A better buying decision became the goal.
We began by looking for gaps in bookstore usability and satisfaction. High satisfaction in the survey and intercept interviews gave us reason to reconsider that focus.
Stakeholder interviews added the business context. Textbooks were a low-margin category for the store, and its leadership, former UW students themselves, wanted it to be a dependable resource for students. They supported helping students find the best price, even from other sellers, and acknowledged that comparing meant searching through many different apps. Comparing prices and buying options became our priority.
I served as UX Research Lead and the main contact with bookstore leadership. Our five-person capstone team worked alongside the store’s renovation efforts; two UX designers led design execution.
Support an informed buying decision
External prices and a peer marketplace entered the portal concept. Marketplace demand still needed investigation.
See the journey from both sides of the counter.
We combined student feedback with observation of the staff workflows behind an order. Stakeholder interviews added the bookstore’s goals and constraints.
- 16 hours
- Contextual inquiryStaff workflows and customer interactions at the start of the quarter.
- 25
- Survey responsesBuying habits, timing, and satisfaction with different sources.
- 3
- Stakeholder interviewsBookstore priorities and operational constraints.
- 21
- Intercept interviewsStudent experiences during the spring buying period.
The survey ran for two weeks through mailing lists and social media, including the bookstore’s channels.
For contextual inquiry, we shadowed staff from before opening through peak hours. We documented observations and questions in field notes, then grouped them through affinity mapping.
These methods describe the people and settings we reached. In-store interviews could miss students who had already chosen to buy elsewhere.
Support the choice.
Include other sellers.
About
1 in 3
respondents used other sellers.
That included eBay, independent bookstores, and other students. Price and convenience were the most common purchase factors.
25 survey responses · March 2025
Approximate share from the team’s survey summary.
That shaped the proposal: put bookstore and external prices beside course materials, so students can compare buying options in one place.
The team also included a peer marketplace in the prototype. Third-party buying did not establish demand for a bookstore-run exchange; that concept needed its own investigation.
Finding the right book remained part of the decision. Many students relied on syllabi, and most survey respondents decided what to buy in the first week of the quarter. We proposed pairing registered courses with required materials.
Inspect the survey findings
High bookstore satisfaction Students reported much higher satisfaction with the bookstore than with third parties like Amazon.
Low prices and convenience Low price and convenience were the most frequently reported factors in a purchasing decision.
Buying goes beyond campus Around a third of respondents used third parties such as eBay, independent bookstores, or other students.
Decisions peak in the first week Most students decided what to buy during the first week, even though requirements were listed online ahead of time.
Ordering and pickup had their own information gaps.
~250
online orders in an observed morning backlog
~15 min
observed delay in inventory updates
Field observations from the busy period, not daily averages.
Students sometimes arrived before their orders were ready. Staff also received requests for books that instructors had not told the store about.
Our proposal: show order-status updates and deadline reminders in the student portal.
Clearer messages would still depend on reliable course, inventory, and fulfillment data. The interface could show the handoff; it could not make missing information appear.
A portal was one part of a larger service.
We mapped the journey from registration to pickup in a service blueprint, including the staff processes behind each student-facing step.
The final prototype brought together a course-material list, purchase options, reminders, and a marketplace. NetID login and course import were proposed features, not live integrations.
Early wireframes explored both student and professor portals. The final concept focused on students.
Connect courses to books.
Expandable course rows keep required materials beside the course they belong to.
Make room for another seller.
The comparison concept includes bookstore offers and external prices, supporting a decision beyond the store’s own inventory.
Keep the deadline in view.
The dashboard places access and payment reminders alongside course materials. The final design shows a Day One Access trial reminder.
Course and reminder details are excerpts from the team’s final prototype; the buying-options diagram summarizes the proposal. Inspect the original designs.
The service behind the portal.
Compare the initial blueprint
Inspect the wireframes and original prototype
Recommendations for the portal and the service behind it.
We delivered the prototype and research documentation to the University Book Store, then presented DubsBooks at the June 2025 HCDE Capstone Showcase.
| What we found | What we proposed | Who would act |
|---|---|---|
| Buying beyond the storeAbout a third of survey respondents also used other sellers; comparing meant checking many apps. | Show bookstore and external prices beside each course’s materials. | Store leadership, with design |
| First-week decisionsMost respondents decided in the first week, although requirements were online earlier. | Pair registered courses with required materials, and remind students of deadlines. | Design, with course-materials staff |
| Orders not readyWe observed a backlog of about 250 online orders and inventory updates about 15 minutes behind. | Show order status in the portal, once inventory and fulfillment data can support it. | Operations and IT, before design |
| Missing requirementsStaff received requests for books instructors had not reported. | No portal fix; the blueprint keeps instructor reporting as a dependency. | Course-materials staff and instructors |
A follow-up study would measure whether students can find the correct book, compare suitable buying options, and identify the next deadline without help.
View the final capstone poster
Looking back, I would build in order of evidence.
My reading now, not part of what we delivered.
Our prototype presented four features as one portal. The evidence behind each one, and what each depended on, differed.
1
Course materials with prices
The strongest support: about a third of respondents bought elsewhere, and leadership wanted students to find the best price. It needs other sellers’ prices, not new store systems.
2
Reminders before the quarter
Most respondents decided in the first week, though requirements were online earlier. Whether an earlier reminder changes that is untested.
3
Order status
Only once inventory and fulfillment data are reliable. A wrong status would undercut the dependability leadership cared about.
4
A student marketplace
Buying elsewhere did not show demand for a store-run exchange. I would test that demand before designing for it.
The busy-period backlog and the first-week decisions come from the same weeks.
Reminders before the quarter might help students and ease the store’s busiest mornings at once. The observations raise that possibility; they cannot test it.