Touchtree: Product redesign for a Touch object decision tree
Timeline
March 2024 - May 2024
Capabilities
User Experience, User Interface Design, Research
Team (Full-stack designer)
Aditya Garyali, Yi Chen, Ayushi Shah (Full stack Designers) , Cheryl Fogle-Hatch (mentor)
Overview
TouchTree is an existing digital product for museum practitioners by a previous NYU student based on the research on touch objects (Race et al.). It functions as an online decision tree that guides users through evaluating museum artifacts and helps them develop corresponding tactile experiences using a structured set of questions.
The TouchTree aims to address the challenge of a lack of touch experiences in most museums. As vision is prioritized as the primary way of engaging with museum objects, there is a lack of consideration of Blind/Low Vision visitors, as well as visitors who interpret best through tactile interactions. TouchTree aims to provide museum curators the resources and guidance for creating effective, high-fidelity touch objects.
The previous team developed an initial prototype to address the challenge that museums often lack the expertise and resources to create effective, high-fidelity touch objects.
Our team's goal was to test and validate this prototype and refine it based on identified user needs.
The goal
The proposed solution
We updated the prototype to better meet the user needs, namely focusing on 3 enhancements:
1. Allowing for easy navigation
2. Allowing for easy access to resources and definitions
3.Offering a comprehensive, step-by-step guide that includes clear definitions and relevant resources—all in one place
Existing Prototype
The existing prototype is an accessible digital application designed to website developed to help museums product touch object experiences for accessible tactile interpretation
Demo of the existing prototype
Research: Literature Review
Our team started with researching about tactile experiences. Some of our insights include:
1
High fidelity tactile experiences (objects that are closer to the original artifact) are the most preferred way to gain the full museum experience. These include 3D prints, and artist-commissioned replicas.
2
Description through audio can be a means to enhance this experience but cannot replace it.
3
Multisensory experiences are important, even for sighted people, as a means of recalling experiences.
4
The material and methods curators choose rely on their budget, knowledge and material compatibility.
User Testing
While conducting the research, our team tested the existing prototype both internally and with users. We used various museum artifacts to identify key user needs and then brainstormed potential solutions for each of them.
Identified Needs
Need help locating exact resources to materialize the object
Need consideration of materials, cost, techniques, etc. to help users execute the suggestions
Solutions can be interpreted in different ways. Need for consistent resources to remove ambiguity.
Potential Solutions
Adding hierarchy and grouping to resources page.
Including previous examples to help curators set up expectations and envision the outcomes.
Create a step-by-step solution, with relevant resources.
At this stage, my team and I created prototypes with the potential solutions
The second part of user testing was to conduct an A/B testing of the existing prototype and the proposed prototype (on Figma) for user feedback. The user testing was conducted with students working in museum studies or museum accessibility.
FigJam insight mapping to help us organize and sort the insights
What the users said about the existing prototype:
1. Users found the resources page to be difficult to read, and mentioned that they would not know how to navigate it.
2. More than half of the users were confused about the question of commissioning, and wanted more information to answer the question.
3. More than half the users also mentioned time constraint, and cost as a consideration that was missing.
What the users said about our proposed prototype:
1. Users appreciated the hierarchy and grouping of resources, and said it was easier to comprehend.
2. Users liked that the solution was split into steps, and found it to guide them better with conceptualizing the touch experience. They wanted more resources in each step.
3. Users received different responses and had different interpretations of the solutions for the same objects, and wanted more information. They found the previous examples to partially help.
4. Users wanted more images, and visual guides to navigate within the sections.
Updated Prototype
Our goal with the updated prototype was to provide relevant information at every step of the process, ensuring that the user has access to the resources to implement the suggestions provided by the TouchTree. Our goal with the updated prototype was to ensure users had access to relevant information at every step, supporting them with the resources needed to implement TouchTree’s suggestions.
Existing sitemap
Updated sitemap
Updates
1 - Easier navigation and an uninterrupted flow
Starting with a simple, but effective change, arranging the Dictionary page alphabetically to provide for easier navigation. Moreover, adding tooltips wherever a term from the dictionary page was used, to avoid having to go to the Dictionary page too often.
Alphabetically arranged Dictionary page
Tooltips on the solutions page (While Tooltips provides ease, it is not screenreader friendly)
2 - Easing access to additional resources
Adding and segregating the Resource page into Tutorials, Commission Information, Materials, Gallery, Publications, Apps/Softwares. Standardizing the format of each resource.
A menu at the top that links to different sections of the page. Each resource consists of a title, author, short description, and link. The page format allows for navigation between sections and is screen reader friendly.
3 - Bridging the gap between concept and execution
Adding a step-by-step solution to the Solutions page, linking each step to relevant resources, definitions, and considerations. Rearranging the sections based on relevance.
A step-by-step solution with each step accompanied by relevant resources, definitions, and considerations
Prototype Demo
Demo of the updated prototype
Outcome
The updated prototype was well-received by our project mentors. Once it was ready, they effectively used it to conduct further testing with professional museum practitioners, with the goal of making the tool available for industry use!
“The step-by-step format is exactly what I was looking for. It answers questions like what materials to use and gives a sense of the costs. The updated prototype feels more relevant, and seeing examples makes it much easier to understand than just reading text”
Reflections
Learnings
As my first project in Accessibility, this experience provided me with valuable hands-on learning in the accessibility design process. I learned how to collaborate with sensitive user groups and design with users rather than for them. This project has been a pivotal part of my UX journey, broadening my perspective on designing for diverse user groups and adapting to their unique needs and workflows. It has also opened doors for me to work on more accessibility-focused projects and reinforced my commitment to considering accessibility needs in future technology designs.
During our process, we came across other insights that we could not get to during the semester. Some of them are:
The end solution should consider cost, time availability, and other constraints.
The dictionary and resources page would be more helpful if they have examples, and visuals.
The homepage can include more information about the significance of tactile artifacts, and how they can enhance museum experiences.
Next steps