Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

UCSF Cores Search 2.0: Design Strategy Overview


Published on

Learn more about Anirvan Chatterjee's work: …

Learn more about Anirvan Chatterjee's work:

Learn more about Brian Turner's work:

Published in: Education, Technology

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Clinical and TranslationalScience Institute / CTSIat the University of California, San FranciscoUCSF Cores Search 2.0Design Strategy OverviewAnirvan Chatterjee, Brian Turner
  • 2. 1. Search enginesProblem: – The UCSF users most in need of the system are the least likely to know that it exists.Solution: – Weve designed the site to rank high when users search for UCSF resources.
  • 3. 2. Use users’ own languageProblem: – UCSF researchers and core directors don’t always use the same words when referring to resources.Solution: – We make resources available under a wide variety of synonyms, so users can always find what they want.
  • 4. Core directors say: “QPCR” We let users search under: “QPCR” “RT-PCR” “Real-time PCR” “Quantitative PCR”“Quantitative real time RT-PCR”
  • 5. 3. Multiple paths to find your resourceProblem: – There are 200+ types of resources, so it can be hard for users to find the type they need.Solution: – Offer two easy ways to get to the right resource: – Google-style typeahead search – Alphabetized list, designed for scannability
  • 6. 4. Simplify site to remove roadblocksProblem: – Busy pages can confuse new users, hampering or preventing them from completing their taskSolution: – Once users find the resource they want, they’re immediately directed to the core website/contact – Every irrelevant detail and roadblock removed
  • 7. Search for “cell isolation”Cores Search 1.0 Cores Search 2.0• Users had to wade through • Word count cut down to 4,191 words in search result 177 words (a 96% reduction)
  • 8. 5. Make it easy to compare optionsProblem: – There can be many cores offering a specific type of resourceSolution: – Design a clear search results block – Use visual rhythm to support scannability
  • 9. Example: Google search results block
  • 10. Example: Google search results block Page name/link (bold, emphasized)Page URL Search result description/snippet (relevant text bolded)
  • 11. Repeated Google search results: visual rhythm aids scannability
  • 12. Cores Search search results block
  • 13. Cores Search search results block Location Core name/link(easy to scan) (bold, emphasized) Core details Relevant resources (deemphasized)
  • 14. Repeated Cores Search search results: visual rhythm aids scannability
  • 15. Cores Search 2.0 A collaborative effort of UCSF’s Research Resource Program and theClinical and Translational Science Institute