TIMELINE
16 Weeks.
August-December 2025
TEAM
8 UX Designers
CONTRIBUTION
Research, Ideation, UX Design, Testing
TYPE OF PROJECT
Industry sponsored project by IU Libraries
TL;DR
We redesigned the library's resource management experience for 100,000+ IU users by transforming a confusing save-to-request workflow into an intuitive, accessible system for discovering, organizing, and borrowing resources.
KEY HIGHLIGHTS
WHAT DID I DO
Led competitive research across 10+ library systems and synthesied findings into a gap analysis that reframed the project brief from "fix Selections" to "fix the mental model the feature was built on"
Owned the redesign of Saving and Folders by collapsing multi-step workflows into inline actions without disrupting the research momentum users needed to stay in
Conducted patron walkthroughs with current and new IUCAT users, translating behavioral observations into specific interface decisions across navigation, empty states, and tooltip design
CONTEXT
IUCAT is Indiana University's library catalogue through which every student, professor, and researcher at one of the largest public universities in the US searches, saves, and requests materials. It has everything: 10 million+ physical items, digital resources, journals, rare materials.
What it lacked was a usable Selections and Folders system, a coherent request workflow, and meaningful navigation support for first-time users. Indiana University Libraries came to us with a brief: fix the Selections and Folders feature. After thorough research, we came back to them with five distinct redesign systems and a future scope recommendation for a knowledge base assistant that would reduce librarian consultation load by surfacing self-service answers at the point of confusion.
WHAT WE SET OUT TO LEARN
We wanted clarity on whether users could navigate the current features without guidance, make sense of the information presented, and feel supported as they moved through the experience.
Clarity of the experience?
Can users understand what the Selections feature offers and how to use it?
Is it easy to use?
How smoothly can users move through key user journeys without any guidance?
Do they feel like continuing?
Do user feel supported enough to continue using these features in their day-to-day life
METHODOLOGY
To improve these features we used three different research methods and all three told us different things.
Competitive Analysis
Across 10+ library systems (Stanford, Penn State, Cornell, Harvard, UVA, ACM, JSTOR, Monroe County Public Library, EBSCO, and others)
Expert Interviews
We spoke to three librarians to identify the most common sources of confusion, the user journey and how they approached supporting their users
User Walkthroughs
We moderated task-based walkthroughs with existing and new users to understand their journey and identified pain points
WHAT RESEARCH REVEALED
01
IUCAT was the outlier among 10+ peer systems in requiring users to leave search results entirely to save an item, breaking the research flow at the highest-momentum moment.
02
Citation tools, item tags, and visible save counts were standard in similar systems but absent from IUCAT.
03
A significant share of librarian consultation time went to answering the same recurring questions (terminology, navigation, inter-library requests).
04
The Knowledge Base already had the answers users needed, but users did not know how to access it so they never found it.
How might we improve the navigation of IUCAT overall, make changes to the Selections and Folders system so that users can easily save, organize, and manage collection items for ongoing projects, ensuring the experience is intuitive, efficient, and supports real-world workflows?
Reframed the HMW statement after research
TOOLS USED
KEY DESIGN DECISIONS
The insights gathered through research directly informed our design decisions, helping us prioritize solutions that addressed users' biggest pain points. Each feature was intentionally designed to improve usability, reduce friction, and better support users' research workflows.
SAVING & FOLDERS
Insight: Saving an item required leaving search entirely: find item → go to Selections → navigate to folders → save. Users lost their research context every time.
Solution: Inline save action directly on the search result card. Users can create a new folder from within the save modal without leaving search at any point.
BASKET
Insight: The original system conflated two distinct actions, saving for later and requesting that were under a single ambiguous label: Selections. Users didn't know which option they were choosing.
Solution: Introduced a Basket modeled on e-commerce patterns users already know. Folders are for organizing. The Basket is for requesting. One mental model each, no overlap.
CITATIONS
Insight: Users were leaving IUCAT mid-research to generate citations in external tools, then returning to continue. The workflow required toggling between systems for a task that happens constantly.
Solution: Per-item citation generation from search results (Chicago, MLA, APA, Bluebook) with one-click copy or export. We also added a folder-level citation export for entire collections.
SEARCH RESULTS
Insight: Search History existed but lived on a separate page nobody navigated to. Item Tags existed in the librarian view of every record that were invisible to the users who needed them most.
Solution: Search History surfaced as a dropdown inside the search bar. Item Tags made user-visible for the first time, with each tag linking directly to a filtered search.
TOOLTIPS
Insight: Librarians were answering the same questions daily, about terminology, navigation, and what actions meant. The interface was generating consultation load that belonged in the UI.
Solution: Consistent tooltips were added to every major action to explain functionality, reduce uncertainty, and improve discoverability for both new and returning users.
Using Rivet, Indiana University's WCAG-compliant design system, ensured the redesigned experience remained consistent with the IU ecosystem while maintaining accessibility.
DESIGNING WITH TECHNICAL CONTRAINTS
We had to design within the technical constraints of the existing Blacklight framework, ensuring every solution was feasible to implement without disrupting the underlying system.
TESTING
We gathered feedback through UX critiques and usability testing with IU students. These insights helped us validate assumptions, refine workflows, and ensure the final solutions aligned with user needs.
WHAT STAYED WITH ME
01
Learned to approach redesigns holistically by understanding diverse user needs, existing workflows, and the larger ecosystem a product operates within.
02
Strengthened my ability to navigate ambiguity through collaborative decision-making, stakeholder conversations, and thoughtful design critique.
You reached the end! Have an AI-generated cookie.
Unfortunately, AI still can't replicate the taste. If you'd rather have a real one, let's grab cookies and talk design. Just send me an email. (Click the cookie to eat it.)