Roper Center

Redesigning Campaign Weathervane — the Roper Center’s teaching simulation built on decades of real archived polls — from quiz-like clicking into structured learning.

Role: UX Designer, Project Manager
Duration: 09/2024 – 12/2024
Type: Client-Based Project
Teams: UX Designers, UX Researchers, Project Manager, Software Engineers

At a glance

Heuristic audit and student testing exposed hollow progress
Progress bar rebuilt as comprehension checkpoints
Citations reframed as rewards students actually open

4design principles, from testing

01 / The brief

The tool measured activity, not comprehension.

I led the redesign of Roper Center’s educational simulation platform, reframing it from a confusing quiz-like tool into a structured learning experience.

I uncovered systemic issues through heuristic evaluation, competitive analysis, and user testing: unclear navigation, misleading progress bars, and a lack of educational alignment. By translating pain points into design goals—clarity, feedback, motivation, and learning outcomes—I rebuilt the simulation so progress finally meant comprehension.

02 / Guess vs. America, 1984

The game asks one honest question: what did America think?

The product’s core loop, rebuilt in this page’s own ink: read a real question from the archive, commit to a guess, then meet the number America actually gave. The figures below are the prototype’s own sample question — proof of progress a student could believe in.

“On the whole, do you favor or oppose most of the efforts to strengthen and change the status of women in society today?”

drag the marker, release to lock your guess — then see what America said

Your guess — share who said “Favor”

50%

Favor80%

Oppose16%

Don’t know4%

Your guess 50% · actual 80% · off by 30 pts

The prototype’s sample question · National adult · registered voters (77%) · fielded 9/7 – 9/11/1984

03 / What the audit found

Three passes over the same tool, one verdict.

Stakeholder Briefing · Product Vision · Initial Assumptions

The Kickoff That Looked Like Learning but Wasn’t

The Roper Center came to us with an educational simulation tool that looked like a quiz game. Students could click through questions, earn points, and see progress bars fill up. On the surface, it felt like learning. But in kickoff discussions, faculty admitted: “Students play, but they don’t retain.” My first realization was that this wasn’t about polishing visuals—it was about uncovering why “fun” wasn’t translating into knowledge.

Project Gantt chart for the Cornell Roper Center engagement: UX research, heuristic evaluation, usability testing, and UX design tracks from September to December 2024. — Fig. 01 — Research plan, fall 2024

Heuristic Evaluation · UX Audit

The Audit Promised Usability but Revealed Deeper Gaps

I started with a heuristic evaluation. What I found was subtle but serious: ambiguous navigation, misleading progress indicators, and no cues linking actions to learning outcomes. A progress bar suggested mastery, yet no feedback confirmed understanding. These issues weren’t just usability flaws—they revealed a deeper problem: the system measured activity, not comprehension.

Annotated heuristic evaluation board for the Campaign Stop page, listing problems in flexibility, documentation, and visibility of system status beside screenshots of the existing tool. — Fig. 02 — Annotated heuristic board · Campaign Stop

User Interviews · Affinity Mapping · Jobs-to-Be-Done

When Points Felt Hollow, Students Asked for Proof

User testing with high school and university students reinforced this gap. Many completed tasks quickly, but when asked to recall citations or explain reasoning, they hesitated. One student put it bluntly: “It feels like a game, not like I’m learning.” That insight reframed our challenge: the design goal was not to keep students clicking, but to give them proof of progress they could believe in.

Research drive of user-testing artifacts: participant protocols, session recordings, post-test surveys, and a UX-and-perceptions question guide. — Fig. 03 — Testing protocols, sessions and post-surveys

04 / Four principles

The Moment Complaints Became a Design Compass

Clarity

Navigation and progress must be unambiguous.

Feedback

Immediate confirmation of understanding.

Motivation

Gameplay should reinforce effort, not distract.

Outcomes

Design must point back to learning goals.

Affinity map from user testing round one: clustered sticky notes on question pages, campaign stops, signifiers, favorability chart, and educational prospects, with a written insights column. — Fig. 04 — Affinity map · user testing round 1

05 / The signature decision

A progress bar is a promise.

During usability tests, students smiled when the progress bar filled up and said, “I’m done, I’ve learned it.” Yet when asked follow-up questions, many couldn’t recall the key concepts. That contradiction was striking: the interface signaled success, but the learning had not happened. It wasn’t just a UI bug—it was a gap between appearance and outcome.

That moment reshaped how I thought about educational design. A progress bar is not just decoration; it is a promise. As Don Norman reminds us, affordances guide expectations. For Roper Center, the real goal wasn’t “finishing a task” but “retaining knowledge.” That realization led me to redesign progress as layered checkpoints with feedback and citations, turning completion into genuine understanding.

Before — filled either way · completion ≠ comprehension

After — each segment unlocks on demonstrated understanding

Nine wireframe screens of Campaign Weathervane: year selection, campaign stop, question and answer flows, customization, and results — with the checkpoint progress bar called out. — Fig. 05 — Checkpoint wireframes · inset: the progress bar, enlarged

Detail, enlarged: the question screen’s checkpoint progress bar between the back button and the favorability checker. — Fig. 05 — Checkpoint wireframes · inset: the progress bar, enlarged

06 / The other decisions

The loops that followed the checkpoints.

Usability Testing · Feedback Loop · Cognitive Load

How Feedback Turned Empty Clicks Into Learning Moments

In usability tests, students said they clicked without thinking because the system never asked them to pause. I introduced immediate feedback—correct answers revealed sources, wrong ones showed hints and citations. This transformed clicks into moments of reflection, teaching students that learning wasn’t about speed, but about engaging with evidence.

User testing phase two findings: the progress bar misunderstood as a question tracker, repetitive question types reducing engagement, overlooked favorability changes, and unclear navigation. — Fig. 06 — User testing phase 2 · usability issues

Gamification · Rewards System · Behavior Design

The Day Sources Stopped Being Ignored And Started Driving Learning

Early prototypes treated citations as optional drawers, but students ignored them. I reframed citations as part of gameplay: correct answers unlocked sources, and exploring them earned small achievements. What was once a burden became motivation—students engaged with primary sources not because they had to, but because it felt rewarding.

Hi-fi reveal screen of Campaign Weathervane: the reader's response beside the actual 1984 poll response, with the Weathervane favorability sign in the center. — Fig. 07 — The reveal screen, hi-fi

07 / Prototype walkthrough

The redesigned learning loop, from guess to evidence.

Campaign Weathervane · hi-fi prototype · fall 2024

08 / What Roper kept

Their first evidence-based UX process.

The lasting impact wasn’t any single deliverable. Every design choice traced back to a pain point, every feature mapped to a principle. The redesign didn’t just make the tool usable—it made it educational.

Hi-fi prototype

The redesigned simulation — checkpoints, feedback, and the reveal loop.

UI kit

Branding, palette, type, and component patterns for the client’s team.

Research report

Twelve weeks of records — testing protocols, session recordings, and post-test surveys.