Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

UCSF Cores Search 2.0: Design Strategy Overview


Published on

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

UCSF Cores Search 2.0: Design Strategy Overview

  1. 1. Clinical and TranslationalScience Institute / CTSIat the University of California, San FranciscoUCSF Cores Search 2.0Design Strategy OverviewAnirvan Chatterjee, Brian Turner
  2. 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. 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. 4. Core directors say: “QPCR” We let users search under: “QPCR” “RT-PCR” “Real-time PCR” “Quantitative PCR”“Quantitative real time RT-PCR”
  5. 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. 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. 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. 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. 9. Example: Google search results block
  10. 10. Example: Google search results block Page name/link (bold, emphasized)Page URL Search result description/snippet (relevant text bolded)
  11. 11. Repeated Google search results: visual rhythm aids scannability
  12. 12. Cores Search search results block
  13. 13. Cores Search search results block Location Core name/link(easy to scan) (bold, emphasized) Core details Relevant resources (deemphasized)
  14. 14. Repeated Cores Search search results: visual rhythm aids scannability
  15. 15. Cores Search 2.0 A collaborative effort of UCSF’s Research Resource Program and theClinical and Translational Science Institute