Accessible Venue Finder
Introduction
The Problem
Misleading online information, inconsistent accommodations communication, and disparities between advertised and actual accessibility create frustration, exclusion, and isolation.
How can we ensure users receive dependable, current, and authenticated details about accessibility accommodations in Toronto venues?
Overview
My team and I were tasked with creating a solution that would improve the citizenship experiences of people in Toronto. During our initial brainstorming sessions, we generated various ideas, including a dietary needs restaurant finder, event locator, outdoor activities guide, safe transportation tracker, clinic directory, study buddy finder, and more. However, none of these concepts truly ignited our passion and enthusiasm.
During a break from brainstorming, a team member found a TikTok video by @AccessByTay reviewing a restaurant's accessibility. Sharing it with the team, we explored the creator's TikTok page and learned that they regularly review restaurants and hotels. The videos revealed a stark disconnect between advertised and actual accessibility features in various establishments, inspiring our research into a beneficial solution for addressing accessibility challenges in public places.
Design Process Timeline
Team Members
Renée MacDiarmid, Xiaohan Hou, Emily Clarke & Vivian Zhao
Role
User Researcher • Quantitative Data Analysis • Qualitative Data Analysis • Design Thinking • Usability Testing • Prototyping
Tools
Figma • Miro • Google Workspace • Canva
Research
Secondary Research
There were various methods were employed for secondary research, including online resources (news articles, blogs, relevant websites), social media platforms (TikTok, Facebook, Reddit, LinkedIn), Google Maps analysis for accessibility accommodations, and exploring existing products in the same problem space.
Key Insights
Diverse accessibility challenges: visual, hearing, mobility, cognitive impairments.
Ineffective communication of accessibility in public spaces.
Misleading online descriptions lead to frustration and isolation.
Physical barriers hinder inclusion in public spaces.
Lack of academic research underscores the need for comprehensive solutions and further investigation.
Primary Research
We employed a combination of interviews and surveys as our primary data-gathering methods.
Surveys
We developed a Google Forms survey with twelve key questions, exploring how individuals search for and evaluate accessible accommodations at various venues and their feelings about the process. Outreach efforts included connections with organizations like YMCA, #a11yTO, and the University of Toronto Accessibility Awareness Club, as well as leveraging personal networks, Facebook groups, and relevant Reddit communities. This approach yielded 35 responses for inclusion in our analysis. Presented below are the key insights derived from the surveys:
Interviews
For interviews, we sourced experts in accessibility and inclusive design via Google, LinkedIn and personal networks. Recruitment began in late September, involving outreach to around 30 potential participants. We used a standardized interview guide for consistency across team members and conducted one-on-one interviews with 8 participants throughout October.
Key Findings
Participants mentioned how information regarding a venue’s accessibility accommodations is very limited.
Participants would like a platform on which reliable and accurate information about a venue’s accessibility accommodations can be found.
Participants discussed how arduous and frustrating the process of locating accessible venues is.
Quotes
“Accessibility information is often limited or completely missing on a venue's website”
“People just want to participate equally in society, it shouldn't be so frustrating”
“A lot of information on a venue's website is completely outdated, it's deceiving when I arrive”
Affinity Diagram
Interview data was categorized into four recurring themes: Negative Feelings, Equal Access, Barriers, and Lack of Information, consistently observed across all interviews.
Persona
Our final persona, derived from thorough research, interviews, surveys, and detailed analysis, encapsulates the collective insights gained during our research process. It serves as a user-centered guide, ensuring an inclusive solution that genuinely addresses the diverse needs and challenges of individuals seeking accessible venues. Meet Emma the Explorer.
Empathy Map
This empathy map, derived from surveys and interviews, offers a concise overview of our persona's journey in seeking accessibility accommodations at public venues through four key components: Says, Thinks, Feels, and Does.
As a team, we individually brainstormed a multitude of big ideas, noting anything that could solve Emma's pain points.
Big Ideas
To converge and prioritize ideas, we used a prioritization grid, plotting our favourites based on perceived impact and feasibility.
Orange dots indicate impact, and tan dots represent feasibility.
Home Run
Our Home Run idea was the Digital Accessibility Hub, an online community facilitating the real-time exchange of venue accessibility information.
Big Bet
Our Big Bet idea was the Live Venue Updates in which individuals on-site at a venue regularly post updates about accessibility features at the venue.
Quick Wins
Our Quick Win idea was the Yellow Pages Directory, which is a comprehensive book containing a list of accessible venues.
Vision Statements
These vision statements are crafted to ensure our team shared a common understanding of what is necessary to meet Emma's requirements.
Low Fidelity Prototype
Task #1: Onboarding
The initial sign-up involves creating an account with email or sign-in partners. Users can personalize their home feed with preferred accommodations, venue types, and receive personalized recommendations. Opt-out options are available. The onboarding concludes with brief instructions on saving venues before browsing.
Prioritization Grid
After onboarding, users navigate to the "Browse" page, scrolling through venues with short previews including name, proximity, description, and accessibility indicators. Tapping the heart icon saves a venue to their collection. The "Collection" tab allows users to access, search, and filter saved venues with service alerts. Selecting a venue opens a detailed page for browsing and posting reviews.
Task #2: Add to Collection
Upon entering the review section on the venue page, users access detailed ratings from verified visitors. To browse reviews, users can search or sort by relevance, date, or rating. Writing a review involves clicking "Write a Review," rating on a 5-point scale, adding a detailed description, and attaching media.
Lean Evaluation
We gathered feedback from three individuals experienced in searching for accessible accommodations online, conducting structured Zoom interviews with a mock demonstration using low-fidelity diagrams. The lean evaluation process allowed us to collect qualitative data, which we synthesized to derive actionable insights and improve our prototype.
Task #3: Leave Feedback
Medium Fidelity Prototype
The medium-fidelity prototype showcases the three mentioned tasks and integrates insights from the lean evaluation, incorporating features such as selecting multiple options, various filter choices, and tools for organizing the collection list.
Task #1: Onboarding
Task #2: Add to Collection
Task #3: Leave Feedback
Prototype Clickthrough
Usability Testing Overview
Our evaluation methods encompass usability testing with a think-aloud approach for immediate insights and post-test semi-structured interviews to delve deeper into user's impressions and experiences with the mid-fidelity prototype.
Usability Testing Results and Analysis
All three user testers successfully completed the three tasks. The summary of our overall evaluation, as well as the task-specific evaluation, are outlined below.
Task-Specific Evaluation
Next Steps
Iterate design based on MVP user testing feedback.
Refer to previous design stages and reassess how research findings impact goals.
Implement necessary changes.
Conduct another round of testing to address user pain points.
Materialize final solution into a working application for launch.
Continue testing and updating design to meet evolving needs of target users.
Reflection
I learned the importance of conducting extensive research, user interviews, and surveys early on in the process in order to fully realize and shape design goals. Also, the iterative process during the ideation, prototyping and user testing stages showed me how imperative it is to constantly revise in order to refine the product.
Iterative Solution Design
The establishment of a continuous feedback loop proved instrumental in addressing key user pain points, fostering an iterative development process. This approach culminated in the development of a user-centric, inclusive application that not only met but exceeded user expectations, showcasing the power of responsive and collaborative design.
Focus on User-Centric Design
Implementing the final design taught me to prioritize usability and accessibility. Staying agile, I've learned to adapt to evolving user needs through continuous testing and updates.