Challenge:   Learning Launch - Build proven solution for a national library.  My team and I were developing a harmonised web experience for a national library organisation that  brought together a fragmented range of digital properties from library content, historical archives,  and media. This content comprised of more than a million content pages and needed to be  accessible to a wide variety of citizens from school children, all the way up to retirees. Developing  this harmonised web experience would take more than a year to build, so before our developers  started coding, we needed to prove that the user experience would work for all of the personas in  our diverse audience.

Selection:   We leveraged a learning launch – getting the prototype in front of users as early as possible, to  validate that our design would work for all. The intention was to get feedback from users, iterate the  user experience, and retest with another target group. Repeating until we had a winning solution.  Learning launch was a way for us to reduce the cost of failure – in a way to “fail fast” and be able to  resolve issues in the user experience before we had invested too much.

Application:  For each user experience prototype, we developed a series of interactive wireframes, that the user  could click-through on a desktop browser or mobile phone. We had identified small number of  participants for each round of testing that were representative of the diverse target audience, and  observed them attempting to complete typical user tasks on the prototype website. Some of these  tasks might be “Search for a book from your favourite author” or “reserve a title to collect at your  local library” or even “search for news article about a historic event”.  While the users were attempting the tasks we had set, we prompted them to verbalise what they  were thinking – so we could gain an insight into their perceptions, and demonstrate the  understanding of the functions of the interface we had prepared. We took copious notes for every  reaction – recording when they succeeded and failed to understand the interface prototypes. Each  round of testing illuminated common interface issues that we could resolve and retesting in  subsequent rounds could verify we had successfully removed the identified issues.

Insight:  We had all assumed our initial prototype would score highly with users, but many of the interface  elements that had seemed obvious to our team proved confusing for users. As we worked through  the iterative rounds of testing, we were able to remove the issues causing the confusion, and  therefore strengthen the quality of the design. At the end of the testing, the web design was  simplified, and worked so much better for our users. Being able to test early with users was an  invaluable tool for us to solve the problems our users had – it had reinforced the value of an agile,  Design Thinking approach.

Approach:  If we had to approach this challenge again, it would be valuable to try to broaden the diversity of  users we could gather for testing even further. Drawing on networks from the team, led us to have  underrepresentation from very young and very old users. We could have also made the testing  location mobile – to go to where our target audience was, near the libraries at different times of day.  In terms of the tool application, it was the right choice to test with real users as early as we could.  Their feedback was invaluable for us to overcome blindspots in our development team, and emerge  with a proven design that worked for all.


Challenge : Learning Launch - Build proven solution for a national library . My team and I were developing a harmonised web experience for a national library organisation that brought together a fragmented range of digital properties from library content , historical archives , and media . This content comprised of more than a million content pages and needed to be accessible to a wide variety of citizens from school children , all the way up to retirees . Developing this harmonised web experience would take more than a year to build , so before our developers started coding , we needed to prove that the user experience would work for all of the personas in our diverse audience . Selection : We leveraged a learning launch – getting the prototype in front of users as early as possible , to validate that our design would work for all . The intention was to get feedback from users , iterate the user experience , and retest with another target group . Repeating until we had a winning solution . Learning launch was a way for us to reduce the cost of failure – in a way to “ fail fast ” and be able to resolve issues in the user experience before we had invested too much . Application : For each user experience prototype , we developed a series of interactive wireframes , that the user could click - through on a desktop browser or mobile phone . We had identified small number of participants for each round of testing that were representative of the diverse target audience , and observed them attempting to complete typical user tasks on the prototype website . Some of these tasks might be “ Search for a book from your favourite author ” or “ reserve a title to collect at your local library ” or even “ search for news article about a historic event ” . While the users were attempting the tasks we had set , we prompted them to verbalise what they were thinking – so we could gain an insight into their perceptions , and demonstrate the understanding of the functions of the interface we had prepared . We took copious notes for every reaction – recording when they succeeded and failed to understand the interface prototypes . Each round of testing illuminated common interface issues that we could resolve and retesting in subsequent rounds could verify we had successfully removed the identified issues . Insight : We had all assumed our initial prototype would score highly with users , but many of the interface elements that had seemed obvious to our team proved confusing for users . As we worked through the iterative rounds of testing , we were able to remove the issues causing the confusion , and therefore strengthen the quality of the design . At the end of the testing , the web design was simplified , and worked so much better for our users . Being able to test early with users was an invaluable tool for us to solve the problems our users had – it had reinforced the value of an agile , Design Thinking approach . Approach : If we had to approach this challenge again , it would be valuable to try to broaden the diversity of users we could gather for testing even further . Drawing on networks from the team , led us to have underrepresentation from very young and very old users . We could have also made the testing location mobile – to go to where our target audience was , near the libraries at different times of day . In terms of the tool application , it was the right choice to test with real users as early as we could . Their feedback was invaluable for us to overcome blindspots in our development team , and emerge with a proven design that worked for all .