Testing and iterating

I led a comprehensive user testing program with 27 nursing school faculty across the U.S. over three weeks (24 remote sessions and 3 in-person). I conducted 45-60 minute moderated sessions using high-fidelity prototypes that evolved from clickable to coded as testing progressed.

The iterative approach was continuous. I made refinements between sessions based on what I was learning, moving quickly from identifying issues to testing solutions with the next participant. This allowed me to validate changes in real time rather than waiting until all testing was complete.

Key findings that shaped the final design:

• Terminology matters. Faculty were confused by terms like “repeat” vs “retesting” students. I iterated through 4 different versions of this language during testing until landing on “retesting,” which participants consistently understood.

• Context is critical. The concept of a “testing session” was initially unclear. I revised the helper text and interface cues multiple times until faculty could articulate what it meant and how to use it effectively.

• Privacy concerns shape design. Early prototypes flagged students with testing accommodations (ADA), but faculty raised concerns about bias and HIPAA violations. I redesigned the approach to address accommodations without explicitly labeling students.

• Demand validation happened organically. When I explained the concept of “groups” (not yet built in the prototype), faculty immediately saw value and described specific use cases, validating that this feature should be prioritized for future development.

The testing confirmed our hypothesis: faculty wanted self-service scheduling and would use an intuitive tool over calling support. The validation came from both stated preference and observed behavior: high completion rates, unprompted positive feedback, and faculty describing exactly when and how they would use it.