Week #5

Week #5 Report #

Project Focus & Approach #

Specific Focus of the Week #

This week, our focus was on gathering broader feedback from potential clients, users, and fellow students to refine and enhance the product’s usability, functionality, and overall satisfaction. The goal was to establish a robust feedback loop for continuous improvement.

Importance of the Week’s Work #

Gathering and analyzing feedback is crucial for ensuring our Alumni Portal meets user expectations and functions seamlessly. This feedback-driven approach helps in aligning the product with user needs, thus enhancing its value and engagement potential.

Methods, Tools, and Approaches #

  • Feedback Collection Plan: We created a structured plan with specific questions and focus areas for gathering feedback.
  • Algorithmic Feedback Collection: Utilized online forms and charts to standardize feedback collection.
  • Interviews and Surveys: Conducted one-on-one meetings and distributed online surveys to gather detailed input.
  • Documentation and Analysis: Systematically documented feedback and analyzed it to identify common themes and patterns.
  • Prioritization: Prioritized feedback based on its impact and feasibility of implementation.

Justification of Choices #

These methods ensured a comprehensive and systematic collection of both qualitative and quantitative feedback. This approach enabled us to effectively identify and prioritize actionable insights, which is essential for refining the product.

Results & Analysis #

Findings and Outcomes #

  • User Feedback: Collected feedback from 33 users, highlighting various aspects of usability and functionality.
  • Common Themes: Identified recurring issues such as user interface complexities, navigation difficulties, and the need for better support.
  • Quantitative Data: Gathered quantitative assessments indicating overall user satisfaction and areas needing improvement.

Analysis #

The feedback underscored the importance of a user-friendly design and highlighted specific areas for improvement:

  • Navigation: Users found the navigation somewhat confusing and suggested a more intuitive layout.
  • Visual Design: Feedback indicated the need for a more appealing visual design to enhance user experience.
  • User Support: Users requested FAQ or some sort of a guide to better understand the portal’s features.

Implications for Overall Project #

These findings are crucial for guiding our next steps in development. Addressing the identified issues will significantly improve user satisfaction, engagement, and the overall success of the Alumni Portal.

Conclusions & Next Steps #

Key Takeaways #

  • Users appreciate the portal’s potential but identified lack of some essential functions and highlighted areas needing improvement in navigation and design.
  • Continuous feedback is essential for iterative development and ensuring the product aligns with user needs.

Actionable Next Steps #

  • Interface Improvements: Redesign the navigation structure and enhance visual elements.
  • Feature Enhancements: Implement FAQ, better home page, funding system, co-integration with other university portals.
  • Continuous Feedback: Maintain an ongoing feedback loop to monitor improvements and gather further insights.

Challenges & Solutions #

Identified Challenges #

  • Scheduling Conflicts: Difficulties in scheduling interviews with stakeholders.
  • Feedback Variability: Variability in the depth and quality of feedback received.

Solutions Implemented #

  • Flexible Scheduling: Offered multiple time slots and online survey options to accommodate stakeholders’ schedules.
  • Structured Questions: Used structured questions to ensure consistency and depth in feedback.

Lessons Learned #

Flexibility and structure are key in gathering comprehensive and actionable feedback. Ongoing communication with stakeholders is essential for addressing scheduling and feedback variability challenges.

Additional Section: Development Updates #

What we have implemented during the week

  • Implemented Funding / Donation Service
  • Provided more details into Postman (API Documentation)
  • Frontend stack changed to: Nuxt + Vue3 (Also added SASS)
  • Implemented Spam Filtering Service (AI Integration completed)
  • We started working on creating communication between services via GRPC where needed.
  • We started CI/CD work on the project.

User Feedback Documentation #

One-on-One Meetings #

Overview #

One-on-one meetings were conducted with a group of potential users (mostly students). These meetings provided in-depth qualitative feedback on the usability, functionality, and overall satisfaction with the Alumni Portal.

Participants #

  • Total participants: 8
  • Demographics: Alumni (12,5%), Current Students (75%), University Staff (12,5%)

Key Feedback Themes #

  1. Navigation and Usability

    • Issue: Participants reported difficulties with navigating the portal.
    • Suggestions: Simplify the navigation menu and improve the layout to make it more intuitive.
    • Quote: “I found it hard to find certain features. A simpler, more straightforward menu would help a lot.”

  2. Visual Design

    • Issue: The visual design was deemed outdated by several participants.
    • Suggestions: Modernize the design with more appealing graphics.
    • Quote: “The design feels a bit dated. A fresh look would make it more engaging.”

  3. Feature Accessibility

    • Issue: Some features were not easily accessible or visible.
    • Suggestions: Ensure that key features like event management and donation processes are prominently displayed.
    • Quote: “I didn’t realize there was a donation feature until you pointed it out. It should be more visible.”

  4. User Support

    • Issue: Participants requested more user support materials.
    • Suggestions: Add FAQs, online user support / integration with existing university support teams.
    • Quote: “Some kind of a help section would be really useful for new users.”

Statistics #

  • Navigation Difficulties: 37,5% of participants mentioned navigation issues.
  • Design Improvements: 62,5% suggested a more modern visual design.
  • Feature Accessibility: 25% found some features hard to locate.
  • User Support: 25% requested additional support materials.

Online Surveys #

Overview #

Online surveys were distributed to a broader audience to gather quantitative data on user satisfaction and specific areas of improvement. This method allowed us to collect standardized feedback from a larger sample size.

Participants #

  • Total participants: 25
  • Demographics: Alumni (16%), Current Students (76%), University Staff (8%)

Key Feedback Themes #

  1. Overall Satisfaction

    • Rating: The average satisfaction rating was 3.9 out of 5.
    • Comments: While generally positive, users pointed out specific areas for improvement.

  2. Usability and Functionality

    • Rating: The usability rating was 4.4 out of 5.
    • Comments: Users appreciated the core functionality but noted some areas were not user-friendly or essential.

  3. Navigation

    • Rating: The navigation rating was 4.2 out of 5.
    • Comments: Users suggested a more intuitive navigation structure.

  4. Design

    • Rating: The design rating was 3.1 out of 5.
    • Comments: Users recommended updates to the visual design to make it more appealing.

  5. Feature Requests

    • Popular Requests: More interactive elements like forums and discussion boards.
    • Comments: Users felt these features would enhance networking and community building.
    • Our solution: Make Telegram chats which represent out “Community Communication” Service more functional.

Statistics #

  • Overall Satisfaction: 3.9/5
  • Usability: 4.4/5
  • Navigation: 4.2/5
  • Design: 3.1/5
  • Feature Requests:
    • Forums/Discussion Boards/Additional functionality in TG: Requested by 30%
    • Improved Event/Project Management: Requested by 40%
    • Implemented Donation Process: Requested by 20%

Summary of Key Insights #

  • Both sources indicated a need for a more intuitive navigation structure.
  • One-on-one meetings provided detailed suggestions, while surveys quantified the overall sentiment.

Visual Design #

  • Feedback from both sources emphasized the need for a modernized visual design.
  • Surveys provided an average rating, while meetings offered specific design improvement suggestions.

Feature Accessibility #

  • One-on-one meetings highlighted issues with feature visibility, corroborated by survey feedback on usability.

User Support #

  • A significant portion of participants in one-on-one meetings requested more FAQ materials or online support, aligning with the survey data on usability.

By focusing on these tasks and maintaining a robust feedback loop, we have made significant progress in refining our product. Moving forward, we will implement the identified changes and continue to engage with stakeholders to ensure our product meets their needs and expectations.

Calendar July 7, 2024
Edit Edit this page