I apply user data to continuously improve content.

Optimizing content via UXR studies

Users

Description: Users were primarily middle school teachers teaching students with varying levels of reading comprehension. They used this content to supplement their curriculum or to practice reading skills. Teachers are concerned about assignments being flexible enough for each student’s individual needs. ”They (teachers) are looking for assignments that can be highly customized and easily integrate into their current classroom assignment flow” - Assignment Flow UXR Study

User goal: Assign leveled content to teach a subject or work on reading skills.

Business

Company: Newsela Inc. Business goal: Increase engagement with the assignments contributing to the OKR to increase user retention.

Hypothesis

If we align the form to more accurately reflect a teacher’s mental model of an assignment, add customization options, and address user concerns, teachers will assign content more often.

Collaboration

For design iterations, I worked closely with a product designer, product manager, and engineers. A UX researcher led the studies, synthesized and analyzed results, and offered recommendations.

Phase 1: Wireframe to Prototype

Role: Apply content design principles and perspective to wireframes Timeline: 1 week Outcome: A completed prototype, ready for a UX research study

Initial wireframe (pre content)

Revising wireframe copy

After initial research, I crafted draft copy for wireframes and drove the following changes:

• New placement and label of a toggle switch and removal of the banner. The banner was an inappropriate component that broke an existing pattern. It was primarily used for marketing messaging.
• Add a form title for context and scannability.
• The formatting of the input field labels to be verb phrases instead of nouns. The intent was to inspire action while drawing a clear distinction between the form and the informational article appearing below it.
• The date picker labels. My goal was to limit the length for scannability and responsive screens and ensure that the two labels were distinct and easy to choose from.
• Date picker label 1: Assign on
• Date picker label 2: Due on Iteration with content recommendations

Prototype (post content)

Phase 2: Gather and analyze qualitative data

Role: Help shape study and interpret insights Timeline: 2 weeks

Content testing

• Crafted questions to test tone, clarity, and scannability.
• Observed interviews.
• Interpreted researcher recommendations.

Insights gained

We learned that users had no trouble with most of the input fields but were confused about dates. Specifically, the purpose of the “Assign on” field was unclear.

Phase 3: Iterate

Role: Use insights to revise content Timeline: 1 week Outcome: New and improved prototype iteration for live testing

Research & revise

• Researched competitors to find out if and how our competitors include an “Assign on” date.
• Some competitors had a label with “Assign” in it, while others referred to this as a “Start date.”
• One competitor placed the date pickers horizontally (side by side).
• Created various iterations in collaboration with the product designer.
• Revised copy according to UXR study results.

Outcome

• Grouped dates under the label “Add dates” to add context and increase attention.
• Added body text for clarity and to address a user concern that presented itself during testing: “Can students still access activities after the due date passes?”
• Went with a layout where the date fields line up horizontally. This is a visual indication that the first date starts a period and the second date ends the period. That is reinforced with a hyphen.
• Changed the “Assign on” label to “Start date,” which supports the idea that the first date is the beginning of a time period.

Phase 4: Test & synthesize quant/qual data

Role: Create new study questions for user interviews and interpret quantitative results from release to 20% of users. Timeline: 2 weeks

Study insights

• Quantitative results showed a higher completion rate of the MVE vs. the control.
• Quantitative results showed low usage rates of the due date feature. However, teachers reported believing that such a feature is valuable.
• Qualitative results showed that there was less confusion around the “Start date / Assign on” label.
• Due to engineering constraints, we could not implement the due date feature right away.

Phase 5: Iterate and release to 100% of users

Role: Apply insights and revise and approve final copy Timeline: 2 days Tools: Figma Outcome: New feature released to 100% of users

My approach

• Researched competitors for the single-date option.
• Brainstormed with PMs, product designers, and engineers.
• Approved copy for date label.

Outcome

“Schedule for later” was the winner. This label was inspired by a competitor and selected as the best option because it:

• Accurately describes the user’s intent when setting a date here.
• Makes it clearer that the default is immediate distribution,
• Relies on and reinforces the learning that most users want to assign right away and likely have no use for a start date, and
• Does a better job educating users that now they can schedule assignments for a later date.

Wrap up

What I learned

1. Users create assignments primarily for immediate distribution.
2. Due dates need to be flexible to allow students to complete an assignment even if absent.
3. Some of the branded terms need to be reexamined, as they are not immediately clear and require user education.

Next steps

We would also need to revisit the due date on the form. We were in the process of uncovering why setting dates was not popular. One hypothesis is that integrated learning management systems (LMSs) are used for scheduling assignments. More research is needed. Additionally, I planned to work with UXR to set up an experiment to specifically test a term. It was evident that users were confused by this term and were not reading the body text for more understanding.