Laurier Petitions and Appeals - Golden Solutions

Overview of the project

User Research, UI Design, Ideation, Client Relations, Project Management

*Note: This project was completed with a team of 7 designers.

Role

Project Duration

This project took place over 8 months and was completed in April of 2025.

Tools Used

Figma, Adobe CC, Laurier website, Office 365

Step 1: Empathize

In September 2024, my team was tasked with working alongside Laurier to improve the Student Academic Petitions and Appeals process. We were asked to look at the existing process on the Laurier website, and create a solution to improve the student experience and increase success with filling out a petition.

Design Goal

“How might we improve the petitions and appeals process to simplify requests, enhance understanding, and ensure transparent status tracking?”

User Scenarios and Goals

After exploring the existing website, we determined that there are two types of scenarios that users may be in when visiting the page:

  1. Students looking to improve or adjust their academic standing.

  2. Students with a unique circumstance requiring accommodations.

From these scenarios and exploration, we determined that users have the following goals:

  1. I need to find the correct form.

  2. I need to make sure I have the right documentation.

  3. I need to know when my submission will be resolved.

Competitive Analysis

We compared the processes our competitors have outlined for petitions and appeals and compiled our findings into a competitive matrix.

After completing our competitive matrix, we found that Penn State University was our highest scoring competitor, with Athabasca University following close behind. The RBC Complaints process also scored highly as one of our only non-academic governing bodies with a streamlined process. Those that scored the lowest included University of Regina and University of British Columbia. This helped us to see which of our competitors are performing well and using successful techniques, while also seeing which competitors are falling behind and why. 

User Persona

To create a data-driven persona like the "Petitioner," we followed a structured process that combined qualitative and quantitative research methods. By focusing the persona solely on our research outcomes, we ensured it accurately reflects the needs, pain points, and motivations of undergraduate students navigating the petitions process. This approach will enable us to design solutions that address their specific concerns and improve their overall experience.

Step 2 and 3: Define and Ideate

As a team, we wanted to understand first hand what students were experiencing when trying to file a petition. Because of this, our next step was to conduct research.

Qualitative User Interviews

We conducted user interviews with students who submitted a petition through Laurier Petitions and Student Appeals, either once or multiple times. This approach would help us with understanding the experience of someone who has gone through the process before, and serve as a retrospective for the process from a first-hand account.

Between November 11th and November 23rd we conducted 4 Moderated User Interviews. Each user was asked 12 questions surrounding the process, why they submitted a petition, any challenges they had, and anything they would suggest for improvement. 

User Interviews Results

The user interviews revealed important insights into the petitions process:

  • 2 participants emphasized that the website should avoid adding excessive information, focusing instead on clarity.

  • 3 participants reported a lack of communication throughout the process, aside from receiving a submission receipt and their decision after six weeks.

  • 1 participant highlighted the importance of feeling heard and not wasting time during the process, showcasing a desire for personalized and efficient support. 

Usability Tests

We conducted a usability test with students who have never submitted a petition and have never interacted with the site in any capacity. This would give us authentic reactions to the site and the process without any existing bias. The tasks we used in the research were created based on a website audit conducted by our team where we mapped out the existing flows of petitions in Figma.

We structured research in an A/B/C approach due to the nature of our project. We knew that we wanted to continuously improve on the same prototype, starting from the existing website, to ensure we were making direct improvements to the process.

Between November 11th and November 23rd we conducted 11 Moderated Usability Tests. Each session was composed of 4 tasks and 9 research questions. Each user was given a link to the Laurier Petitions site and asked to share their screen for the facilitator to follow along. Users were also asked to talk out loud throughout the tasks to help facilitators better understand their cognitive process.

Usability Testing Tasks

With insight from our client, we determined that there were 4 main paths a user might take for the most common types of petitions: 

  1. Not Accountable Term: A student needs to file a petition to strike an entire academic term from their record. 

  2. Voluntary Withdrawal: A student wishes to file a petition to withdraw from a course, usually after the drop deadline, because of their own personal reasons. 

  3. Third Attempt: A student has failed a course twice previously, and needs to file a petition explaining why they should be permitted to take it again. 

  4. Exam Deferral: A student cannot write their final exam on the scheduled day, and therefore needs to file a petition to request a deferred exam date. 

A Testing Results

Task success

For our usability sessions, we tracked the success of our users to determine if they followed the correct path to the correct petition form for each task.

This data shows us that the majority of users failed each of the tasks, but the highest rate of failure was on the first task presented to them. Users gradually failed less as they went through the remaining tasks. This shows us that when presented with the site for the first time, users are more likely to fail the task they need to complete.

Key themes

  1. Clarity and Assurance

    Most participants (9/11) mistakenly believed they had successfully completed tasks despite making errors, showcasing a disconnect between perceived and actual success.

    All users (11/11) expressed difficulty understanding the instructions provided, citing them as overly vague and non-intuitive. Mental model misalignment also contributed to confusion, as users expected clearer guidance and direct links to relevant forms.

    10/11 participants reported experiencing frustration or confusion when navigating the process, which further underscored the need for improved clarity, detailed instructions, and intuitive feedback mechanisms.

  2. Information Architecture

    All participants (11/11) frequently selected the wrong forms due to unclear labels and descriptions. Navigation was a significant pain point, with users struggling to locate the correct forms and encountering unclear dropdown menus that led to misclick errors.

    Many users (6/11) approached tasks with incorrect assumptions about the website's structure, revealing a misalignment between their mental models and the site's interface.

    Task-specific issues also emerged, with users experiencing confusion over form descriptions and locations for various petitions such as "Deferred Exam," "Not Accountable Term," and "Third Attempt."

Step 4 and 5: Prototype and Test

Low and Medium Fidelity Prototypes

Our initial approach to low-fidelity prototyping was focused on understanding the mental models of our users before committing to a structured flow. Instead of building out a fully interactive prototype, we started with a simplified design that primarily featured a “Take Survey” CTA on the petitions homepage. This allowed us to test whether students intuitively understood the purpose of the survey and whether they expected it to help them find the correct petition form.

Building on insights from our user research and low-fidelity wireframes, we developed a medium-fidelity prototype that follows Wilfrid Laurier’s design system, incorporating their colors, typography, and branding guidelines. To maintain consistency, we also aligned our flows with the Qualtrics design system using styled components. Our focus during this phase was to refine the usability and accessibility of our solution, ensuring that user interactions were intuitive and effective.
By transitioning from low-fidelity wireframes to a more interactive medium-fidelity prototype, we were able to fine-tune user flows, improve information hierarchy, and re-organize the petitions homepage.

B Testing Results

Pass/Fail Metrics

After conducting our research sessions, we were able to measure task success based on the following criteria:

  • Did users select the correct response in the survey? 

  • Did users find the correct petition form? 

  • Did users select the correct Faculty for the specific type of petition? 

C Testing Methodology and Results

We used this final round of testing to validate our results from deliverables 2 and 3, with some minor adjustments to the user interface. Our C round of testing unfortunately started off poorly, as we continued to see higher failure rates than success rates. We quickly recognized this and halted testing to redesign and reassess. We added back the step-by-step flow on the home page to try to bring more recognition to the survey, which participants were missing, and to give participants a more guided process. With the step-by-step language and guidance on the home page, users could locate the survey more easily. This also allowed them to more easily understand and navigate the home page.

These adjustments led to a noticeable improvement in task success rates, validating the importance of clear guidance. While some usability issues still remained, this round of testing confirmed our design changes to the Laurier Petition’s page across all four deliverables.

B Testing Methodology

We conducted two usability tests using our low fidelity prototype, which consisted of a static homepage where there was no functionality, just purely scrolling capability. We asked users to walk through the page and let us know their thoughts and expectations.

As a note, we did not gain many interesting insights from our low fidelity prototype because of the very low functionality, and therefore we decided to move forward onto medium fidelity.
Therefore, we then tested our medium fidelity prototype with 10 new users. We gave them the same four tasks for the session that we used in A testing.

Final Prototype

Homepage

Below are sample screenshots taken from our final prototype which show the re-imagined Laurier Petitions home page, as well as our newly added dropdown flow. The survey for students to find the correct petition is listed as Step 1 to bring attention to it.

Questionnaire/Survey

Below are sample screenshots of our final survey flow, showing the progression from low-fidelity to high-fidelity designs. These were developed based on insights from our A/B testing and research synthesis. To inform the flow, our team conducted a comprehensive audit of the existing Laurier Petitions page. This helped us map out each petition pathway and identify the key questions that need to be asked for each petition type.

Before

After

Conclusion and next steps

Recommendations created

There were other recommendations the team had for the Laurier Petitions forms themselves, as well as other elements of the process we could not implement ourselves.

Work continued by Laurier

The team at Laurier has been given access to our work, and will implement our changes on the Laurier website.

Further Research

The team recommends further research is conducted once the new site page has been implemented. This will ensure that the process continues to be iterative, and user feedback is collected on an ongoing basis.