisions based on actual data.

Overview of the Process

Empathize Thumbnail

1. Empathize

  • User Interviews
  • Steakholder Interviews
  • Contextual Inquiry
  • Surveys
  • Affinity Mapping
  • Personas and Empathy Maps
Design Thumbnail

2. Ideate

  • Design Goals Definition
  • Brainstorming & Ideation
  • Sketching
  • Wireframing
  • Feedback Gathering
Prototype Thumbnail

3. Prototype

  • Sketching
  • Wireframing
  • Feedback Gathering
  • Interactive Prototype
Evaluate Thumbnail

4. Evaluate

  • Usability Testing
  • Heuristic Evaluation
  • Design Recommendations

Empathize: Understanding Users & Context

We started the project with exploratory user research to dive into what are the needs and pain points of our user group related to the BI tool.

Who are the Users and Stakeholders?


Users

Focus Brands employees in different roles

  • Works for a specific brand or in a centralized teams shared across brands.
  • Have different domain of work, e.g., restaurant operations, marketing, finance, international
Stakeholders

Focus Brands' Business Intelligence team

  • Centralized team shared across different brands.
  • Responsible for development of the BI tool
  • Process data from source and display them in the BI tool for other employees to see

Note: Due to logistic constraints of this class project, we focused our research efforts on employees in the “off-premises” teams in different brands as our main user group. However, our research participants do not exclusively consist of only this group of employees but also a few employees from other departments as well.

What We Wanted to Know

The research goals we addressed included:

  1. To understand the nature of the work of the employees.
  2. To understand how business data fits into employees’ workflows.
  3. To understand the current use of the BI tool.
  4. To understand the BI tool itself.
  5. To understand the work environment of employees at Focus Brands.

How We Collected Data

From the goals, we then planned our research in the planning table shown below. We started by listing questions and information needs for each goal and then pick an appropriate UX research method for each question.

A screenshot from the research planning table we used internally in the team.
A screenshot from the research planning table we used internally in the team.

These are the methods we actually used:

User Interviews

What did we want to know about?
  • Nature of the work
    What do they need to do at work (roles & responsibility)? Who do they communicate with internally and externally? What is their organization structure?
  • Business Data in Workflow
    What kind of data do they need? How do they get this data? How do they make use of business data? How do they share data? How do they make business decisions?
  • Current use of BI tool
    What makes them consult the BI tool? What kind of information do they need? How do they look for data in the BI tool?
Why this method?
  • The open-ended nature of semi-structured interview makes it an ideal tool for exploring the problem space.
  • This method allows us not only to focus on our interests but the ability to probe during the sessions also lets us discover topics that we might have overlooked.
  • The conversational nature of this method was natural to the participants.
  • Logistics can be relatively easier if done remotely.
How did we do it?
  • Semi-structured interviews
  • 2 Remote + 2 on-site interview sessions
  • Each session lasted 40-60 minutes

Stakeholder Interviews

What did we want to know about?
  • Understand the BI team
    How many members are there in the team and what each team member does? The history and the future plans for BI tool at Focus Brands and the intended target user of the BI tool.
  • Understand the workflow of the BI team
    How does the BI team put data into the BI tool, how often is that data updated, and what kind of data goes into the BI system.
Why this method?
  • The BI tool is developed and maintained by the BI team at Focus Brands.
  • Talking to them will help us understand the rationale behind each design decision and other aspects of the current system.
How did we do it?
  • Remote, semi-structured, group interview with the whole BI team (due to logistic and time constraints).
  • The session lasted about 60 minutes

Contextual Inquiry

What did we want to know about?
  • Business Data in Workflow
    What are some ways they use to gather business data? What do they use the data for? How do they use the data?
  • Current use of the BI tool
    How they use the data from the BI tool? What kind of decisions are made with the data from the tool? What some problems of the current BI tool are?
  • Nature of the Work
    How their day-to-day work look like? How they communicate in the workplace?
  • Work Environment
    How does the work environment look like? How do they work in the environment? What are some possible distractions in the workplace?
Why this method?
  • Contextual inquiry provides rich data about users’ environment and their behavior in the environment.
  • It also provides opportunities to probe and ask the rationale about each decision a participant makes during these sessions.
  • Covers possible pitfalls from memory bias from the retrospective nature of the interviews.
How did we do it?
  • On-site contextual inquiry
  • The session lasted about 1 hour

Surveys

What did we want to know about?
  • Business Data in Workflow
    What are some ways in which they gather business data? What do they use the data for? What are the source of business data? How the data circulates within the company?
  • Current Use of the BI Tool
    The frequency and context of use of the BI tool and the attitudes of users towards the current BI tool.
  • What They Do at Work
    Brief job descriptions, communication channels they use at work.
Why this method?
  • As surveys take relatively less time for the participant, we initially planned to use them to reach more participants quickly.
  • Surveys can give us self-reported answers to questions that require only short answers.
  • It also gives us data in a format that is easy to analyze.
  • Quantitative data can help validate results from qualitative research.
How did we do it?
  • Online survey, up to 16 questions (depends on branching), approx. 8 minutes to complete.
  • 4 respondents (unfortunately, from time and communication constraints)

What We Found

We used affinity mapping to analyze the qualitative data we collected from the research methods we conducted.

Combining that with a little quantitative data we collected, we distilled a list of user needs and pain points as shown below.

~280
Affinity Notes Generated
A screenshot of the affinity map we created to analyze the data we collected.
A screenshot of the affinity map we created to analyze the data we collected.

User Needs

Opposing to our initial thoughts, the user needs we discovered suggested that the BI tool is not just about “looking at summary of data” and making decisions directly from that data. Instead, there are also aspects such as measuring performance, communication, and creating presentations and reports, that are heavily involved in the use of the tool.

“… Opposing to our initial thoughts, the user needs we discovered from the user research suggested that the BI tool is not just about ‘looking at summary of data’ …”

The user needs that we found included:

1. Need to measure brand's performance and understand the business situation

Employees use the BI tool to keep track of the performance of their campaigns and see whether they have reached their goals/KPI.

2. Need to make business decisions for each brand

The data in the BI tool have helped employees make decisions to grow the business, e.g., deciding on the menu line-up for catering.

3. Need to communicate internally and externally

Doing business is a team effort; they need to communicate to progress towards their goals. These communications happens both within the company and with external partners.

4. Need to make presentation and reports

Communications also take place in more formal forms such as presentations and reports. These are to show the data and communicate ideas to higher-ups and people they work less closely with.

Pain Points

We found the problems that could annoys and/or hinder the users from completing their tasks:

  1. Confusing navigation schemes
    • Participants from our exploratory user research repeatedly mentioned about how they do not completely understand how to navigate around the BI tool.
  2. Overwhelming data
    • With the amount of data presented in the BI tool, some data seem irrelevant to the users and, in turn, the data feels overwhelming.
    • Data customization features of Power BI was turned off due to security reasons. The current BI tool is a read-only portal of data with a few customization features, e.g., pinning.
  3. Presenting data
    • Compiling data for a presentation is a tedious and time-consuming task
  4. Sharing data
    • Getting data from the BI tool and transforming them to a more shareable format is also a taxing task for the users.
  5. Reliability and availability of data in the BI tool
    • There are inconsistencies in the data presented in the BI tool; some data points in a chart are inconsistent with the same data points in the other, or some might conflict with other sources or users’ prior knowledge.
    • This make some users feel skeptical about the data presented in the tool.
  6. Learnability of the BI tool
    • Participants often mentioned that it took a while for them to learn how to use the tool.

Personas, Empathy Maps & Storyboards

Personas, empathy maps and storyboards map helped us put these needs and pain points into context to better empathize with our user group. We created three personas reflecting different user segments, e.g., managerial/operational employees, frquent/infrequent users.

persona
empathy map
storyboard
Examples of personas, empathy maps, and storyboards we created.

And what does all this mean to the design?

Defining the Design Goals

We compiled the findings and defined three main design goals to help our team focus our design efforts on. These design goals include:

1. Reduce Cognitive Load
  • Help make data more relevant and less overwhelming
2. Facilitate Communication
  • Make it easier to share data with others
  • Provide channels to contact BI team
3. Build Trust
  • Help users understand source of data

Design Ideation

Based on the user needs, the pain points, and the design goals we have defined, we brainstormed design ideas for possible features to address those goals. Some of the feature ideas that seem viable were then selected and grouped together, organizing them into three design alternatives to be prototyped.

A photo of the whiteboard from our brainstorming sessions.

Iterative Sketches & Wireframing

Sketches and wireframes are great tools for communicating our design ideas to other people. These tools helped us conduct effective feedback sessions with our user group and evolve our design before investing the time to create more refined prototypes. Two iterations of wireframing and feedback gathering were conducted with increasing fidelity of the wireframes in each round.

Feedback Gathering

For each iteration, we conducted feedback sessions to understand users’ thoughts on the design ideas we came up with. Some example of the questions we used in these sessions were:

  • What do you think of this feature?
  • Is this useful or not useful to you?
  • Is there anything that needs to be changed in this design?
  • Is there anything missing from this design?
  • What do you expect this button to do? Is this what you expected? (for assessing users’ mental models.)

The feedback we collected were then used to improve and evolve the design and create a more refined prototype for testing.

1st Iteration: Low-fidelity Sketches

The 1st iteration was a divergent design ideation effort. For each design goal, we tested three design alternatives addressing these goals and collect feedback about them.

Goal 1: Reduce Cognitive Load
  1. Alternative 1
    • Goal-based BI: Helping users focus on their business goal by letting them set and track their performances against the goals. The tool also suggests data relevant to each goal.
    • Search Bar: Keyword-based search functionality to let users easily navigate to a desired data easily.
  2. Alternative 2 - Onboarding Quiz: Using a quick questionnaire to understand users' data needs and help pick only relevant data to display on their personalized home dashboards.
  3. Alternative 3 - Onboarding Tutorial: According to user research, users do not understand the navigation scheme of the BI tool. This design idea aims to help solve that by displaying a short overlay tutorial to first-time users.
Goal 2.1: Facilitating Communication - to Colleagues
  1. Alternative 1 - Sharing, Exporting, & Annotation: Make it easier to share a chart on presentations, reports, or via emails by providing an option to do that in which each chart. Users can also annotate charts before exporting them to help them communicate better with the recipients.
  2. Alternative 2 - Clipboards: Allowing users to "pin" multiple charts to a single "clipboard" before exporting/sharing them with their team.
  3. Alternative 3 - Drag & Drop Sharing: Users can drag and drop a chart to an area on the navigation bar associated with a team to share it with that team.
Goal 2.2: Facilitating Communication - to the BI Team/Administrators
  1. Alternative 1 - Feedback form: Make it easier to share a chart. Lets users send messages directly to the BI team through a simple feedback/contact form.
  2. Alternative 2 - "Can't find what you're looking for?": Provide a centralized way for users to request for missing/unavailable data by clicking on a button on the navigation bar.
  3. Alternative 3 - Data Request Form: A data request form which allows user to specify which data in what preferred type of visualization is needed.
Goal 3: Building Trust
  1. Alternative 1 - Data Source Information Footnote: Shows metadata including source and last update time at the bottom of each chart.
  2. Alternative 2 - Data Source Hover: Shows a similar set of metadata to the users when they hovers the cursor on a data point.
  3. Alternative 3 - Anomaly Notification: Notifies user when anomaly in data trends occur.
1st iteration in sketches and low-fidelity wireframes.
1st iteration in sketches and low-fidelity wireframes.
What did the users say?

There were a total of 10 participants joining our feedback sessions. Some points mentioned by the users during this round of feedback session included:

Goal 1: Reducing Cognitive Load
  • The goal tracking tool is a valuable tool for their workflow. Users mentioned that the goals usually involve more than one person in the team.
  • Some questions in the onboarding questionnaire might not be neccessary since it depends on the user's position and data permissions they have. There should be an option to add charts to home dashboard after the quiz.
  • Some users mentioned that they would skip the tutorial while some novice users found the tutorial helpful.
Goal 2.1: Facilitating Communication to Colleages
  • The users found the sharing/exporting/annotating feature useful.
  • They also mentioned that the clipboard feature would be useful and mentioned that they want a side-by-side comparison view for different charts.
  • Some participants were concerned if these tools were used to send data to other people who do not have permission to view such data.
Goal 2.2: Facilitating Communication to the BI Team
  • Users are concerned that their feedback will be missed. However, the BI team said that they welcome more feedback from the users.
  • Some users are concerned about conflicting requests made to the BI team for data visualization types.
Goal 3: Building Trust
  • They find displaying the metadata along with the charts helpful for evaluating the reliability of the data. Some also mentioned that they would want to know how the data points were calculated.
  • Users prefer to see metadata up front without hovering at the data points.
  • A clear anomaly indentification technique must be defined for the anomaly notification to work properly. Participants are concerned that they will either miss important updates or were flooded with too many notifications.

2nd Iteration: Medium-Fidelity Wireframes

Based on the feedback from the 1st iteration, we merged our design alternatives, converging into one set of medium-fidelity wireframes which were then used in another round of feedback gathering.

What did we changed?

Here are some examples of what were changed in this iteration:

  • Most feature concepts were merged together into this one design and were implemented with higher fidelity to show more details of how they will work.
  • Some feature concepts were altered based on the feedback in terms of user interface layout.
  • Drag & Drop: Allow other features to be triggered with this interaction style, e.g., drag a chart to the "Support" tab to send it to the BI team.
  • Pin to Home Dashboard: Let users pin/unpin charts to/from home dashboard after the onboarding quiz.
  • Goal Tracker: Allow users to set goals for the others, e.g., a manager setting a goal for their team.
  • Notifications x Goal Tracker: Use notifications to notify users about goals instead of using it for data anomaly.
  • Support: Combined all support features together and added a status for a case, e.g. "pending", "acknowledged", "solved", to remind users in case they need to follow-up with the BI team.
  • Visualization Type Request: Instead of having users request the type of preferred visualization technique for a set of data directly to the BI team, provide them with toggle buttons to let them do that on-demand instead.
What did the users say?

Here are some example of the results from feedback session/informal testing for this iteration:

  • Most features were useful and easy to use.
  • Participants did not know that they can use drag-and-drop to perform actions, instead, they used the more visible context menu icon as an entry points to chart-based actions.
    • As a result, this feature was removed in the final design to avoid confusion.
  • The name of the "Clipboard" feature confuses the users. Once understanding how the feature works, the users find this feature useful.
    • The menu label for navigating to this feature was changed to "compare data" instead.
  • The search bar, which was designed as a gray blank underline on the black background of the top bar, was not noticeable enough.
    • Change the visual design of the search bar so that it is a white box against black background.
  • In goal tracker, the layout in which the goals were presented—laid horizontally as tabs—cannot effectively handle the number of goals an employee will have simultaneously.
    • Change the layout to accommodate more goals by stacking them vertically in the sidebar instead of horizontally as tabs on the top of the page.
2nd iteration in medium-fidelity wireframes with annotations based on user feedback.
2nd iteration in medium-fidelity wireframes with annotations based on user feedback.

The Final Design

The final design was updated from the 2nd iteration wireframes. Changes were made based on the user feedback that we gathered.

Overall, similar to the existing tool that Focus Brands is using, this new design is a web application which displays business data curated by Focus Brands’ BI team. This new design provides a more focused workspace for the users to see data relevant to their work to streamline their workflow. This design also aims to pursue the other goals of reducing cognitive load, facilitating communication, and building trust in the BI tool.

Features

Design Goal: Reducing Cognitive Load

Customizable Home Dashboard
"I look at these data a lot. Let's move it together in one place"
  • First-time users will be asked a set of questions about their work and preferences to help them get on board and customize their home dashboard.
  • Quick tutorial to kickstart users with the tool.
  • Customizable dashboard in which users can pin charts from other places in the BI tool to their home page.
  • Showing only relevant data in their home page to avoid overwhelming users.
Search & Navigation
"I need the in-store sales data for this brand but it's not in my home dashboard yet... Let's do a quick search."
  • Users can search the whole BI system with keywords from the search bar on top of every page.
  • Making it easier to navigate to a set of data in the BI tool.
Goal Tracker
"It's been about half way through the year. How is my team performing towards the store participation rate goal?"
  • This tool provides an easy way for users to keep track of their goals.
  • It shows how the goals progresses throughout the timeline of the goal.
  • Potentially related data are also suggested automatically based on correlations.
  • Helps make the data more focused towards users' goals.
Comparison View
"These data seem correlated. Let's take a look at it side-by-side"
  • Side-by-side comparison view for users to look at multiple set of data simulteneously.
  • Lets users create focused, uncluttered views for the data relevant to their needs.

Design Goal: Facilitating Communication

Data Sharing
"Hey, I found some interesting trend in delivery time for this week. What do you think?"
  • Provide a seamless way for users to communicate with other people about a piece of data in the BI tool.
  • Users can also annotate the charts before sending them to other people via emails, the internal communication tool they already use.
  • Facilitating the communication about data between employees.
Export for Presentation
"It's that time when I have to make presentations again. Let's do it quick!"
  • Users can copy chart images and paste them to presentations directly.
  • They can also select an option to annotate the charts before exporting them as an image to be used in other apps.
  • Ease the tedious user flow of using the data from the BI tool to make a presentation.
Support Request
"Some data points on this chart doesn't seem right... Could you help take a look at it?"
  • Providing a way for users to communicate with and express their needs to the BI team.
  • Also benefit the BI team in listening to their users and continuously improving the tool.

Design Goal: Building Trust

Metadata
"Hmm... When was this catering data last updated? How did they calculate this number? Let me check..."
  • Users can see information about data including when it was last updated and where it came from.
  • Building trust by helping users understand the reliability and freshness of the data as well as understand possible causes of data inconsistencies.
  • Also shows calculation formula for numerical metrics in the BI tool to help users better trace and understand the data.

Prototyping

  • A prototype is a crucial tool to help us evaluate our design ideas in the next stages.
  • Adobe XD was used to create an interactive prototype of this design.
A screenshot of the interactive prototype being built in Adobe XD.
A screenshot of the interactive prototype being built in Adobe XD.

Evaluation & Outcome

With the prototype, we put our design to the ultimate test by conducting both user-based and expert-based evaluation methods.

Evaluation Methods

Moderated Usability Tesiting

What did we want to know about?
  • How actual users will use the proposed design?
  • What are their thoughts and attitudes towards the new design?
  • What are the usability problems that may arise?
  • Does the design fit with their mental models?
Why this method?
  • Testing with actual user group helps us understand in actual context.
  • Moderated testing lets us probe the users while they are performing the tasks
How did we do it?
  • 6 Participants: 3 remote + 3 on-site
  • Task-based usability testing with 8 tasks reflecting each features of the design.
  • Participants were asked to rate each task in terms of ease of use and rate the realated features in terms of usefulness.
  • System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire is used to get an overall benchmark for usability of the system.
  • Each session lasted 30-60 minutes.
 Conducting usability testing sessions at Focus Brands headquarters.
Conducting usability testing sessions at Focus Brands headquarters.

Heuristic Evaluation

What did we want to know about?
  • What are some problems we might have overlooked in our design?
  • What are some potential usabilty problems the users might face?
Why this method?
  • Quick way to gain feedback about design aspects we might have overlooked.
How did we do it?
  • 3 experts explored the prototype and assess it against Nielsen's 10 usability heuristics.
  • For this class project, the experts we consulted consisted of 2nd years MS-HCI students who have experience in usability and have completed an internship in UX.
  • A severity rating is given for each design problem found, from 1 (cosmetic problem.) to 4 (catastrophic problem which will hinder users from completing a task.)
  • Each session lasted 40-60 minutes.
A photo from an expert evaluation session.
A photo from an expert evaluation session.

Results

Overview of Results

The quantitative data we collected from usability testing included Likert scale ratings of ease of use and usefulness of each feature we tested, and SUS scores for to assess the design as a whole. The results showed the users’ overall satisfaction with the proposed features in terms of ease of use and usefulness.

Ratings from Usability Testing
6.52/7
Average Usefulness Rating
6.43/7
Average Ease of Use Rating
79.5/100
Average SUS Score

Insights from the Feedback

Qualitative data we collected helped us identify the problems in detail. After collecting them, the data were grouped based on related features and ranked by severity of the problem. Some issues we found included:

Issue 1: Explore Data
1. Explore Data
Issues
  • When users navigate to a chart not existing in their home dashboard, most of them did not think this menu will show them the data they want.
  • This wording problem is also the only issue which received highest severity rating in expert evaluation sessions.
Potential Solutions
  • Change the wording from “Explore data” to a more straightforward term such as “All data”.
Issue 2: Comparison View
2. Comparison View
Issues
  • Some test participants did not understand how the feature works.
  • Having a “Compare Data” menu in the navigation bar tends to mislead the users and confuse them.
  • Some experts also mentioned that the functionality of this feature could be confused with home dashboard since both work by having user adding a chart into some set.
Potential Solutions
  • Remove “Compare Data” from the navigation bar.
  • Only let users add charts to comparisons through the context menu (“Compare…”). By clicking on the menu, a bottom bar will pop up. This bottom bar contains the charts existing in the current comparison. Users can save the comparison to their home dashboard to view later.
Issue 3: Freedom of Navigation
3. Freedom of Navigation
Issues
  • Both participants and experts mentioned the lack of back button and inconsistent appearance of breadcrumbs in the design.
  • This made it more difficult to navigate back to the previous page if a user made a mistake.
Potential Solutions
  • Add back buttons and/or breadcrumbs to every page.
Issue 4: Goal Tracker
4. Goal Tracker
Issues
  • All participants found this feature very useful, however, some participants mentioned that they want to prioritize the goals they set as not every goals are equally important.
Potential Solutions
  • Allow users to drag and drop tasks in the list to rearrange it.
  • Provide options to set the priority of each task.
Issue 5: Data Sharing
5. Data Sharing
Issues
  • Participants mentioned that they might need to format the email before sending it and they expect to do it in their email application, i.e., Outlook
Potential Solutions
  • Change the label of the existing button from “Share via email” to “Send email now” and add an “open in Outlook” button to give them the ability to further format the email.

Next Steps

  1. Fix the design issues:
    • We have identified the issues in our design through different methods of evaluation, the obvious next step is to fix the issues according to the findings for better user experience.
  2. Details & Prototype improvements:
    • At this stage, most design efforts were spent on the conceptual side of the features and not as much in terms of exact details.
    • In future iterations, we should look more into detail, e.g., what exactly should be asked in the customization questionnaire, to refine our design.
  3. Visual design:
    • As the layout of the design has been laid out and tested in this evaluation phase, we can move on and create a prototype with higher fidelity in terms of visual design and focus more on aesthetics.

What I Learned From This Project

  • I learned about UX Process and evidence-based design by conducting research and designing a product based on the findings.
  • I learned how user research could help us focus our design efforts to the problems that actually matter to our users.
  • I learned to work in a diverse team with team members having different backgrounds.
  • I learned about the constraints of working in a real business environment.

Acknowledgements

We would like to gratefully thank

  • John Kuester, the Director of Business Intelligence and Analytics at Focus Brands, for facilitating this project and providing us the resources we need.
  • Focus Brands employees who participated in our research for providing us with valuable insights for our design.
  • Huaiwei Sun, Ishaani Mittal, and Ruturaj Eksambekar, for their help in the heuristic evaluation sessions.

Team TAXY at Focus Brands