We used sample prototypes of automations and the messaging center to show professors what Neoboard was intended to do. Our goal was to get feedback on where to improve the design.

One of the main concerns we discovered was that the features on automating menial tasks were confusing to our users, and that our message center was received as neutral due to professors using their emails daily.

Based on the professors interviewed for the demo, I created a professor persona for a CS professor, based on demographic data our respondents gave us.

The developed persona contained opportunities such as needing to check emails frequently, because the intended audience for the product is part time professors working at multiple schools, teaching multiple classes.

Since professors expressed approval of student analytic data in the design, we made sure to integrate those features more prominently into places like the Message Center, where professors could check their messages from multiple platforms and accounts in one place instead of needing to check multiple places.

Our intention was for professors to be able to make informed decisions in responding to their students based on their performance in class.

When we conducted user research and asked if our target users would use the software, the average score was 3/5, where respondents were not especially eager to use Neoboard.

Why was this the case? We inferred that user needs were not being properly addressed by Neoboard’s features and design. I decided that we needed to return to the drawing board and do more formative research.

Based on prior user research conducted, we knew that our target users are professors at universities that use LMS like Canvas.

For Neoboard to be an effective partner tool that would increase work efficiency, we needed to know what could be improved about the LMS that our users use on a daily basis. These areas of improvement would be the opportunities for Neoboard.

We determined two new focuses based on respondent data that directly addressed our target audience’s needs:

Analytics - Our respondents made decisions based on student performance data, and used data points such as attendance and first exam grades as benchmarks of student progress.

Gradebook - Our respondents mentioned their LMS gradebook repeatedly, ranging from lengthy setup time to difficulty making grade adjustments.

Addressing user needs was key to designing a product our target audience would use. Since the previous iteration of the design didn’t address user needs properly, learning to backtrack and do additional formative research was important to our success on this project. By learning about their needs through surveys and interviews, we were able to formulate a new direction for Neoboard that users would find helpful in their daily lives.

My role in this project was getting Neoboard on the right track by managing the direction we took the product. Next steps will involve refining of new designs based on formative research conducted in Winter 2024, using elements and windows from designs created during Summer 2024.