MyTU Faculty/Staff User Research Findings

1. MyTU Faculty/Staff User Research Findings November 19, 2009

2. Introduction A redesign of the My TU Faculty & Staff portal has been implemented, and is preparing to soft launch in December 2009, with a beta release in January of 2010, followed by the Version 1.0 release in late January to early February. This redesign has been informed by months of work and research of users’ needs via stakeholder and user interviews, concept reviews, web analytics review, competitive analysis, user tests. In addition to introducing new information architecture, the site will be unveiling a new interface and functionality within the PeopleSoft 9.0 wrapper. It will provide faculty and staff with a central location and single sign-in for various applications, and a customizable content that they can arrange in relevance to their own activities and needs.

3. Concept Refinement To continue to refine the prototype concept and steer the product to eventual launch, a User Experience test took place from November 4 – November 19, 2009. The purpose of the test was to gain iterative user feedback on the product functionality in order to aid refinement and ensure an efficient, effective, and easy-to-use product.

4. Testing Objectives At the macro level the test objectives were to: • Understand effectiveness & ease of use • Evaluate user understanding of benefits of specific features/areas • Identify key issues & improvements for refinement At the micro level the test objectives were to: • Understand user’s concept and expectations of a portal • Understand user’s current paths to various applications and PeopleSoft that are now centralized within the MyTU portal, and any impact to those current paths • Evaluate the login page experience and identify additional needs and issues • Evaluate their understanding of the portal pages, navigation, and customization features • Evaluate their ability to complete common tasks via the portal interface

5. Methodology • A series of 28 individual user tests were conducted with participants working from their personal work computers. • Each session ranged from 45-60 minutes in length and notes were manually captured by a note taker • Participants were selected to represent various roles, departments and user groups throughout the campus, with varying levels PeopleSoft experience. • Although the scope of the project focuses on faculty and staff, a few students were tested to understand the impact on their path through MyTU and login • Participant breakdown: • 15 staff (2 dual staff/student, 2 dual faculty/staff) • 10 faculty (2 instructors) • 3 students

6. Participant Details: Staff

7. Participant Details: Faculty

8. Participant Details: Students

9. Methodology • The tests were interview and task-based to gather impressions, and to test whether users could complete common tasks within the new interface • Define the term portal and expectations of a portal • Complete common paths to applications that they often use: PeopleSoft, Blackboard, Virtual Workspace, Online Email, Timesheets, Faculty/Staff or Student Gateway, MyTu page • Use of the new MyTU login page • Use and exploration of the new MyTU portal tabs and portlets and based on common items the participant would use based on role(s) • Use of customization features “Add More”, “Change Layout”, “My Bookmarks”

10. General Findings & Themes • The long-term goal should be to make it as personalized as possible. All users expect it to be personalized to their multiple roles, and expect much more customization than currently available. • We will need to put a phased and continuous plan in place to achieve this. • If PeopleSoft is unable to meet long-term needs, we need to begin planning for the use of OpenText - LiveServer • Users did not easily recognize it as customizable. • They need more visual cues and direction from login to their home page. • Web 2.0 expectations cause disappointment

11. General Findings & Themes • The amount and types of information expected and required on the home page varied by user, role and preference. • Should we default to “all” and have them remove items rather than add? • Fear of losing content is a barrier to customization. • Overall it is seen as a visual improvement. • However, the expectation of simply moving content from the existing Faculty Staff gateway page as the end solution will not be enough. Expectations are for more functionality. • There are issues with sign-out we need to solve immediately. • Users were confused when signing out of an application; the portal wrapper appears “on”, but the user is actually signed-out. • Unclear who the audience is for the login page. • The login page needs clarification for target audience.

12. General Findings & Themes • Virtual Workspace is widely unrecognized and a communication plan reminder should be put in place. • Many did not know what it was or what it does. • It is perceived as being unreliable, and often down. • The login page needs simplification and redesign. • Users were confused by the duplication of content from login to home. • Need a clear value proposition to login. What am I getting? • For Faculty, is there great enough improvement to make changes to their current behavior? • Expect more single sign-in. Expect more customization. • If PeopleSoft is down, what happens?

13. General Findings & Themes • PeopleSoft Menu is not seen, and nomenclature is confusing. • Users were confused by “Campus Solutions”, and the within the Faculty tab there were issues with permission for some of the links. Because it is not the real PeopelSoft menu, it can’t display links dynamically based on user profile. • Various user groups all have different terminology for PeopleSoft. • Finding one common language will be part of the challenge. • In its current state, the portal may be more useful to staff, not faculty. • Faculty need to be sold more on why this better for them. The current improvements seem more weighted to staff. • Overall the users understand the concept of a portal as centralization of things that useful to them. • But the expectations of personalization and customization are high.

14. User Types • Overall the user groups fell into the following 3 behaviors: • “Explorers: Explorers will will investigate and play, and will take greatest advantage of the customization features, but also have great expectations of personalization and functionality • “Defaulters”: Defaulters live with what’s given to them. Often fearful of losing things, they are hesitant to explore the interface and customization features. They usually need to be prompted to do so. • “Searchers”: Searchers use and expect a search option. They will explore, but want quick and relevant results. They won’t read or drill through layers of navigation. • Our solutions will need to bear in mind those behaviors as an additional layer to user roles.

15. Login Page Overview • Uncertainty of the login page, am I in the “foyer”? • Users are uncertain of where they are. • There’s an expectation of customization even at this point • What is the value proposition to login? • Unclear they are gaining access to PeopleSoft. • They like the tool icons, but if they have those and aren’t getting single-sign on for the majority of apps, why bother signing into the portal? • If main users of current MyTU page are students, messaging needs to be clear what they can and can’t do.

16. Login Page Findings • Pros • Icon tools were well received • Perceived as more organized and digested than the Faculty & Staff Gateway • Because the current MyTU page is used primarily as a pathway to Current Students Gateway, there’s opportunity to introduce the new concept.

17. Login Page Findings • Portlets • DailyDigest expected, but seen as duplicate via email delivery, and question its completeness. • Alerts, Policies and Emergency Resources is valuable if it offers dynamic content. Police would like editing capabilities. • Value of OTS Alerts was perceived as low.

18. Login Page Findings • Portlets • Campus Calendars surprised at number, not required at this step • Weather was seen as useful but nice-to-have. If kept switch to 5 day forecast • Webcam, nice-to-have, valued by anyone without a window

19. Login Page Findings • Cons • Confusion of audience. Faculty & Staff? Students? Both? • Login is unclear—what am I logging into? • Confusion of duplication of content pre-login and post. • Confusion of nomenclature with PeopleSoft. Various names per audience. • Not reading copy.

20. Login Page Findings • Cons • Expectation is to personalize it even at this point in process • Entry into PeopleSoft content is unclear.

21. Login Page - Recommendations

22. MyTU Home Findings & Recommendations • Most said it was visually appealing and better organized than the Faculty & Staff gateway • Common confusion--Where am I and what did I just log into? • Common behavior was to look for what’s relevant or missing. • Duplication of tool and other portlets was confusing. • Common question: Am I seeing portlets based on my profile? • They liked single-sign in when they noticed it. However since it isn’t consistent, they weren’t always certain when to expect it. • They like the value of time saving with fewer logins. • Time out questions persist; they still want it to be longer.

23. MyTU Home Findings • Excited about the concept of personalization features, but not always realized functionality for the users; often they had to have those features pointed out to them. “A ha, iGoogle”. • They couldn’t see how to personalize easily even though they would discuss that as a need.

24. MyTU Home Findings & Recommendations • User expect logo to return to TU home page • Update link to do this • Visual clutter in global navigation bar • Often users weren’t able to find links to Directory, visual treatment • Recommend dropping the opacity image • Customization links were often missed • Recommend different color or visual treatment for greater emphasis • PeopleSoft menu was missed • Recommend different color or visual treatment

25. MyTU Home Findings & Recommendations • Tabs were not easily seen • Perhaps edit shape or with removal of global nav image greater contrast will be evident • Include “Welcome [name] on page • Will address uncertainty of personalization • Tools icons met with very positive feedback • They would like to include more • Perhaps one for Directory • Students may require more • Portlet icons were slightly confusing • Mainly refresh was issue, functionality refreshed entire page, not portlet. • Remove refresh icons on all portlets except those with dynamic content

26. Tabs Findings & Recommendations • Users were not initially seeing them. • Some would like to see and administer tabs by user groups. • Cut the Employees tab. • Many didn’t see value of the “Employees” tab. • Staff would move content to home page • Faculty don’t see themselves as employees • They more commonly found Faculty Center via the PeopleSoft portlet than the tab • Many seem to want a home page tab for their “business” stuff, and then one where they can put miscellaneous info “More”. • Recommend creating them as more visually equivalent as traditional rounded tabs vs. current angular shape

27. Tabs Findings & Recommendations • If the Faculty Center tab cannot be implemented as originally designed with Faculty Center PeopleSoft content in the body of the page, the recommendation is to remove the tab and surface those portlets on the home page, based on user profile. • Recommend cutting the Employees tab and replacing with a “My Stuff” tab

28. Portlets Findings & Recommendations • Overall would like to see ALL portlets customizable at the link level • User expect and want the ability to drop and drag

29. Portlets Findings & Recommendations • My Bookmarks interface needs redesign. More than 50% of users failed in task of adding a bookmark. • Form design issues • Labels placed above form fields • Confusion over open window radio buttons • Save below scroll • Edit below scroll • URL requirements needs clarification, it didn’t always require http:// • Revised recommended wireframe in-progress

30. Portlets Findings & Recommendations • PeopleSoft Portlet needs different visual treatment so it is not missed • Nomenclature issue: • PeopleSoft • Towson Online Servcies • Inside • “Campus Solutions” nomenclature needs to updated • If the Faculty Center tab is removed, the home page PeopleSoft navigation will need to display the following: • Access PeopleSoft • Faculty Center • Chairman & Admin Assistant • Financials • Portal Towson Mods

31. Portlets Findings & Recommendations • Don’t want anything locked down—allow me to customize! • Sharepoint is overall well-received but confusing because expect default view to be most commonly used sites. • Are interested in having a Directory portlet or Directory as tool. • Role issues—if I am dual staff/student, give me the Gmail tool too.

32. Portlets Findings & Recommendations • Fear of the “X” remove icon. How best to communicate “undo”. • Intranets portlet was confusing, maybe nomenclature, if in SharePoint they get it already • Want to build their own portlets by department • Highlight forms repository, seems jumbled in portlet • Graphical size issues came up (too big and tool small) wanted liquid design based on content container • “insider” content for login

33. Portlets Findings & Recommendations List of new portlet suggestions • New faculty portlet • Registrars • Procard as separate • Courses & catalogs • Maps & directions • A search portlet to search content within the portal and outside too (igoogle)

34. Add More / Layout Findings & Recommend. • Moderate success rates when given this task. Not high completion rates without assistance • The interface needs redesign for further success. They are not intuitive as defaults. • 80% completely missed the preview portlet links Simply changing the name linked to static text and adding [preview] link next to each could solve this. • Wizard step-by-step • Surprised when they added portlet, its default placement on them page forced them to scroll to view it.

35. Add More / Layout Findings & Recommend. • Users could not easily find the “Save” button • If possible would like to be able to redesign this page

36. Add More / Layout Findings & Recommend. • Moderate success rates when given this task. Not high completion rates without assistance • The interface needs redesign for further success. They are not intuitive as defaults. • User’s didn’t like the 2 column lay-out, but recommend keeping it for now • #* were not seen as indicator of locked content • Placement of Delete Page button was confused for “save” several times • Users could not easily find the “Save” button • If possible would like to be able to redesign this page

37. Miscellaneous • Font size on login could be bumped up a point • 508 compliance testing needs to take place. • Alt text issues in Mac, and Safari content display issues