This document summarizes the user research process for redesigning the An Post website. The research began with a competitor analysis and exploratory questionnaire to understand problems with the current design. Findings showed a lack of clear information architecture and mobile optimization. Personas were then developed based on questionnaire results. Additional exploratory methods included interviews and card sorting to further understand user needs. Wireframes and an interactive prototype were created based on the research. Usability testing of the prototype was planned to evaluate if the redesign addressed the original research goals. The paper focused on describing the various research methods and how they informed the design process.

1. Assignment Cover Sheet
MSc in User Experience Design
Student Name: Stephen Norman
Student Number: N00147768
Programme: MSc UX Design
Year of Programme: 2016
Module Name: Interaction Design
Assignment: Interaction Design Project
Assignment Deadline: 31/01/2016
I declare that that this submission is my own work. Where I have read, consulted and
used the work of others I have acknowledged this in the text.
Signature: Stephen Norman Date: 31/01/2016

2. Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................3
2. The Current Design .....................................................................................................................3
2.1. Identifying Problems...........................................................................................................3
2.2. Hypothesis & Business Requirements ................................................................................3
2.3. Exploratory Research Methods...........................................................................................4
2.4. Findings ...............................................................................................................................4
2.5. Personas..............................................................................................................................5
2.6. Scenarios.............................................................................................................................5
2.7. Interviews............................................................................................................................5
3. Ideation.......................................................................................................................................7
3.1. Wireframes .........................................................................................................................7
3.2. Interactive Prototype..........................................................................................................7
4. Usability Testing..........................................................................................................................9
5. Conclusion & Self-Assessment....................................................................................................9
6. Bibliography ..............................................................................................................................10
7. Appendix ...................................................................................................................................10
7.1. Exploratory Questionnaire................................................................................................10
7.2. Screener Questionnaire ....................................................................................................10
7.3. Script .................................................................................................................................10
7.4. Consent Form....................................................................................................................11
7.5. Card Sorting.......................................................................................................................13
7.6. Personas............................................................................................................................15
7.7. Interview Videos ...............................................................................................................16
7.8. Task Mapping....................................................................................................................17
7.9. Wireframes .......................................................................................................................17
7.10. Interactive Prototypes.......................................................................................................18

3. 1. Introduction
This paper is set out to discuss and summarise the redesign of the An Post website through
multiple user research methods. However, the design itself is merely the result of the
research, and the paper will aim to focus predominantly on the research methods. It will
begin by discussing the research goals, and how they will be best addressed. From
establishing the goals, the discussion will then move to a detailed overview of the methods
used, their effectiveness and any problems that were encountered by the research team. It
will also aim to align the prototype design with the research conducted and discuss the testing
methods. Finally the design will be tested to ascertain if the research goals have been
understood.
2. The Current Design
It was decided to focus efforts on Anpost.ie as it contained many user interface (UI) and user
experience (UX) issues. Ideally, when conducting initial research of a particular website, the
business in question would share some internal statistics as a baseline for assessment.
However, for this project, these elements are merely a hypothesis formulated from the
research team’s opinions.
2.1.Identifying Problems
Initial findings were the website lacked any clear information architecture (IA), which
impaired the discoverability of many services. Mobile consideration is also lacking, although
it does have an M-Dot 1 which provides online via desktop site. This detracts from the UX as
the desktop site renders poorly on a mobile device and use of the touch elements is near
impossible. With 47%2 of the general market using a mobile device online, consideration must
be made for a mobile optimised platform. Although the development of a responsive site is
out of scope it can be considered that the project’s design will be aimed at functionality for
both desktop and mobile users.
2.2.Hypothesis & Business Requirements
A hypothesis was created from the problems encountered by the research team during their
initial study of Anpost.ie. Several issues emerged;
 Lack of clarity of full suite of products and services offered.
 Poor readability – Site uses own business “lingo”.
 Confusion around target market; Personal & Business customers.
1
Mobile specific website not to be confused with Responsive Web Design
2 46.5% Findings from initial questionnaire. (http://bit.ly/1K6KmNi)

4. The goals set from above were; Who is the customer? Which services are/are not being used,
why?
2.3.Exploratory Research Methods
2.3.1.Competitor Analysis
A competitor analysis was conducted prior to making a decision on which direction to take
the research. The purpose of which was to grasp an understanding of the postal sector. The
research was done on an ad-hoc basis, only collecting the team’s initial thoughts. The
competitors were DHL3, UPS4, NightLine5, and USPS6. A comparison was made to assess how
they structured their information, and were their popular services discoverable. Given more
time a SWOT7 analysis would have been used. On closer examination of USPS, information
like the “Quick Tools” tab was identified to be their priority services, and a similar approach
would be taken on restructuring An Post’s website. During this study the importance of the
“Calculate Postage” service and functionality was overlooked.
2.3.2.Exploratory Questionnaire
The research requirement was to cover both quantitative and qualitative methods, and it was
decided to progress this with an exploratory survey using Google’s form builder. This was
used for its ease of implementation, and effective user reach. The form would be constructed
in three sections. The first two were quantitative user segmentation questions. The third
section collected information on discoverability and user knowledge of services. The final
section four, covered the UI, and site performance. Users who answered “No” to “Do you
use AnPost.ie?” were sent to a hidden section, which asked the same final question as in
section four. This was done to allow segmentation of the data which would then compare
participants who had used the site vs. ones who hadn’t.
2.4.Findings
Following the study, it became apparent that some questions were not tailored correctly.
Questions in section three were too broad, opening it to a user’s own interpretation by
suggesting the discoverability of services were their commonly used services, instead tasking
them to find other less visible services. Also, it’s thought that the inconclusiveness of some
questions were due to the small sample size8.
The limitations of the questionnaire were that the participants who took part were known by
the research team. Attempts to randomise the audience were made by publishing the
questionnaire on Facebook, and within internal business connections of the research team.
3 http://www.dhl.ie/en.html
4 https://www.ups.com/
5 http://www.nightline.ie/
6 https://www.usps.com/
7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWOT_analysis
8 43 Users in total. 22 of which had used anpost.ie | 19 did not use the site.

5. 2.4.1.About the User
These findings enabled the team to begin to formulate a persona. These results the
questionnaire are as follows; of the participants 51% were female and 49% were male. 58%
of users were aged between 26 and 35. Participants were predominantly living in Dublin, but
users from Donegal also took part. Their primary device used was desktop at 49%, with
mobile 47%, and tablet 4%.
2.4.2.Features & Services
The results in this section enabled the structuring of the IA. The top services; calculate the
postage 64% (14 respondents out of 22), passport services and find a post office 41%. Results
were satisfying to the team, providing focus on element prioritisation.
2.4.3.About An Post (Section 4 & 5 Combined)
This section focused on site speed, and the UI. The data gathered was mostly inconclusive.
Possibly due to a lack of experience in such an exercise, questions created around the UI and
load times were not in line with the research goals and became of little or no importance in
final design. At the time these were felt to be important factors. The final section the
questionnaire did produce useful qualitative user insights. Users were asked to improve one
item leaving their feedback in a text box. This data directly resulted in persona pain points
and frustrations.
The questionnaire set out to answer the initial research goals. Although better planning could
have been achieved, the data was sufficient to create a persona, and begin the ideation phase.
2.5.Personas
Using the findings from the questionnaire such as; user segmentation, feedback and online
habits a persona; Ciaran Burton (See Appendix 7.7) was created. During the early stages a second
persona; Anna O’Brien was created, but later dropped because of her similarity to Ciaran’s
persona, and her information did not contribute enough to warrant project time.
2.6.Scenarios
Using the highest ranked services; Calculate Postage, and Find a Post Office, two scenarios
were created using Ciaran to address each. Due to time constraints of the project these were
kept quite simple which then didn’t offer enough information to aid the design. Ideally a key
path scenario would illustrate each phase of the process, and would have provided more
substantial information.
2.7.Interviews
In order to understand what the user was thinking, the decision was made to conduct one on
one interviews. These were chosen for their ability to record rich qualitative data.

6. 2.7.1.Screener Questionnaire
Prior to interviews, a screener questionnaire was designed to be sent out and collect
information on potential candidates by assessing their abilities and knowledge of the An Post
website. Due to time constraints, whilst this had been designed it was not used in the
research. Had this been used, it would have created more research opportunities such as;
scheduling a focus group, conducting a contextual study, or remote testing.
2.7.2.Consent Form
To ensure the project did not breach any ethical rules, a consent form was given to each
participant to read. They were made fully aware of the software being used, and what was
to be recorded. They would approve by signing and (See Appendix 7.5).
2.7.3.Script
To maximise data collection and control of the testing, a script was developed. It contained
four sections; user habits, predefined activities, wrap up questionnaire, and a card sorting
exercise. Due to the interview being one on one, it amounted to more effort required by the
researcher. Recording data while interviewing became a difficult task when operating alone.
In future this would require more than one observer to ensure a maximum amount of data is
recorded
2.7.4.Recording with Camtasia
Camtasia9 was chosen as it offered on screen and facial recording and was a known stable
platform. Unfortunately, issues arose with the recording and one interview was nearly lost
due to a framerate anomaly which caused an issue on playback. This rare event was only a
minor setback. The remaining interviews were recorded and analysed without any issues. On
review of the videos time was available to take quick notes. No full transcripts have been
produced a result.
2.7.5.Card Sorting
Adding a card sorting exercise to the interview was to establish two things; how does the user
perceive and organise the services, as well as do they understand the terminology? Could
this support the teams own initial findings? It proved to be invaluable, and resulted in a better
IA overall for the design. However, an oversight was made where the card sort offered users
with the full personal sitemap 10. The majority of these pages were information only and
offered no online service. These items were later moved to an FAQ.
9
https://www.techsmith.com/camtasia.html
10
http://www.anpost.ie/AnPost/Sitemap.htm

7. 3. Ideation
All the interview data was stored on a master file (See Appendix 7.4) which contained each
participants card sort, their information and feedback based on the tasks. This was a main
resource for the designs.
3.1.Wireframes
Sketches were done for the homepage, and “Calculate the Postage”. The “Find a Post Office”
was never wire framed, instead only a task mapping was created. The paper prototypes were
not tested on users but were merely designed for approval before moving on to creating
interactivity.
3.2.Interactive Prototype
It was decided to use Axure as it would be a more capable platform for development and
testing. The design would focus on three pages; Homepage, “Calculate the Postage”, and
“Find a Post Office”. With the most attention being given to the “Calculate the Postage” due
to the previous research.
3.2.1.Homepage
The homepage was created to illustrate better use of IA using the research from the
questionnaire and card sorting exercise. In order to achieve this, the main navigation was
reworked, as well as the full page layout using an inverted pyramid structure. This resulted
in the most important services at the top, with the least near the footer. Since An Post were
not consulted, the team could remove unused services from the navigation without any client
issues.
3.2.2.Calculate the Postage
This page focused on how to improve user interactions while also reducing time taken to
reach the goal. The interview data confirmed the current process to be confusing and
misleading. The prototype aimed to present the user with only the required amount of
information at any given time to reduce errors.
3.2.2.1. Step 1 – Find your address
The user was presented with a search bar to locate their address (Link to Prototype in Appendix 7.11).
Should the search prove insufficient the user could select to enter their address manually.
This section proved problematic amongst the usability interviews. Users did not understand
why it was required to enter their address. This was initially created to address the parcel
collection service offered by An Post. However, this service is not promoted leaving the user
confused. Therefore, placement of this object will result in additional errors. This panel was
dropped from the second iteration. It was moved out of scope, and placed instead after the
user selected “Book Collection”. It would then empower the user to decide to avail of the
service.

8. 3.2.2.2. Step 2 – What is the destination?
Following on from the personal address entry, users were then required to put in a shipping
address. The search bar did not perform as expected. Users were confused as to what to
enter. On further analysis this was an oversight of the prepopulated text within the search
box. Updating the text allowed for further clarity on address instructions.
3.2.2.3. Step 3 – What will you be shipping?
The next step asked to select the size of item and give it an estimated weight. Options were
presented in four distinct images of various sized boxes with estimated weights. Each
allowing the user to select their item. This was retained as it was thought to be a rating factor
for pricing engine. Results were mixed during the evaluations, and were inconclusive on the
correct solution. Although a strong argument would be remove if not necessary, since the
field below requires an actual weight.
3.2.2.4. Step 4 – Shipping Rates
The current site requires the user to select a shipping method, then regardless of choice may
or may not display all available options. From the team’s perspective this was pointless and
why not just reveal all the options at once? The initial wireframe sketch displayed all options
equally, this was approved and rolled in to production. Below the shipping rates was a call to
action to “Buy Now”. This caused user confusion as it was not clear as to what would happen
next. Understanding this mistake the “Buy Now” option was updated to “Book Collection”,
which enabled the user to make a decision based on their own requirements.
3.2.3.Find a Post Office
On the current site finding a post office task was performed with difficultly amongst the users.
The problems stemmed from a poor UI. The map was display in a portrait layout which limited
the view. After selecting their county and town, the post offices would only appear if a
required service was selected from the dropdown. When looking up directions, entering the
user address only places a map marker on that location. To get directions the user then must
hover over the selected office and click “Plan Route”. A route is presented with small red
circles to indicate changes direction. The user would have to write down the directions, this
element is not available on mobile devices.
The prototype attempted to address these problems. But would need several more
iterations, as the initial usability proved a lack in understanding of what was to be entered in
the search bar. Common remarks were; “is this my address?”, or “Is this the Post Office
address?”. The thinking behind the design was similar to “Use Current Location” as on
Google. However, the delivery was not effective, and more testing is required.

9. 4. Usability Testing
A new set of participants were recruited for usability testing. The same script from the first
round of interviews would be used. This offered a level of control which could be measured.
However, a lack of team experience resulted in some task being skipped or dropped from the
interview. The assumption was that these activities were surplus to requirement, however
on reflection were in fact directly contributable to the IA and evaluation of the user focused
terminology. With some time remaining, some guerrilla usability testing was conducted. It
was completely unscripted and users were asked to review the pages. A consent form was
not required, all personal data and comments would remain anonymous. The findings proved
invaluable and were incorporated into the second iteration. It would have been beneficial,
given the time, to run through additional studies such as remote usability sessions to assess
performance, and running an A/B test to validate the design.
5. Conclusion & Self-Assessment
The team set out to develop the An Post site using qualitative and quantitative methods. This
had been achieved through use of a questionnaire and conducting several interviews.
Challenges arose with the ability to conduct interviews as a team. It became difficult and
disjointed as each team member was off doing their own interview. This made collaborative
efforts of analysing the results time consuming.
In hindsight, there are simpler ways to develop an interactive prototype, which involves
sending the user to a new page on every interaction. I believe this is a better method for
rapid prototyping. The path chosen to add functionality to objects for a first time Axure user
proved an ineffective use of time. Although immensely proud of the work, the time value and
lack of proper functionality left it with much room for improvement.
Despite some challenges during the project lifecycle, it proved to be very educational, and
many learnings have been taken on board for future developments.

10. 6. Bibliography
Rohrer, C. (2014). When to Use Which User-Experience Research Methods. Nngroup.com. Retrieved 7 January
2016, from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/which-ux-research-methods/
Nielsen, J. (2004). Card Sorting: How Many Users to Test. Nngroup.com. Retrieved 7 January 2016, from
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/card-sorting-how-many-users-to-test/
Usability.gov,. (2013). Card Sorting. Retrieved 3 January 2016, from http://www.usability.gov/how-to-and-
tools/methods/card-sorting.html
Davies, M. B., & Hughes, N. (2014). Doing a successful research project: Using qualitative or quantitative
methods. Palgrave Macmillan.
7. Appendix
7.1.Exploratory Questionnaire
http://bit.ly/1QAyVwZ
7.2.Screener Questionnaire
http://bit.ly/1OZj9v0
7.3.Script
http://bit.ly/1PJdCWF
7.4.Data Sheet
http://bit.ly/1OZD11f

11. 7.5.Consent Form
7.5.1.Lilana Hoffman

12. 7.5.2.Orla Dillon

13. 7.6.Card Sorting
Figure 1 - Team Card Sorting Exercise.
Figure 2 - First Round Interview Card Sort.

14. Figure 3 – Jade’s Card Sort #1.
Figure 4 - Jade's Card Sort #2

15. Figure 5 - Card Sorting Comparison Chart.
7.7.Personas
Figure 6 - Final Persona used for design.

16. Figure 7 - Second Persona. Not used in design.
7.8.Interview Videos
7.8.1.Initial Interviews
 https://vimeo.com/152905566
 https://vimeo.com/152905415
Password: N00147798IaD7
 https://youtu.be/ZVzKXPHN0TA
(Bad recording)
7.8.2.Usability Interviews
 https://vimeo.com/152905643
Password: N00147798IaD7
 https://youtu.be/RXtoJZQIUlI

17. Figure 8 - Calculate Postage Initial Figure 10 -
Calculate Postage
Final
Figure 9 - FInd a Post Office.
7.9.Task Mapping
7.10. Wireframes
7.10.1. Homepage

18. 7.10.2. Calculate the Postage
7.11. Interactive Prototypes
7.11.1. Prototype (1st
Iteration)
Homepage: http://neiic2.axshare.com/#p=home
Calculate the Postage: http://neiic2.axshare.com/#p=calculate_postage
Find your nearest Post Office: http://neiic2.axshare.com/#p=find_post_office
7.11.2. Prototype (2nd
Iteration)
Homepage: http://neiic2.axshare.com/#p=home_v2
Calculate the Postage: http://neiic2.axshare.com/#p=calculate_postage_v2
Find your nearest Post Office: http://neiic2.axshare.com/#p=find_post_office_v2