OVERVIEW:
The product:
Find a Mentor, or fam, is a responsive web design platform where students can thoroughly select UX mentors tailored to their specific needs.
the problem:
Most mentor selection platforms are not as robust and offer the next mentor in rotation without a comprehensive matching selection process.
THE GOAL:
Find a Mentor accomplishes to have students select their mentors through a number of factors: ratings, experience, learning styles and other skills that may be more relatable to them.
Case Study: Find a Mentor
ROLE:
Lead UX Designer & Researcher, from conception to delivery
duration:
2 months
RESPONSIBILITIES:
Strategy, conducting interviews, paper and digital wireframing, low-fidelity mockups and high-fidelity prototyping, conducting usability studies, accounting for accessibility and applying iterations on designs
tools used:
Paper and pen for sketching and wireframing, Miro and Figma for concept artboards, Adobe XD for design and prototype
Design Process:
Empathize:
user research summary:
I conducted a survey and was able to get responses from 17 individuals. To better understand the users I’m designing for and their needs, I reached out specifically to individuals who have completed mentorship programs and those who are looking to get into a mentorship program in the UX field. A primary user group identified were professionals transitioning to new careers and are eager to get into the creative tech field. 53% of these individuals are in their late 20s and early 30s. 25% were in their mid 30s to mid 40s.
I further probed and interviewed 7 of these individuals and was able to get a more informative insight. It was pretty evident the professionals that are taking these mentorship programs are not having the best user experience in finding a mentor. They were encountering a number of fears, frustrations and obstacles. Conversely, they presented a number of wants/needs, measures of success, achievements that will help shape the design of the site.
pain points:
empathy map:
By categorizing user research interview responses into different buckets of thinking, feeling, saying and doing, it was easier to imagine myself in their shoes. The two personas created represented the major themes of the individuals from the empathy map.
personas:
Developing personas serve as a guide throughout the entire design process.
Define:
User stories:
USER journey map:
PROBLEM STATEMENTS:
Ideate:
COMPETITIVE AUDIT:
After an extensive audit of 3 other competitors, I was able to conclude that there were opportunities to improve the selection process of mentors. Incorporating these important factors: ratings, education, professional background and other personal circumstances would allow for a more robust student and mentor relationship. Other gaps include offering accessibility options and offering other language features.
It is also important to note that the user experience of the mentor request flow should be very simple. One should be able to provide details, choose mentors based on the criteria they prefer and book a session right away.
HOW MIGHT WE:
Through a brainstorming session, here are features that will help shape the look and feel of the site. Though not all will be implemented, they are great features that can be added in the future.
CRAZY 8’s:
Crazy 8’s is another great ideating session that gets the juices flowing in formulating fast solutions that will help shape the features on the platform. It’s a great exercise to champion for the user, address the user needs and resolve pain points while being creative.
sitemap:
Prototype:
Paper wireframes:
paper wireframes (screen size variations):
DIGITAL WIREFRAMES:
digital wireframes (Screen size variations):
low-fidelity prototype:
Prototype explores the user flow experience of finding a UX mentor. It allows a user to select factors in finding the right mentor. User then selects from a list of profiles. When a mentor is selected, it allows the user to make a payment for a session and book a time with that mentor. Check low-fidelity prototype.
usability study parameters:
usability study findings:
Two main rounds of usability studies were established. Findings from the first study were minor tweaks from wireframes to mockups. Affinity diagram below helped evolve themes into insights. The second study used a high-fidelity prototype for further refinements. There were a lot more usability study findings that followed to keep iterating the design, ensuring it aligns in resolving pain points and meeting user needs. Summary of the findings are provided below.
mockups:
mockups (screen size variations):
high-fidelity prototype:
There were very minor tweaks in the high-fidelity prototype after another usability study: sentence structure, placement of fonts/buttons, use of terms and adding white space. At the same time, it accomplishes to address major pain points covered at the beginning. High-fidelity prototypes are available for both desktop and mobile.
accessibility considerations:
Test:
feedback and iterate:
Feedback and iterations were implemented during the numerous usability studies. Getting to the root of the problem is key and involves a lot of cross examinations between the different steps of the design thinking process. At the end of the day, it’s about meeting the user’s needs, despite the number of user testing is involved.
