Computers & Writing 2015: UxD and OWLs, or Preparing for the Next Step

It’s been some time since I’ve written an update for this blog. This is, perhaps due to the excitement that is inherent in the final months of a PhD program, or of how busy it can be preparing a resource as long-lived and storied as the OWL for its eventual hand-off to the next generation of OWL leadership. Either way, as the time runs out on my time sitting in the OWL’s nest and serving as the content coordinator, I wanted to write one final update about the usability work that we’ve been doing at the OWL and it’s purposeful transition to focusing on user experience design (UxD).

When this project started its planning last spring, I was very excited to be a part of the process. I was, of course, somewhat tentative about my own involvement as I was unsure of what the 2014-2015 academic year would hold for me. In the end, I wouldn’t be able to participate as fully as I had hoped—being distracted by an aggressive dissertation timeline and an even more aggressive job hunt. However, I have recently had time to reflect on this process and on my own, somewhat tertiary involvement in it. The catalyst for this reflection was a group presentation at Computers & Writing 2015,[1] and has made me consider three possible implications of the work that was carried out by Prof. Salvo’s ENGL 515: Advanced Professional Writing students.

The first and perhaps most immediate implication is that OWLs, usability studies, and UxD implementation can be an important space for the continued professionalization of undergraduate students. For undergraduate students it is the opportunity to work on an intensive project with a real world client, an opportunity that can often be missing from the undergraduate experience. Working with a real client, as opposed to the professor serving as a simulated one, can impart a number of skills on the individuals lucky enough to partake in the experience. The students’ in the 515 course gained skills with problem/solution negotiation, meeting with a client to better understands needs/wants, developing novel solutions, presenting these solutions to a client, and responding to client feedback. During our Computers & Writing presentation, Mr. Yim reflected on what he had learned during this project and it was abundantly clear that this project had given him the opportunity to practice the skillsets he had learned about in his other coursework in a way that gave him real and marketable experience. In short, it helped to serve as an educational component that has differentiated him from a number of other undergraduates with the same degree.

The second possible implication relates to interdisciplinary research. It is very like that the work carried out in the Advanced Professional Writing course can have impacts in the area of second language writing and in the area of intercultural rhetoric (IR). Based on my own experiences as the OWL Coordinator and based on presenting on OWL-related research at conferences in China and the United States, there is a great deal of interest in OWLs in the traditionally defined EFL context; that is, outside of the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. I have been approached by writing centers professionals from contexts ranging from Poland to Japan asking about what it takes to start up and OWL, how best to manage one, content-development best practices and how to talk to central administration about OWL needs. While I have often done my best to speak to these areas based on my experiences, I have been unable to point them to other, published resources to help them bolster their case. This is, in part, because OWL scholarship has not kept up with its global expansion. Given this sizable gap, I believe that the marriage of UxD, SLW, and IR could provide valuable insights that could inform best practices and equip these professionals with the means to advocate for much needed resources. A possibility for this is to examine how L2 student-writers find and interact with OWL resources while engaged in a writing task, and then to look at how this information is parsed and deployed paying particular attention to issues of access and understanding related how the material is presented and organized on the OWL site being used. This data could then be interpreted through the lens of IR using studies such as McBride (2008),[2] which examined how expectations of web design where largely based on experiences grounded in local-rhetorical considerations. Work of this nature could then extend knowledge in all three areas. It is my hope to continue contributing to this underexplored area when I reach my new institution in the fall.

Finally, there was an implication that I hadn’t considered before Computers & Writing, and that is the value that exists in public work. Throughout this process we have attempted to share as much of the research as possible with the public. This has taken the form of this blog and the posts by various stakeholders in the work, as well as the final recommendations report from the 515 class. This is rather valuable, as it doesn’t just present the preened version of events that may appear in a published article. Rather, is has shown the struggles, challenges, and opportunities that have arisen throughout the process; and, this can serve as a useful object lesson for anyone hoping to carrying out the same or similar work in the future. Internally, it has also led us to consider how we might share the behind-the-scenes work in order to better inform best practices for other OWL designers and developers. There are a number of forms that this may take (e.g., sharing our development manuals and style guides). However, that is a conversation that will be held largely by the new wave of Purdue OWL leaders. As a soon-to-be OWL alumnus, I look forward to its outcome. 

---

[1] Conard-Salvo, T., Yim, A., Paiz, J.M., & Spronk, C. (2015). UxD and online writing labs: Meeting the needs of a changing global audience. Presented at Computers & Writing 2015, Menomonie, WI.

[2] McBride, K. (2008). English web page use in an EFL setting: A contrastive rhetoric view of the development of information literacy. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout, & W. Rozyci (eds.), Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric (219-240). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Recommendations and Thinking about Personas

Our work with English 515 has been over for a semester, and time has evaporated since we received the final recommendation report from the Professional Writing students who researched, listened, and offered suggestions for the future of the Purdue OWL. Many of the recommendations made complete sense and confirmed ideas we were already considering: simplifying our overwhelming site map, redesigning our text-heavy resources without losing information, and promoting consistency with a revamped style guide for content developers.

Other suggestions, like thinking about global users through ethnographic research, provides an opportunity to take what has been anecdotal information and generate concrete data about the English language learners and teachers who use our site. The preliminary ethnographic research that Andrew began has shown us how we can take our global users into consideration.

The most innovative suggestion, at least to me, is the idea of generating personas for the OWL to help users navigate and find information. Users would identify with a persona based on user type and the action they were hoping to complete by visiting the OWL.  And it would create a more positive experience to reduce the overwhelming options we currently have on the OWL. Users could still go elsewhere on the site, but they would be directed to information most likely meeting their needs.

We had often discussed how best to direct users to where they wanted and needed to go. We had even discussed developing a heuristic that would guide users based on their felt needs or based on questions they were trying to answer. But we hadn’t considered personas—at least not in the way they were presented to us in the final recommendation report.

Now I know our Webmaster has some reservations about the term “personas,” which may mean something different from a web design standpoint. But I am still wrapping my mind around how radically different the OWL would be if we could redesign based on different types of users, leading to different spaces and experiences for users. Not just a menu that lists “suggested resources” for user groups that doesn’t alter the space or the experience in any significant way. We have a long way to go before implementing such changes, but I’m looking forward to thinking about the final recommendation report in the coming semesters and seeing what’s possible for the OWL.

The OWL as a t-shirt by Jessica Schwingendorf

As I began reading the abstract for “Culture and Usability Evaluation: The Effects of Culture in Structured Interviews” I got distracted. The report centers around the idea that two participants experienced different usability problems based on whether or not the interviewer was from the same culture.

I immediately began thinking about a discussion I had with my roommates the night prior. There is a clothing line called Brandy Melville which believes in a “one-size-fits-all” sizing method. All of the clothes are sold in just one size, but this size is far from universal. The clothes are only made for very small, slender women and the majority of the population would have only been able to fit into these clothes in middle or high school.

This kind of standard sizing, even sometimes called “one-size-fits-small”, has been very controversial, particularly because of the target market these clothes are meant for: high school girls and young women. A population that has been plagued by the media’s warped, stick-thin figure standards and suffered from body images issues, often leading to eating disorders. Brandy Melville’s clothes seem to only fuel a stronger desire for this unrealistic form of beauty.

One size fits all doesn’t work for clothing, as it doesn’t work for most situations. Of course only in my head as an ex-design major did I manage to make a connection between fashion and web usability, but I believe the same idea applies to the OWL redesign.

A point of pride for the OWL is how many different kinds of people it reaches, from diverse cultures, age ranges, economic and social statuses, the OWL is there to help teach improve the world’s writing. The challenge the OWL faces though is that not all users engage with the site in the same way.

For example, one of the biggest complaints of my generation (mostly Purdue college students) is that the OWL design is too “90s” or “old-school”. However, as the leaders of the OWL have discussed with us, the compatibility of a “fancier” or more “high-tech” design wouldn’t work well with older systems or slower wireless connections which are often found in other regions and countries. We find the OWL to be clunky and perhaps harder to navigate, which confirms prior research about usability and how “culture affects the users’ perception of aesthetics and apparent usability” (158). We are a generation from a face-paced, high-tech culture, particularly at such an advanced university, so we expect a face-paced, high-tech website from the OWL.

I’m not familiar with many overseas website designs, but I’m guessing not all of them exactly match our expectations. We have had to keep in mind as experience designers that our audience is so vast and diverse that we can’t make changes that serve only the needs of our own demographic.  This made me realize how we are attempting to make the OWL a one-size-fits-all website. We are trying to appeal to high school and college students, instructors and professionals, those who speak English as a second language as well as numerous cultures. I believe it’s impossible to satisfy the needs of all of every demographic and culture, so we’re almost setting ourselves up for failure. 

We are looking to satisfy the masses, which while seemingly helpful will inevitably leave some left out (like those who do not fit into the Brandy Melville clothing). Performing research on various demographics, whether the differences between users be culture, technological aptitude, age or education level, gathering information on how people use the OWL is necessary to at least be aware of what we could do better, even if the solutions are not presently possible. This research could give us more goals to strive for, more opportunities for growth to eventually make the OWL as close to ubiquitously accessible as we can.

In a perfect world, we could have several different “sizes” of the OWL: a high-tech design for young, modern users, a design and layout specific to ESL users, and another for the older, less tech-savvy audience. Many different versions would be necessary to satisfy each niche of our audience, but even two additional versions would make a world of difference in my mind!

However, managing a website of the OWL’s current magnitude is hard enough as it is. Creating and managing two additional ones is unrealistic (and I don’t even know if it’s really possible while keeping the same web address!).

To be honest, I don’t really have an answer to this one-size-fits-all issue. I don’t believe it can be solved now or any time soon, but it’s an issue we must keep in the forefront of our minds as we continue to brainstorm and begin to conduct interviews as part of our class project. My hope is that we will be able to test and discuss the OWL with a large pool of demographics and different cultures so we can discover our opportunities for improvement and set goals for future site redesigns.

Currently, the OWL is not suited to fulfil every single need of every single user, but research into what these individuals’ demands would provide a clearer path for the OWL take when technology catches up with our goals. For now, we need to make our “one-size” fit as many people as possible.

Frustration and the OWL by Tanner Heffner

Have you ever been so frustrated with a computer that you wanted to scream at the screen? Not in the angry teenage gamer way, but in the what I want to happen isn’t happening way. The article “Determining Causes and Severity of End-User Frustration” discusses user frustration during computer use. While many errors come from popups and computer crashes, the largest amount of frustration when dealing with computers comes from web use. In another article, "Help! I’m Lost: User Frustration in Web Navigation" lists users not being able to find the content they are seeking in the description of web use frustration.

We all have examples of using a website for a specific purpose and have difficulties completing our goals. Whether the goal be finding a particular article or using virtual tools, using the web can be an extremely frustrating experience. Personally, when I encounter frustrations with a website, unless is imperative that I use that particular site, I will try to find a different website to use instead. The data below from “Determining the Causes and Severity of End-User Frustration” shows that many users just give up, move on, or find an alternative method when faced with computer difficulties.

Figure 1

Looking at the graph above, we can see how users react when faced with a problem. While the graph shows that the majority of users have seen the error before and from previous experience know how to solve the problem, the next most used solution is "I was unable to solve it." This means that when users are unable to quickly find a way to solve their problem without having to look at manuals or third-party help, they give up and move on. To design a website for the future, we have to assume that users are used to instant gratification and don't want to spend a lot of time navigating to find the information they are seeking. When they can't find it quickly and easily, we can infer from the graph above that a large majority of users are going to give up and move on to another resource.

The OWL has a huge amount of information that can be extremely beneficial to the users. However, if the users encounter difficulties and frustrations when searching for the information they want, they are likely to disconnect and try finding the information on a different website. I believe that we should begin analyzing how users are interacting with the OWL and from that, determine where users are getting frustrated and disconnecting. By determining where users are experiencing frustration with the OWL, we can make start to make changes about that will potentially increase the amount of time users spend on our site and the amount of resources that they read. Reducing user frustration is a key component in user centered design.

Citation:

Ceaparu, Irina, Jonathan Lazar, Katie Bessiere, John Robinson, and Ben Shneiderman. "Determining Causes and Severity of End-User Frustration." International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 17.3 (2004): 333-56. Taylor & Francis. Web. 5 Nov. 2014. <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327590ijhc1703_3#.VHDUAPldXHQ>.

Windowless Airplanes by Carly Harmon

Figure 1

I read an article recently that talked about the development of air travel within the next ten years. According to this article, the concept design of “windowless planes” is the work of the Teesside-based Centre for Process Innovation (CPI). It was reported that the windows of the aircraft would be replaced with full-length OLED screens that would display panoramic views that are captured by cameras on the outside of the plane, along with in-flight entertainment and Wi-Fi (although, I’m not so sure how I could concentrate on watching a movie when I could watch the panoramic view from 30,000 feet, but that’s just me.) Not only does this new design offer very unique, albeit terrifying, view for passengers, but it also reduces the weight of the plane, thus lowering the cost for both the passenger and airline, according to CPI.

Figure 2

When we think of air travel today, a lot of flyers have many things to complain about. One guy doesn't have enough leg room between him and the seat in front of him, so he feels too cramped. A woman's wifi isn't working, so she can't get any work done during her flight. Another guy doesn't like who he's sitting next to. The list can go on and on because, let's face it, users will always find something to complain about. But that's where UxD comes in. It's our job to give users little to complain about.

I think it's interesting to compare air travel from the 50s and 60s to now. Back in "The Golden Age," as some call it, air travel was considered a luxury. Based on the pictures and movies I've seen, hopping aboard an airplane in 1960 would provide passengers with bigger seats, more open space, gourmet meals, the freedom to light up a cigarette, and tons of booze. By looking at these depictions of 1960s air travel, I can only assume that flying was a basically a massive cocktail party at 30,000 feet. 

Figure 3

In the 21st century, air travel is anything but that. When you purchase a plane ticket, you get to look forward to a cramped couple of hours staring at the back of a chair with some headphones in. WiFi probably will be available, but it's most likely going to cost you some extra money.

A user's experience is very important. After all, that is the whole point of UxD. The whole idea behind designing things for air travel is to make it a great experience for the flyer, from the moment they purchase the ticket to when they land and collect their luggage. The better the experience the flyer has, the more they will keep coming back. Part of making the flyer's experience a great one is pushing the boundaries in order to stay innovative. This new design for air crafts is certainly pushing the boundaries to normal air travel. Talk about an experience! Having WiFi on a plane would suffice for a simple minded person like me. This panoramic in flight view in place of regular windows goes above and beyond. But boy, would I feel bad for a passenger who has a fear of flying!

Figure 4

I think it's interesting to see designers channeling their ideas to bring back the air travel experience to that of the 50s and 60s. Designers are making air travel a luxury again. Although, still no smoking!

The way designers think of innovative ideas that go above and beyond regular air travel that users are used to is the same way we should be thinking about redesigning the Purdue OWL. If you think about it, we should want our users to have some of the same experiences that passengers on airplanes have:

1) We don't want users to feel cramped when searching through the Purdue OWL, which they will get if so many pages and resources available are just scattered randomly throughout the website. 

2) We don't want users to come across pages and resources that don't work, even though they seem easily available, much like having WiFi on an airplane that doesn't work how it should.

3) Lastly and most importantly, we want our users to come back for more. If we create new ideas for the Purdue OWL that are innovative as well as reliable, then we will have more users who want to keep using the website as well as suggest the OWL to other users. 

I think that’s important for us to keep in mind when we are recreating the Purdue OWL. It’s important for us to think above and beyond on what we can do. Of course, there are limitations, but having extravagant and creative ideas from the get go can get us closer to where we want the Purdue OWL to be.

Below you can watch the full CPI clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ga3PMsrHpjU

Ubiquity, Testing, Experience

Ubiquity: that is perhaps the one word contrast between the context of the previous generation of OWL testing and this new iteration. In my last post, I wrote about designing the students' experience of the class. This blog is perhaps clearest evidence of the transition from an OWL redesign project dedicated to Usability and one meant to focus on UxD. In 2006-2007, there were elementary blog hosting services, but now these template-driven hosting services (like this blogger site) are quite sophisticated. The design and function are "good enough" to support our class needs, as well as the demands of documenting and recording the project itself. I think about all the time saved both by students and me, and that time can be spent on reading more recent research as well in articulating this content. The blogging tools are ubiquitous. They're simply here: free, useful, and most importantly, usable.

Just as the resources available on the OWL and the different methods of accessing the information are changing, the methods we use for analysis need to change too. —Kaitlyn

I would be wasting my energy and students' time if we spent this class concentrating on usability to the exclusion of experience architecture. There are limits to the utility of revisiting usability precisely because usability has been so successful. In the middle 1990s, we were making arguments about including usability precisely because so many emergent designs were unusable, either pet projects not meant for widespread adoption or examples of what Norman refers to as "next bench" design, the design solutions engineers come up with that prove a concept at their workbenches but really aren't meant for general, mass use. Usability has broken that scheme and practice, and moved from emergent design (as Bjiker named it) and towards recognizable genres (which Spinuzzi has traced for some time in his work). Bob Johnson has recognized this Ubiquity Paradox and questions insistence on older usability, user-centered, and participatory lexical fixations. 

The OWL needs to make sense. Not just for me, a tech-savvy college student, but also my mom, a middle aged music teacher who does not work with a lot of technologies on a daily basis. It shouldn't make users wonder why they must take certain steps, it should be self-evident. —Jessica

Blogger is a tool we are employing to help create the communication environment of the OWL UxD project. Similarly, Purdue provides access to a sophisticated survey tool, Qualtrics. Other similar tools exist, some at low or no cost for educational use. I've been asked if I might be making students dependent on this tool: what happens when their first professional position requires data gathering and there is no access to Qualtrics? Putting aside whether this or another tool might be better to address the need, it seems silly to deny students use of a powerful tool for fear it might not be available at some unknown future point. Further, comparison with free tools allows students to decide: perhaps Survey Monkey has all the power and flexibility they need. Or perhaps they can then begin the challenging but necessary task of articulating need and gathering materials. 

What makes the Purdue OWL a great tool/resource is that it can be accessed by anyone with a computer and reliable Internet connection. Not only is it easily accessible, it's free. And while it contains the overarching theme of guidelines for writing, many different people access the site for different reasons. How the user experiences the site and his or her satisfaction with it depends heavily on whether or not the site helps in achieving there goals. Therefore, by redesigning the site, we are redesigning the user experience of the site so that it fulfills their needs and helps them achieve their goals. —Kristin

Besides blogging and surveying tools, students have numerous computing devices they carry with them to class, including a variety of smartphones, tablets, phablets, netbooks, laptops, and other writing tools. Most students log on to the classroom computers—which are last-generation iMacs with gigantic integrated screens. But many students rarely if ever log on to these computers, and by extension, also eschew resources like software and storage space available through the wired campus network. Students access materials through the less robust but more flexible wireless connectivity available just about everywhere on campus. WiFi is like oxygen on campus: everywhere and seemingly free, and only noticed in its absence. That is, ubiquitous.

There will be a wide range of things we have to consider while we are creating the user experience to accommodate all OWL users because they have so many different types of users with different access to certain technologies. —Kira

Behavior surrounding the campus network and computing resources has convinced me that one response to ubiquity needs to be a reconfiguration of campus computing facilities. I favor replacing the 20+ student machines with 5 or 6 higher end machines capable of and equipped for HD video editing, 3D sound editing and recording, and student- as well as teacher- controlled image projection. This is how we are reimagining our multimedia production space. And have proposed for our main technology rich classrooms. But I digress. 

The purpose of redesigning the Purdue OWL has shifted from usability to UXD design. I find it interesting ... that usability has come so far and that this is a major reason why we focus more on UXD design... I agree that some major changes could be made to the room. On our redesign of the room, we included more tables and more computers, which will definitely help shape a user's experience. —Andrew

Blogging and surveying tools are part of this new age of ubiquity. Similarly, students' own mobile technologies are part of a literate context that seems to define this new era. That these technologies can be seamlessly accessed and used interchangeably—that they are useful and usable—are part as well of the environmental dimension of technology. That WiFi is not only present but robust, but more importantly expected. In this context, usability testing is much less pressing than attention to the users' experience within this techno-cultural space and place.

We need to begin taking into account all of the different devices that were mentioned in this post. Looking at some of the network statistics from the OWL, very few hits are actually coming from the mobile devices that students carry with them everywhere. While this could be that the content may only be relevant when they are working on an actual computer, I think we need to begin considering how users would interact with a mobile app and what information they may need access to from a device that fits in their hand. Rather than just re-sizing the OWL to pocket form, we need to start thinking ahead to what the needs of the users are. —Tanner

Blogger and other Google docs; email and instant messaging; Qualtrics; the physical classroom itself with its installed computers and full suite of software; campus WiFi; mobile and laptop computers: this mix of devices, software, services, and places all contribute to the instructional technology—they are available to students but can become invisible, transparent—as technologies. These technologies are for the most part looked through to the work at hand precisely because usability as a movement has been so effective. These things just work. So what's at stake?

There are many systems that "just work" without a second thought for me. But as I read this post, I began to wonder whether technologies truly "just work" or if I, as a user, have adapted my interaction with a technology so that it can work. —Jessica

Well, the continued invention and design of new services, and of new categories of devices (I did mention phablets above, which are certainly evolutionary and not revolutionary, but still, a new micro-category). These are important. But I think the bigger rewards lie in taking successful processes and knowledge making from the software and web worlds and putting them to work in new contexts: from workplaces to architecture to manufacturing, there are innumerable contexts where knowledge and core competencies developed in the service of creating these now-ubiquitous technologies and literacy practices make training in technical communication very valuable. In an age of ubiquity, experience architecture is an important and valuable specialty in a wide variety of workplaces.

So, my question is: as different tools for increasing/measurability usability increase, does the assumption that these users immediately know how to use them increase as well? And how do we negotiate these kinds of expectations? How do we need to think more critically about accessibility and, indeed, willingness, to work with and learn from these types of technologies? — Mary

This classroom is the experience of UxD for these students. I have designed it in order to teach these students about usability, user-centered design theory, as well as involve them in ongoing research. I also ask them to think with me, and sometime struggle to make clear what we are doing ... precisely because  I do not yet know. But that's what I take to be my responsibility in this class: I share with students what I know (what I think I know) at this moment about UxD, offer access to ongoing discussions as well as a balanced mix of new, groundbreaking, and foundational research. I bring with me the expectation that their other teachers and the curriculum have prepared them to move from what they have been taught to  the challenges that lie ahead of them. As these quotes I've pulled from their responses show, they have prepared themselves not just to respond to the challenges of Purdue's OWL and its user experience needs, but to address a wider range of challenges posed by valuing user-involved research.

International Students and ESL Resources by Andrew Yim

I have been shadowing tutors in the Purdue Writing Lab for a class this semester.   Freshmen have come in frantically looking for help with documents like their English 106 papers.  Many freshmen feel overwhelmed since many have never written an essay for college before.  Freshman year, I struggled with English 106 papers because I did not develop a strong foundation for writing.   Staring at a blank page for hours, I struggled to come up with ideas, but thank heavens that I had an extraordinary English 106 professor.  His class improved my writing immensely by teaching principles that I could use for future papers.  After taking his class, I realized that speaking fluent English has always made me feel more confident about my writing. I have observed many international students come into the Writing Lab looking for help on their essays.
 
Observing these sessions were eye-opening as many international students lack confidence in their work; however, I have observed many students formulating great ideas for their papers.  However, they believe that their language skills are not up to par and this mentality has made it hard for them to communicate their ideas.

Figure 1

As a native English speaker, writing in English is second-nature to me.  I could only imagine how international students feel when they are trying to write an English paper.    As they begin to formulate ideas, they might struggle with communicating these ideas onto paper leaving  them feeling frustrated.  If I tried to write a paper in Chinese or Korean, I would definitely feel lost.  This previous summer, I served as a Boiler Gold Rush Team Leader and I had quite a few international students from other countries shown in the photo above. Also, I am currently a part of an international ministry and have become friends with many international students.  For many, this is their first time visiting the United States.  Many believed that they would struggle with their classes because they struggled to understand English.  Some asked me to slow down my talking or to help them with their English papers   Students who come to the United States  have to demonstrate foreign language proficiency, but students still struggle even after demonstrating minimal proficiency in understanding English.

Figure 2

A few months ago, I was not sure how I could help them; however, working on redesigning the OWL has provided me with a clearer answer.  As seen in Figure 2, the English as a Second Language pages provides more clarity to international students who want to write more efficient essays. These pages contain a wealth of information about ESL resources.  However, international students are not aware of the many resources out there for them.  These pages also have resources for tutors wanting to learn strategies to help international students learn English. Furthermore, they cover a variety of grammar topics like adjectives, adverbs, verbs, prepositions, pronouns, and other resources.    As our class are redesigning these pages, we need to target our audience and I believe that many of my friends will benefit from our redesigns.

Throughout my experiences in the Writing Lab, many international students have negative expectations of their own writing.  They are so focused on correcting their grammar that they doubt their own ideas.  As non-native English speakers, they will often feel frustrated and seek out resources that will help them improve their English.  Through my observations, I have seen many non-English students struggle with understanding certain phrases in English.  Many phrases that are common to native English speakers are completely foreign to non-native speakers.     This disconnect in language makes it hard for them to write essays in English.

With many of my international friends, I have practiced speaking in English with them.  I speak quite fast so I have learned to slow down my talking.  In return,  I see them improve their English through conversation.  Thus a great resource that international students can take advantage of is ESL conservation groups.   I believe that the OWL Staff needs to be aware that these conservation groups can help improve students' writing.  Posting the hours of these conversation groups will be immensely beneficial to students looking to improve their language skills.    I believe that helping international students learn the basics of the English language can lead to better developed essays. This will can improve their self-confidence and help them become better writers.

Thus the OWL staff should make non-native speakers more aware of these resources when international students first arrive at Purdue.  The OWL Staff needs to find ways to help direct users, especially non-native speakers of English,  to information that will be most helpful to them.  Students in 515 need to be aware of this audience as they are proposing suggestions to help redesign the website especially for the pages about ESL.   I believe that it is crucial to use certain words on these pages to help international students understand certain concepts.  If there is too much text, international students will feel overwhelmed reading these posts.  Thus students in 515 should suggest a way to redesign these pages through observations of international students.

I believe that an ethnography will be helpful for gathering data to help redesign the ESL pages.  An ethnography is the study of people and culture and studying international students will help the OWL staff and students in 515 understand how to tailor these pages for international students.   Some ways to study international students would be to set up a Qualtrics survey interviewing international students about how they view the English language and if they believe that the ESL pages help them learn more about the English language.  Also, doing in-depth interviews with international students can be beneficial.  All of this data can be used to help effectively redesign the ESL pages.    I will definitely be advertising the ESL Pages to all of my international friends and to students who I meet in the future.

Purdue OWL Usability – September/October Update

A lot of work has happened in recent weeks connected with the usability study. In early September Tammy, Michael, Cait, and I sat down for a meeting to discuss potential areas for the students in Michael’s Advanced Professional Writing course. There were a number of concerns that were brought to the table: concerns relating to navigation, the splash page, connecting users to resources, presenting resources to users, and the functionality of our contact forms. What was beneficial was having two members of the research team from the last round of usability studies present, as they could speak to what we’ve done before, what we chose to address at that time, and what might be worth reexamining. Having the technical coordinator present also opened up new areas for discussion, as she deals most often with the OWL’s innards—the code that keeps it soaring, ready to swoop in and assist users in need. One issue that was brought up was how users experience the OWL. Currently, we have what some have derided as a 1990’s-esque splash page, and certainly its actual usefulness is something that ought to be questioned. But, during the course of our discussions that day it was pointed out that perhaps the splash is even less effective than we had hoped. One of the meeting members pointed out that we need data on how people actually use the OWL, perhaps many people bypass the splash page all together. Here’s an anecdote for illustrative purposes: 

I use the OWL a lot for my own personal reference as I write for publication and the job market, activities not even remotely related to my position as the OWL coordinator. Now, when I’m looking for information on Academic Cover Letters—for those increasingly rare tenure-track jobs—I don’t go to owl.english.purdue.edu. Rather, I go to Google and I type in, “ ‘Purdue OWL’ + ‘Academic Cover Letters’”. The very first hit is the opening page for the Academic Cover Letters resource on the OWL. Then I start to click, click, click away. To be honest, there are some days that I completely forget that the splash page exists. The argument for it being there is that the OWL isn’t just the collection of writing resources; it’s not just the Orange OWL. It’s the Purdue OWL Family of Sites; it’s the Orange OWL, it’s the Purdue Writing Lab site (green pages), it’s the Purdue OWL News Service (purple pages). 

We also discussed the intersections of content development and usability. The Purdue OWL, over the years, has developed its own written identity. This is something that has been passed down orally from one content coordinator to another during training and on-boarding sessions. It is then something that is highly negotiated during between content coordinator and their developers during the content development process. The discussion with the students in Michael’s course became, what can we do to crystalize certain elements of our style into a Purdue OWL Style guide, a document that will help to streamline certain elements of the development process and that will also concretize institutional memory and best practices? At a meeting of members of the usability teams and Purdue OWL leadership, I was given a list of areas in which the student-team working on the Purdue OWL style guide would like to focus their work. I must admit that I’m both impressed by the thought that is going into this document and hopeful for the lasting contribution that it can make to the Purdue OWL—and perhaps to OWL designers and content developers working in other contexts. The student-team plans on not only solidifying the most salient points of OWL style, but also on redesigning the current OWL content developers manual to be more effective in transmitting information to the content development team members. During the course of the various meetings and conversations that have been had at the OWL about usability in the past two months, another key item has arisen. Designing and implementing usability studies can take time. We’re making plans that will carry use well into the 2015-2016 academic year. 

However, when you’re working with graduate staff this can present new challenges. Both myself and Cait are likely to complete our Ph.Ds. before the start of the next school year. This means that two individuals that have played some role in this round of testing will be exiting Purdue before it’s over. This means that we must consider how we will hand this project off to the incoming content and technical coordinators. This is a key consideration when working in any context that has this kind of turnover. Ensuring continuity becomes important in order to maintain quality and to provide the best service to our end-users. For us, we will rely heavily on the experiences of both Tammy and Michael—this is their second round of usability studies on the OWL, and we will also allot additional time to bring the new coordinators up to speed regarding the usability study, how it impacts their work at the OWL, and how they might contribute to this intensive practical and scholarly endeavor.. This will likely include a healthy stack of documents and intermediate reports, but it will help us to ensure that the new coordinators will be adequately prepared not only to join the OWL family, but also to continue to contribute to our usability studies and eventual revisions.

Going Down by Jessica Schwingendorf

Yesterday I had to think.

I was in Young Hall for a job interview which was held on the 2nd floor. I used the elevator to get to the room with no problem. I stepped in, pressed the "2" button and exited per usual.

Elevators are pretty self-explanatory. It shouldn't take much thought to operate one, and I've had hardly any issues with them in the past.

However, upon exiting the 2nd floor post-interview, I was forced to think.

I walked in the elevator alone and went to reach for the button. I wanted to return to the main ground floor, which is often labelled as different things, depending on the building. Sometimes it's a "1". Other times it's an "L" for lobby, "G" for ground or "M" for main floor, and so on.

Whatever the label may be though, it's standard for the ground or first floor button to be accompanied by a star for clarity.

When I went to reach for the "G", "L", "M" or "1" I automatically just looked for the star since I don't often go into Young Hall and was unfamiliar with how its ground floor is labelled in the elevators.

But there was no star!

A wave of panic went through my body and stood there dumbfounded for about 2-3 seconds, which doesn't seem long, but in my state I had no idea how to get where I was going.

Did I want the basement? Where is the "1" button? What does "M" stand for? Mezzanine? Main?

I actually had to read the buttons and think about what floor I was going to and how it was

labelled. It wasn't the automatic process of reaching for the starred button like I usually experience.

I found this experience to be an excellent example of how we as humans are conditioned to follow a routine or standard, and when that routine is interrupted due to poor or variant designs, we panic and have to think.

This elevator, in general, follows logical signifiers that aided in my determination of the ground floor (after a few moments of thinking, of course). During my time abroad last semester I had to get used to the idea of the ground floor not being the "first" floor. In France, the ground floor was simply that, the "ground" floor. The floor above the ground was then the "first floor". I lived on the 8th floor of a
a French apartment building, but by North American story standards, I lived on the 7th floor.

Knowing this standard information, and the fact that I was in a North American building, I then had two choices: "B" or "M". This conclusion was reached because the floor numbers are laid logically starting with the bottom floors as the bottom buttons and the top floors as the top buttons. However, the "B" and "M" were on the same line of buttons.

So I continued to think.

Even if I did not know the definition of the "B" and "M’ floors, I could conclude that the "M" was the main entry floor above the basement because the lower floors on each line are located to the left. Thus, "B" was the lowest floor and I needed to press the "M" button.

After some research into the topic, I discovered that the five-pointed star I so longed for stems from the 2010 ADA Standard for Accessible Design. The star indicates the floor with the quickest available exit in case of emergency. This is namely the ground floor, where the main entry and exit way is located. This is the same standard that requires brail numbering on the buttons.

I am not familiar with the history of this specific building on campus, or why it does not follow this standard, but it nonetheless illustrates how standards and logical signifiers play such a large role in our daily activities.

It is important, therefore, to keep designs streamlined and consistent so that users don't need to figure things out for themselves. It is up to the designers to adhere to modern standards and follow the guidelines laws and logic law out for them. When designers deviate from the standards, people are lost and in other cases may not find a solution as quickly as I was able to do.

The signifiers, and therefore the instructions, should always be obvious. Users shouldn’t have to think referring to principles seen in Steve Krug's Don’t make me think, revisited: A common sense approach to web and mobile usability.

References

Krug, Steve. (2014).  Don’t make me think, revisited: A common sense approach to web and mobile usability.  San Francisco, CA: New Riders