Mini Deadline 9

Research Reflections: 25 reflection Questions 🪩

The final debrief:

During this project, we needed to explore and implement different user data collection methods to see how real people interact with digital platforms. Each mini-deadline presented a different challenge, forcing us to shift our focus from layout visuals to behind-the-scenes logic. Overall, the process was fairly enjoyable, but it was definitely a major reality check. It made me realise that it is much harder than one might assume to get people to interact with your polls or sit down for interviews. One thing that was quite nice, though, was having multiple mini-deadlines running simultaneously; it allowed me to jump around between different tasks while I was stuck waiting on poll or survey results.

Preconceived Notions vs. The Reality of Fieldwork:

Going into this brief, my expectation was that if you simply asked the right people the right questions, they would be more than willing to answer. I genuinely thought that if I sent a very descriptive survey to a local Facebook group to find people to interview, I would get a bunch of quick responses from people who wanted to help out. In reality, it took almost a week just to get my post approved by a group administrator, and after all that waiting, only a single person actually interacted with it or responded.

Reflecting on this, I think people are often just scared of answering research questions. In the modern digital landscape, there is a lot of hesitation around clicking external links to fill out surveys because people worry they might be getting scammed. On top of that, I think there is a subtle psychological barrier where participants feel a bit scared that if they try to participate, they might somehow get the answers "wrong."

Thoughts about things like AccessAble:

This gap between clean theory and messy reality became even more obvious when analysing actual examples. Analysing AccessAble showed me that while it is extremely useful to have platforms that provide in-depth, helpful accessibility guides, these initiatives are often only implemented on a relatively small scale. Furthermore, while the guides themselves are super helpful for giving someone a general idea of what it may be like at a venue, they ultimately cannot tell you if everything is functioning as it should be on any given day. A guide can tell a user that a location has a disabled toilet, but that user could still travel all the way there on the day, only to find out it is completely out of order.

I think the reason these detailed guides remain so small-scale comes down to the sheer volume of work and ongoing effort required to build and maintain them. Given how hard I found it just to convince someone to spend five minutes filling out a simple survey, one can only imagine how difficult it is to coordinate and manage hyper-detailed, real-time access guides. It is a massive shame, because having widespread, real-time information like this would be incredibly useful for many people.

Structural Integrity vs. Cold Metrics:

We also went into a deeper analysis of information architecture and evaluative testing frameworks. I definitely think that utilising testing methods like card sorting and tree testing is incredibly beneficial for catching major structural mistakes early in the design phase. You really don't need many resources to run a half-decent card sorting session, yet it can make a massive difference in how intuitive your final design is for all users. It forces you to step back and notice structural flaws you were simply too close to the project to notice, or organisational issues you wouldn't have naturally thought of because you don't personally struggle with them.

This phase also gave me a critical perspective on more quantitative approaches like A/B testing. While I think A/B split testing is highly important for things like marketing metrics, conversion rates, and business goals, it falls short when it comes to true usability. For the overall success of an interface, uncovering a user’s genuine feelings, frustrations, and confusions is far more important than just tracking where they click. A data dashboard might show you what link was clicked, but it can't show you the emotional friction behind the action.

The "So What?" Factor & Moving Forward:

Ultimately, the biggest takeaway from this entire research journey is that you have to work extremely hard to get people to fill out stuff for you. It would definitely be easier to recruit participants if you had a massive corporate budget and could offer high-value incentives, essentially paying people for their time, but as a student researcher, you have to be more resourceful.

If I were to go into a project like this again, my entire approach would change. I would start all of my polls and surveys on day one, getting them out into the world as early as humanly possible to account for admin delays and slow response rates. More importantly, I would actively reach out to specific organisations or physically visit local meetups to show the real human face behind the link. There is a massive benefit to seeing someone face-to-face rather than just seeing a cold, text-based internet post asking you to click a link. It shows people that you are genuinely interested in their input and aren't just a scam artist. The modern digital age makes online distribution incredibly convenient, but people inherently trust you more when they can see you. Moving forward, I realise that successful UX research requires dedicating real time to step away from the screen and actually talk to people in the real world.