User Research:

People with

Roommates

Silvia, Cynthia, Tiffany, Xinhui

Team Roommates Intro

​

​

Xinhui Xu (PM)

LTXD 1st Year

Instructional Designer

Silvia Ramírez

LTXD 1st Year

Psychologist/ Instructional designer

Cynthia Liang

LTXD 1st Year

​

​

​

Tiffany Wang

LTXD 1st Year

Interaction Designer

How can we better understand the experiences of people with roommates so that we can design a solution that makes a difference?

Project Recap

Presentation Objectives

• UX Research Approach
• Method Limitations
• Findings Highlight
• Personas
• Next Steps & Reflections

UX Research Approach

Qualitative & Quantitative)

​

Interviews

• 7 users in 3 different US and International Cities
• Gained an in-depth understanding of experiences and preferences when living with roommates.

Surveys

• 41 responses
• People living with roommates
• Details about living arrangements, dynamics and overall living preferences

Affinity Map

Themes:

• Cleanliness
• Noise
• Guests
• Personal connection to roommates
• Chores
• Finance management

Method Limitations

Research limitations

• Demography
• Cities
• Interviews - Personal connections

Sampling bias

• Our previous roommate experiences
• Team affinities/background (age, gender, ethnicity)
• Small samples

​

Research Finding Highlights

Insight 1: People Desire for Roommates with Compatible Lifestyles and Habits

• “I like it colder, but they like it hotter.”
• “Having people over/parties/reunions.”

​

Insight 2: People Worry about Conflicts Arouse by Unclear Distribution on Shared Chores

• “We had some tension early on because we felt like the chores/responsibilities of maintaining the apartment were not being split evenly. ”
• “I was mad since I was the only one who cleaned the bathroom regularly.”

​

Insight 3: People Appreciate Ways to Clearly Split Expenses with Roommates

• respondents tend to focus on transparency and fairness

​

​

Persona 1

Newbie

Newbinson

Persona 2

Yorkie

Yorkshire

User Needs Statements

​

People looking for roommates need to find someone with a compatible lifestyle because they want a controllable life outside of work or school.

​

• Matching compatibility
• Visible Checking Process
• Financial Stability Evaluation

Project Next Steps

From User Research to Product Prototype - Focus on Roommate Matching

3 Takeaways

​

• Define a Specific POV for Effective Design Solutions
• Prioritize User-Centered Insights Over Assumptions
• Visual Tools Like Affinity Mapping are Invaluable for Synthesizing Data

​

​

Challenges

User representation

• Research methods bias
• How can we design to include more people that might not be represented in this sample?
• Iterate possible solutions with bigger and diverse audiences

​

Team Collaboration

What went right during the project that we can repeat in the future?

• Effective team collaboration (Slack, Google Drive, Figma)
• Defined agenda and action items each meeting

​

• Organized data collection structure

​

​

What went wrong during the project that we should avoid in the future?

• Not enough practical testing of interview questions

​

• Struggled on user need statement

​

What should we do differently next time?

​

• Identify and Focus on one key theme before sending survey and interviewing

​

Thank you!

REQUIREMENTS FOR PART 1: STAKEHOLDER PRESENTATION

PART 1 (8-12 minutes):

1. Quick intro of Team. include names, role, you can list as UX research team and UX researchers. You want to add a face to this project.�
2. Recap: How you understood the initial project. The stakeholder team is busy, let’s remind them what the task you were given was in the beginning. Let’s make sure everyone in the room knows what we’re here to do.�
3. Objectives of this presentation. What do you want your audience to do after the presentation. You can make this up but imagine this were a real project. What would you want/need to move forward with the next phase of this project?�
4. How did your UX team approach this project (what design process did you use, what research did you do, what analysis methods). Try to establish credibility as UX researchers but don’t bore anyone with too much high level stuff. A few images of your team in action, or some interim deliverables (affinity map, etc) could be a nice touch.�
5. Limitations of your process and methods (and why these limitations were there). Try to provide a balanced view by revealing constraints you were working with (recruiting? COVID? other?), but at the same time provide assurance that you have interesting findings and have gained clarity on the problem and the users you were researching)�
6. Findings: Highlight at least 3 main insights and their design implications. Further establish credibility here by referencing your methods again, making sure to base your findings in evidence.

1. Persona(s): Share at least 2 personas which represent your target users. Don't read through the whole persona, but highlight the important pieces and the implications to the project as a whole. How should your stakeholders think about these personas going forward?�
2. Conclude with Point of View statement and How Might We statement, optionally also jobs to be done statements. Make sure to mention that the statements you chose are important to focus on.�
7. Next steps in the design process. What are the next steps and specific deliverables and decision points that are coming up (feel free to make this up, but I’d highly recommend that at least one next step is to present opportunity spaces you'd like to explore going forward)

REQUIREMENTS FOR PART 2: REFLECTIONS on TEAM AND WORK

PART 2 - up to four minutes - should be presented live in class.

1. “Ah-ha moments” List 3 things things your team learned that others in the class might benefit from.�
2. Struggles and challenges: List 3 things your team struggled with and how you resolved them or how you would do things differently if you were to do this again�
3. Team communication/collaboration (based on the two questions above)
1. What went right during the project that we can repeat in the future?
2. What went wrong during the project that we should avoid in the future?
3. What should we do differently next time?

​