Writing Tool Evolution
The writing tool (Norwegian: Skriveverktøy) is a product created for Fagbokforlaget, an educational publisher that is part of Forlagshuset V&B. Its main purpose is to help students learn how to write different Norwegian genres. Modified versions of this product are available on the following pages:
Ordriket (adaptation for younger pupils): https://skriveverktoy.app.fagbokforlaget.no/#/ordriket/
Write on! (English, incorporated some of original product): https://writeon.app.fagbokforlaget.no/
PROBLEM
There was no UX designer included in the early stages of this project, as the process of creating digital products was still in its infancy. The interface was only partially developed when it was assigned to me for improvement. The target audience for the writing tool is high school pupils learning the basics of different genres. The underlying need addressed by this product was the insufficient time that teachers had to provide one-on-one assistance to students in the step-by-step writing process.
The editor overseeing the entire series of educational products for the Norwegian language (including textbooks, workbooks, teacher materials, etc.) also served as the product owner for the writing tool. The major challenge lay in making the tool user-friendly despite the diverse learning content. Additionally, it was challenging to involve the product owner in the digital design process, given that I was a junior UX designer working solo on the team.
DISCOVERY
The project was handed over to me with an existing graphic design concept. However, the initial design was not accepted by the project owner, who requested that I make it more user-friendly. Upon reviewing the concept, my first observation was the absence of content prioritization and an excess of elements on a single page. Due to a tight deadline, going back to the beginning for a comprehensive analysis was not feasible. As a result, we opted to address general usability issues, keeping the primary target group in mind, and initiated prototype testing with actual users as quickly as possible.
Initial Fixes:
1. User Flow:
After gathering information from the product owner, who possesses extensive knowledge about learning/teaching processes as a former teacher and maintains regular contact with clients, I decided to divide the process of writing entire pieces into steps (depending on the genre: title, introduction, argument, conclusion, etc.).
The steps were designed to be completed in various ways, such as as a whole piece, only specific steps, or not in order. The goal was to enable users to focus on one part of the text at a time, in contrast to the proposed design where everything was displayed on a single screen.
The steps were designed to be completed in various ways, such as as a whole piece, only specific steps, or not in order. The goal was to enable users to focus on one part of the text at a time, in contrast to the proposed design where everything was displayed on a single screen.
2. Communication:
In the initial design, all elements of the interface were more or less the same, despite varying functionality or importance. The aids were mixed up with tasks, and groups of functionally similar elements lacked names. Additionally, there were no graphic indicators of purpose.
3. Navigation:
Changing the flow into consecutive steps required clear navigation. I added navigation at the top, visualizing the user path with the shape of buttons and incorporating icons to enhance clarity.
4. Grouping Various Aids into Toolbox:
I graphically and structurally detached various aids from the main focus area, grouping them into a separate toolbox for improved organization and user understanding.
5. User Focus:
Prioritized user focus by streamlining the interface, emphasizing the importance of each element based on its functionality, and ensuring that users can easily navigate through the writing process with clear visual cues.
USER TESTING
We conducted the test with three participants, high school students from Oslo, during school lessons in a separate room. The participants individually tested the functionalities of the Writing Tool, with the task of writing the first paragraph of a Short Story analysis. The process involved selecting a genre from the seven available options and then reading the example analysis. Instructions were intentionally concise, placing the emphasis on the tool itself to guide participants through the process.
Upon completing the task, participants were asked a few questions, leading to discussions rich in valuable feedback.
Overall, the Writing Tool received positive evaluations. The clear concept, which divided paragraphs into separate steps, was appreciated as it helped users maintain focus and purpose throughout the writing process. The tips provided during writing were considered helpful. The resource effectively encouraged writing, with all participants showing enthusiasm and producing substantial amounts of text while remaining focused on the task.
The user testing uncovered significant weaknesses in the tool, prompting the identification of key areas for improvement:
1. Saving Button Visibility:
Issue: Participants found the saving button not visible or understandable enough, stating that it took some time to figure out how to save the document.
Solution: Place the saving button inside or closer to the writing field, as depicted in wireframes, to emphasize the writing area. Additionally, add a suggestive icon to enhance visibility and comprehension.
Solution: Place the saving button inside or closer to the writing field, as depicted in wireframes, to emphasize the writing area. Additionally, add a suggestive icon to enhance visibility and comprehension.
2. Source Text Button Visibility:
Issue: The source text button wasn't visible enough, leading to confusion about accessing the novel while writing.
Solution: Increase the size of the source text button's title, as in the initial wireframe, and use graphic design to emphasize its importance, ensuring clear visibility and understanding for users.
Solution: Increase the size of the source text button's title, as in the initial wireframe, and use graphic design to emphasize its importance, ensuring clear visibility and understanding for users.
3. Tips Engagement:
Issue: Participants found the tips not encouraging enough to use, expressing a desire to focus solely on writing.
Solution: Make the tips more attractive by experimenting with different names for buttons and incorporating more compelling microcopy for a stronger call to action. This helps weaker students who benefit from the content to improve their writing skills.
Solution: Make the tips more attractive by experimenting with different names for buttons and incorporating more compelling microcopy for a stronger call to action. This helps weaker students who benefit from the content to improve their writing skills.
4. Title Step Clarity:
Issue: The title step was mistakenly considered the first step of writing, potentially leading to errors in entering the entire text into the wrong field.
Solution: Present the title step in a different way, using a smaller field and emphasizing the "TITLE" header to clarify its distinct role.
5. Progress Bar Visibility:
Issue: The progress bar with steps was not visible enough, with participants noting that the headings on the paragraphs were too small and hard to read.
Solution: Increase the size and boldness of the progress bar steps, ensuring proper visibility without overwhelming the user. Maintain an appropriate distance from the writing field to prevent it from getting lost in the overall layout.
Solution: Increase the size and boldness of the progress bar steps, ensuring proper visibility without overwhelming the user. Maintain an appropriate distance from the writing field to prevent it from getting lost in the overall layout.
Additionally, a teacher requested the inclusion of a mini-dictionary with helpful vocabulary as an extra tip. This feature aims to assist weaker students in learning challenging terms and incorporating them into their compositions to improve their grades.
With the implementation of these small layout improvements, the app is expected to become more functional. Ensuring that every element is in its proper place and emphasizing the most important elements visibly is crucial. This design approach prevents users from having to navigate extensively through the interface, allowing them to focus primarily on learning how to write a specific genre.
Following the testing phase, we updated the prototype based on the conclusions drawn. Notable improvements were made, including the addition of more encouraging graphic design (refer to: https://skriveverktoy.app.fagbokforlaget.no), and the feedback received has been overwhelmingly positive. Subsequently, another round of testing was conducted in the updated version of the product, specifically designed for the Ordriket series.
WRITING TOOL ADAPTATION
The subsequent Writing Tool project involved adapting the tool for a younger target group in primary school, forming part of the Ordriket series for the Norwegian language (www.ordriket.no). While maintaining the same main purpose and interface, the challenge was to simplify the concept further to capture the attention of children and enhance their focus on the task.
Several adjustments were implemented, including the removal of the checklist, the addition of more vivid and visible task descriptions, and the incorporation of more appealing and playful graphic design.
Following these changes, another round of user testing was conducted, leading to updates and refinements to improve the tool's suitability for the younger audience.
