Full Process
Competitor Analysis
​
We began our process by focusing on an initial competitive analysis of the major players in the market.
We realized the variation in products offered between TRM, LMS, and SIS players on the market allowed us to better understand how to approach next steps for TerraDotta.
Current features of Terra Dotta and its competitors
​
I used the blue ocean strategy to figure out the offerings, features offered by our competitors and how we could differentiate Terra Dotta from them and help it stand out.By doing so it help us analyze our competitors offering and help us position and differentiate Terra Dotta from the market. By identifying that, it will help us create our key differentiations for innovation and find our USP.
Key Learnings
​
By doing so it helped me analyze the features offered by its competitors and where terra Dotta was lacking. It also helped me understand the stake holders they were targeting and how terra dotta could differentiate from them.
So i categorized the current features of terra dotta that are good and need to be improved upon and same with its competitors.
Critiquing the current Art Center interface
​
The current ArtCenter study away website uses Terra Dotta platform and it is just designed for students and administrators.
​
Faculties do not have a website where in they could access student application, materials and details. They currently have to organize meeting and do the selection process manually
User Research
User Interviews - Stake Holders (Faculties)
Thomas Cooke
​
“It’s s hard to coordinate time with other staff on the selection process since its held multiple times”
Kayvan Ross
​
“Since the selection process is a manual process often happens that the application of the applicant often gets lost”
Nathan Smith
​
“The selection process is a lengthy process and we have to go through it multiple times to ensure that the program has proportionate number of students ”
Stake Holders - Faculties
User Journey
I decided to focus on the faculty’s student selection process because that is the most frustrating, tiresome and time consuming in the selection process.
Key Learnings
Faculties currently take approx 2 weeks to select students which is a lengthy process.
Students application often got lost since the process is held manually.
They have to hold multiple meetings and coordinate time which makes scheduling meetings hard.
They have trouble organizing, maintaining and sharing documents with others faculties which made the student selection process harder for them.
3 hours of brainstorming session !!
Opportunities and Features
​
Based on the market research and Interviews conducted, i came across some pain points that could be addressed. I created a design criteria and ideated on different features the system ought to have to reach this criteria. These were far-term and near-term solutions.
Low Fidelity Prototyping
-
I made paper prototypes to conduct user tests.
-
Through the paper prototypes i was aiming to test the viability and validate features that I had ideated.
-
These are the key features that i though could be useful to the faculties based on user research and interviews.
Key features testing out
User Testing
-
We went through a rigorous day of paper prototyping and testing through which we were able to uncover valuable insights about our user flow.
-
The benefits of testing with paper include quick iteration as well being able to get valuable focused feedback on the user flow without worrying about getting biased feedback based on typography and color.
Feedback - Round 1
-
Like to know more about important emails, deadlines and comments rather than only give data about applicants on dashboard.
-
Prefer to see the overall comments by all the faculties and highlight the students they have selected.
-
Would like to give general overall comments at the end to make the selection process easier.
-
Did not like going to separate tab to collaborate and chat about the applicants
Mid Fidelity Prototype
-
Mid fidelity wireframes helped test and not let the interviewee’s be biased by visual designs.
-
Based on feedback, i reiterated the design and again tested the design with design with users
Feedback - Round 2
-
They did not like the graphs and dont wish the notes to be on the dash board.
-
Found the chat option bother some while using the dashboard.
-
Did not like the over all score displayed and it was hard for them to read the over all comments in their front profile.
-
Preferred to have a generalized option ( poor, fair, excellent etc) to determine the quality of work submitted by student rather than over all score.
A/B Testing - Rating Student’s Application
​We gave two options to the faculties regarding how they would like to rate students profiles.
Selecting one out of the four.
Slider option
Feedback - A/B Testing
-
They liked the slider option since they could rate in between and at the same time did not have to deal with points.
-
But they also preferred to see the overall rating for quick evaluation when needed and wished to have a wishlist to select students they might think would be good for the program incase they have disagreements or doubts.
High Fidelity Prototype
User Flow
Changes based on previous feedback
Information Architecture
Style Guide
.jpg)