Video Walkthrough
Here is a video format of this same case study. It covers the same content found below, but with a little extra explanation so everything is crystal clear.
Context
We designed Campus Tea to help students help students. With campus tea, college students can share and learn about honest experiences from campus life. Users can share their experiences with professors, housing, food, and more. Sharing their input rewards users with points which can be used for free food and discounts around campus.
The Team
Our team consisted of four designers. We alternated roles and responsibilities to give everyone ownership over the product. In the end, we created four flavors of the same core experience.
The Problem
A student’s success in college is largely determined by the quality of their instructors. 
Apps and sites for reviewing professors exist, like RateMyProfessors, but they have two main problems:
1. Information may not be recent 
2. No option to leave reviews for other campus services like food or housing
Proposed User Flow
As a team we discussed what features would be most important in our first iteration of the app. We came up with our top three features to build into our first user flow.
1. A school login
2. A home page for viewing and rating posts
3. A standardized review flow
University Login
The first part of our flow is a school login. We wanted to give users the ability to link their school accounts and pull relevant information.
Home Page
Next in the flow, we designed a home page similar to social media feeds like Reddit. Relevant posts and reviews are placed in the user’s feed. Posts with the most upvotes float to the top.
Professor Review
In the last step in the flow, the user creates a review of their professor. The user could begin a review by either searching for the professor or by using the “create” button on the home page. 
Reviews used a 1-to-5 slider system so professor ratings can be easily compared.
User Testing
Testers:
We had 10 college-age users test our flow using Maze (software for remote user-testing).

Tasks:
1. Log in using a university account
2. Navigate to the page for a specific professor
3. Complete a review of the professor
4. View and upvote a specific comment from a different user
Results of User Testing
The Good: 
-The sliders for creating reviews were intuitive and easy to use.
The Bad: 
-100% of testers misclicked before they could find the search button in the navigation bar (see heatmap).
-67% of testers got lost while trying to leave a review.
User Flow 2.0
In the previous version, users had a hard time finding the “search” and “create” buttons.
NEW GOAL: Users had a hard time finding the "search" and "create" buttons. We needed to make it as easy as possible to get to the review process
Changes
To accomplish our goal of making it easier to begin a review, we altered the "search" and "create" buttons. We also added a badge system to incentivize leaving reviews.
1. Home page changed from a feed to various suggested links
2. "Create" button moved to a more prominent location
User Testing 2.0
Testers:
We had 4 new, college-age users test our flow using Maze.

Tasks:
1. Log in using a university account
2. Navigate to the page for a specific professor
3. Complete a review of the professor
4. View earned achievements
Results of User Testing 2.0
The Good: 
-3 out of 4 testers reached the professor’s page with no misclicks.
The Bad: 
-Professors are the only ting users can leave reviews for.
-The badges were nice, but not much of an incentive for users.
User Flow 3.0
Testers informed us that they didn’t feel motivated to post content.
NEW GOAL: Create a better incentive for users to write a review.
Changes
Our previous version did not motivate users to write reviews and post content, so we came up with a new reward system. We also built more categories for users to review like administration and food.
1. Home page redesigned for a second time to have more links and features.
2. Points earned by creating reviews can be exchanged for coupons and freebies.
User Testing 3.0
Testers:
We had 5 new, college-age users test our flow using Maze.

Tasks:
1. Find out how to earn in-app points
2. Complete a review of a professor
3. Redeem a reward for completing a review

Results of User Testing 3.0
The Good: 
-Testers loved the new rewards system.
The Bad: 
-The home page is more helpful, but too cluttered now. 60% of testers gave up or got distracted on the home page.
User Flow 4.0
We learned our home page is too cluttered because testers were getting distracted. 
NEW GOAL: Teach users how to use the app by guiding them through their first review.
Changes
A new guided tour introduces the user to the app. The tour helps the user leave their first review. After completion of the tour, the user receives a reward.
1. Limited visibility introduces one element at a time.
2. Completion of the tour is incentivized with free food.
User Testing 4.0
Testers:
We had 6 new, college-age users test our flow who were unfamiliar with previous versions.

Tasks:
1. Download and log into the app
2. Follow the tour to complete a review of a professor
3. Redeem a reward or save it for later
Final Analysis
One of the biggest changes that we made to the app was the robust rewards system. Other smaller changes were made throughout to streamline the user flow. The chart shows how usability changed. From our first to our final flow, accuracy, speed, and success rate all improved.
Future Plans
Given more time and resources, there are a couple additions we would like to build out.

1. Class scheduler
Add desired classes to a a shopping cart that links to the university's course registration

2. Professor comparisons
View how professors compare back-to-back

More projects

Back to Top