Re-designing the GRCOA Website
GRCOA (Grand River Council of Aging)
10 minute read
Team
My Role
Contributed throughout every stage
Tools Used
Timeline
Isabel U-Perez
Bavneet Sandhu
Jade Weaver
Abibat Egbeyemi
Kaeleigh Gardiner
Therese Ristow
8 months (Sept 2025 - May 2026)
Figma & Figjam
Google Docs
Google Forms
Leanne Witzke
Olivia Bartlett
Mya Certossi
During the UX400 Capstone, my team and I were tasked to help Brantford's GRCOA (Grand River Council of Aging), a non-profit organization, to design an intuitive, scalable digital solution that meets the needs of today’s 45-year-olds while evolving to support them and the community in crafting an age-friendly future over the next 20 years. 🤗
Overview
Contents
UX400 Capstone Project
Client Project
Information Architecture
Prototyping
User Research
Background
The Grand River Council on Aging (GRCOA) is a non-profit organization whose mission is to create an age-friendly community across Brantford and Brant County.
Project Objective & How Might We statement
Currently the GRCOA has:
Lack of education and awareness about aging resources and support
Risk of underutilization of services due to poor digital infrastructure
Organizational sustainability risks (funding, volunteers, outreach)
There should be:
Long-term planning for sustainability of both the organization and their resources/services for generations to come.
🎯 Main Objective:
To create an age-friendly community for all residents.
👥 Target Users:
1
2
Primary
45-55+ year olds planning for the next stage of life.
Secondary
20-40 year olds trying to build awareness around aging early on.
We created a "how might we" statement around our objective and users so we can refer back to it to keep our team focused.
Design an intuitive, scalable digital solution that meets the needs of today’s 45-year-olds while evolving to support them and the community in crafting an age-friendly future over the next 20 years?
How Might We…
Initial Client Meeting
In order to ensure our team is on the same page, we conducted a group meeting to discuss role allocation, team alignment, and team retrospective (to reflect on our previous group projects outside of this one). We also ideated any questions we had for Lucy and Claudio: executive members of the GRCOA.
After a virtual meeting with our client Lucy and Claudio from GRCOA, we conducted 3 rounds of affinity mapping, and empathy mapping to sort through and understand the information they gave us. From this, we understood what Lucy and Claudio wanted from us, what our objectives were, and what the GRCOA provided for the Brantford community.
A main takeaway was that the GRCOA are focused on being intergenerational, meaning these tools remain relevant and user-friendly to people as they age.
After we generated long-term planning to ensure we stay aligned. We created a Gantt chart and a 7-month calendar to clearly map out our project activities, timelines, and deliverables. Both tools will help our team prepare for any contingencies by showing us how tasks connect, when or why certain tasks can run into delays, and ultimately how we can work around them.
Comparative Analysis & Work Plan
For more details, read our full Deliverable #1 document. We presented our deliverable to our class, professor and client succinctly.
View our presentation slides below.
We then conducted an environmental analysis and SWOT analysis that examines current strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the organization based on examination of internal resources, community events, website, and stakeholder information.
We selected four organizations with similar audiences types and contexts who also use a digital solution as a primary means of servicing their users (Hamilton Council on Aging, BC Healthy Communities, Age Friendly Niagara and HelpAge Canada).
By analyzing key elements of each website, we uncovered several opportunities for enhancement as well as potential shortcomings related to content delivery, flexibility of format, and technical and heuristic considerations.
-Strength: in-depth communication
We also reviewed four non-profit organizations with primary users around 45 years old (Glassdoor, Career Foundation, Common Good Plan, Mayo Clinic) to get a better understanding of the digital environments our target audience are currently using.
By analyzing current patterns, features, and media types used we can better understand gaps in the GRCOA site and opportunities to tailor the new solution to better meet user needs and preferences.
-Strength: in-depth communication
User Research, Synthesis & Results
To understand our target users, our team conducted open, semi-structured interviews. Our team selected this method to get detailed information around users’ challenges, motivations, behaviours, wants, goals, and toolkit, while being able to gather initial impressions, expectations, and workflows during their walkthrough on the website.
We then created a screener survey to ensure we gathered meaningful insights based on the project’s scope, we used the following criteria to select participants:
We aimed for 15+ research participants based on recommendations by industry experts like the Nielsen Norman Group (NNG).
They suggest a minimum of 5 participants per user type to make sure there is enough data to create a well-informed persona/archetype.
Participants must be within the 40-55 age range.
Participants must be willing to share their screens during the sessions.
Participants can be from any location in Ontario.
Screener form.
Planned and scheduled interviews from screener participants.
Note-taking sessions.
We successfully conducted 20 interviews with a duration of 45 minutes to an hour each.
We had a minimum of 2 note-takers and 1 facilitator for each session. During the interview process, we asked participants to screen-share the GRCOA website and show us their usual process or workflow when evaluating this online community resource for the first time.
In addition, participants were asked targeted questions related to:
With each research session, we synthesized the information by coding it. We started by creating a codebook with labels of: experiences, preferences, wants, pain points, positives, tasks/processes, toolkit, & neutral.
We conducted 3 rounds of coding, where we labeled each line of information said by the participant.
After synthesizing, we are able to group our results into categories of what we uncovered.
Their experiences, habits, and preferences around finding and using community resources, online resources, and future planning.
Challenges or concerns they’ve encountered during these experiences.
Their wants and views on opportunities for improving these experiences.
Screener Survey
User Interviews
Interview Results
For more details, read our full Deliverable #2 document. We presented our deliverable to our class, professor and client succinctly.
View our presentation slides below.
We further affinity mapped our information into more specific categories to uncover more themes.
Archetypes & Journey Maps
Archetypes are specific representations of core characteristics and behaviours within groups of users. Journey maps are visualizations of the steps users take within a scenario to reach their goals while identifying pain points and design opportunities within those tasks.
The Optimizer values efficiency and is looking to reduce the time it takes to find information.
Focused on direct finding with limited exploration, they appreciate quick and readily available information.
The Optimizer is more concerned with minimizing browsing times and efforts. Utilizing resources like AI and search bars, they are focused on optimizing processes to find information easier. Due to this approach, they are quick to leave websites if they can’t find what they are looking for in a short amount of time.
The Value Seeker is looking for information that sparks their interest.
Research and planning are low-urgency processes for them; they explore interesting or valuable resources when an easy opportunity presents itself.
They don’t go out of their way to find new sources of information but explore them thoroughly if they come across something that seems interesting. Because of this laid-back approach, they tend to feel less prepared about their future.
Archetype + Journey Map #1: The Value Seeker
Archetype + Journey Map #2: The Optimizer
The Socializer is motivated by connection. They actively seek opportunities to meet people, participate in community activities, and stay socially engaged, whether through events, arts, gardening, workshops, or volunteering.
They enjoy both digital and in-person experiences and frequently use social media to keep up with community events. Social connection also shapes how they plan for the future.
They value staying involved, supported, and informed and see it as more important than long-term structured planning.
Archetype + Journey Map #3: The Socializer
The Skeptic is cautious when finding new information and resources.
They have plans in place and experts to contact if needs arise, and don’t feel like community resources have any personal value to them, so they feel well prepared to face any challenges that may arise.
They need and are confident in their existing sources of information if new needs arise, their online experiences are more focused on loose exploration of visually eye-catching experiences.
Archetype + Journey Map #4: The Skeptic
From our coding and synthesis, we were able to construct 4 data-based archetypes. We iterated on the grouping, labeling and descriptions of each archetype to understand where our users fit based on the data we sorted out.
Both archetypes and journey maps were synthesized based on patterns found in research findings that indicated common relationships between goals, needs, pain points, experiences, and processes for groups of users.
Storyboards & Ideation
Diverge: Create choices
Sketching storyboards individually
Reviewing user journey maps and pain points
Creating a storyline
During the divergent phase, the goal was to separate and have different group members create storyboards to ensure there was no bias with each other's ideas and fully explore a diverse range of possibilities.
We were able to focus on quantity and creativity to highlight the different possibilities of how users would be interacting with the website.
Converge: Make choices
Pulling in ideas from individual sketches as a team
Coming up with rationale for story choices
Finalizing storyline, emotions, art-style & graphics
Now for the converge stage, we came together to review the storyboard ideas looking at different factors like story, consistency, emotions, and more.
We reviewed all the different storyboards and took ideas from each other to create 3 storyboards that best aligned with our research findings, design goals, and our How Might We statement.
Diverge and Converge Ideation
During the ideation process for the storyboards, our team used divergent and convergent thinking methods.
As a group, we began with divergent thinking by selecting 3 tasks that users of the GRCOA are most likely to do when coming to the website which were: finding information about events & sign-up, find information about health, exercise & physical resources and finally, sign-up for volunteering. Then we started the diverge stage individually and moved onto the converge stage together.
→
Storyboards #1:
Storyboards #2:
Storyboards #3:
Final Storyboards
Constraints
The following outlines the specific constraints that influence what our team can design, recommend, and deliver for GRCOA.
In general, these constraints consider the capabilities of GRCOA, our team, and the users. By identifying these factors, it can help ensure our design recommendations remain practical and user-centered while aligning with the organization’s needs.
Due to these client constraints, our team will need to evaluate:
Affordable tools, services, hosting, and maintenance options that GRCOA staff can easily manage without ongoing external or developer support.
Cost-effective, scalable, and maintainable recommendations within GRCOA’s financial capacity.
GRCOA’s operations depend on funding through donations and/or grants which affects what our team can implement in the website re-design.
Budgetary Constraints
Our website re-design needs to be compatible with the current platform host to:
Ensure familiarity.
Continue being managed without a deep level of technical expertise.
GRCOA does not have a team of developers and our team must account for platform limitations.
Technological Constraints
To accommodate, our team needs to account for the following in our website re-design:
Accessibility
Intuitive navigation and simplicity
Responsiveness on mobile devices
Efficiency and attention span
Reliance on social sharing behaviors for information
GRCOA caters to a diverse user base such as seniors, caregivers, community members, and others who may not be as technologically savvy.
User Constraints
Low-Fidelity Testing: Open Card Sort
Following guidelines from industry experts like Nielson Norman Group, we conducted the Card Sort with a total of 9 mixed participants (5 returners and 4 new).
This is done to better understand our target users' mental models, as well as expectations in relation to site navigation and information structures.
Our team conducted an Open Card Sort for our first round of testing. Using this methodology, we were able to examine how users organize and label content from the GRCOA website without any limitations or predefined categories. We used a free online tool called Lyssna.
An Open Card Sort allowed us to evaluate common groupings and terminology and understand where multiple users may be uncertain about content or labelling.
With the Open Card Sort, we structured it as:
1
Card sort instructions and preliminary questions for card sort participants
Card sort introduction.
Card sort instructions.
Preliminary questions.
2
A set of content cards representing key pages and content on the GRCOA website. Allowed users to sort the cards into groups and generate their own labels.
Ended the card sort with a short query asking users for feedback related to confusion or any follow up questions they had.
Card Sort Results
3
For example, some of the cards were related to pages like Board of Directors, Donate, Housing Resources, and more.
Implementing card sort results into IA (information architecture)
Now, we implemented our card sort results into new IA (Information Architecture) for the site through brainstorming and organizing how the new GRCOA navigation bar menu will look like.
The results of the card sort helped reveal several trends and common patterns among users for labelling and content grouping.
Low-Fidelity Prototypes
Following the test results, our group came together to confirm the final IA (information architecture) of the GRCOA website based on the results.
With this, several pages that had common groupings like ‘About’ and ‘Events’ would have minimal changes for the broader category labels.
Looking at the results, our team proposed new labels for other high-level content categories that better aligned with user mental models and expectations. These include:
About Us
Events
Volunteer
Resources & Services (new)
Community Planning (new)
Contact Us
These new groupings based on results are a consolidation of related pages. We believed this was the best decision moving forward as it allowed for a reduction in the number of pages that will be shown on the GRCOA website.
We also referenced our previous generative research alongside the card sort results to propose lower-level changes to content, groupings, and labelling within our initial low-fi designs. These changes include combining pages and content that were often grouped together by users, adding local navigation, and adjusting subcategory labels that did not align with user expectations. In following their mental models, our team hopes to reduce confusion while users navigate the new and improved website.
Low-fidelity homepage.
Low-fidelity Discounts page.
Low-fidelity Search results page.
Low-fidelity Resources and Services page.
Low-fidelity Events page.
Low-fidelity Volunteer page.
Mid-Fidelity Prototypes
Building off our low-fidelity prototypes, we created more fleshed out mid-fidelity prototypes. We focused on critical tasks and workflows in this prototype, saving less vital site pages and blue-sky proposals for later iterations.
Navigation Bar
Home
Events
Workshops
Resources and Services
Health & Wellness
Volunteer Page
Print Page
Share
Open Saved List
Discounts
Saved Items Page
Mid-Fidelity Prototype Usability Testing
Overall, the new design was positively received by participants. While completing the tasks, participants had little to no issues with navigation and finding information. Additionally, participants compared the new visual layout to the previous one they were shown (the current live CRCOA website) and positively commented on the new visuals and interactions, stating that information is easier to find and pages are more appealing to look at.
The main points of confusion or uncertainty during testing were related to the Volunteer and Event tasks. For volunteering, some participants wanted to know what to expect from the volunteer process and role tasks before submitting an application, and found the application overly long. For events, participants were confused about the difference between past virtual event recordings and current upcoming events, as well as finding the share icon unintuitive. Additionally, users were initially uncertain about what saving an item under Resource & Services did, and whether it was saved at the site or browser level. However, these issues were fairly minor and all participants completed the tasks successfully within all 4 scenarios.
Usability Test Results
Next Iteration
For each task, the number of errors, ease of use, confidence, and success ratings were recorded. Overall, users made very few errors, with the average number of errors per task being less than one. Additionally, confidence and ease of use were both rated highly, with an average rating of 4.94/5 and 4.87/5 respectively. The success rate was also very high, with 100% of tasks being completed successfully, and an overall score of 93.5% which accounted for some tasks being completed successfully but with difficulty.
Based on our analysis of usability test results and users’ friction points, we prioritized findings by frequency and severity to identify common errors and propose targeted solutions.
Ease of use rating (on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being very difficult and 5 being very easy)
Confidence rating (on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being not confident and 5 being very confident)
Success and error rates
Participants
Following the creation of our low and mid-fidelity prototypes, we conducted moderated usability testing on our mid-fidelity prototypes.
Focusing on a smaller participant pool to allow for longer sessions and more in-depth tasks, we tested with 4 participants. This sample size is enough to provide sufficient feedback about the design, and is in line with industry recommendations. Sources indicate that 5 participants usually provide the maximum benefit-cost ratio (Neilson Norman Group), and having fewer participants makes conducting multiple rounds of testing more feasible.
These were selected from previous testing sessions (deliverables 1 and 2), as our participants had a baseline understanding of the GRCOA since they had previously interacted with their website. To ensure meaningful insights, a mix of participants was selected across all our main archetypes, because the focus of our usability testing was to assess key tasks that would be undertaken after a user has made an initial assessment of a site. Priority was also given to participants who had been highly engaged during the generative research stage. We went with these individuals for testing as they communicated their thoughts and asked follow-up questions, which allowed for richer insights.
Our primary goal was to uncover pain points and confusion related to key interactions, navigation labels, and the overall workflows. During testing, we were also evaluating the effectiveness of the new navigation structure created based on the Open Card Sort result findings.
Using a scenario-based approach, participants interacted with a Figma prototype, completing four scenarios, each consisting of 4 tasks.
The tasks were designed to explore key workflows across the user archetypes our team developed based on research findings. These scenarios and tasks guided users through realistic use cases which allowed us to evaluate how effectively they could accomplish key tasks on the GRCOA website.
Following each scenario, participants were asked follow-up questions related to their overall experience, any challenges, thoughts on the new interface design, as well as their overall expectations. Moreover, in addition to the qualitative feedback, quantitative metrics were collected for each scenario.
Tasks and Scenarios
Quantitative Metrics included:
Task Success and Failure Rate
High-Fidelity Prototypes
Developed and refined based on insights gathered from our mid-fidelity tests, our high-fidelity prototype includes several changes related to key visuals and functional improvements to better align with the findings we uncovered. In addition to the changes described in the section above (Mid-Fidelity: Next Iteration), we also refined several elements from mid to high-fidelity:
New branding for the footer, header, buttons, and element colours to align with GRCOA’s existing green and navy theme, but with a more subtle and less overwhelming use of colour
Added icons and images (images provided by Lucy and the GRCOA)
Improved button colouring for visual clarity and consistency
Streamlined interactions, adding fuller functionality with components and variables
Applied scrolling and animations where applicable
Navigation Bar and Footer
Resources and Services
Home
Events
Discounts & Local Nav
Past Workshops
Volunteer
High-Fidelity Usability Testing
For the next round of testing, our team synthesized insights from our second round of testing by identifying common themes across multiple participants’ feedback. We conducted another set of moderated usability tests with 5 participants, but with a clear action plan to make changes to the prototype and tasks/scenarios. Using the same research method allowed for a structured and standardized approach to compare results from each round of testing to understand the impacts of our design changes.
Our high-fidelity prototype test also incorporated additional scenarios, tasks, and follow-up questions, which allowed room for deeper exploration of potentially difficult workflows and usability concerns. We added one more scenario to evaluate a more challenging navigation task, as well as follow-up questions related to the overall credibility of the website and user expectations of the Community Planning section.
Additionally, based on confusion from our last test, the wording on the “Events” task was changed from ‘skills/workshop class’ to ‘virtual event’, and we specified that the date they must find is exactly on the 25th.
Similar to the previous round of testing, using the same structured method of testing (including questions, scenarios, and tasks), our team selected this method to evaluate whether the changes made after round two effectively addressed the previous usability concerns. Doing this, we were able to directly compare findings across iterations while observing how participants interacted with the revised high-fidelity prototype in real time. In general, this method enabled us to ground our evaluation in observed behaviour allowing us to validate whether or not design changes reduced confusion and error rates.
For this round of testing, participants were selected using the same criteria as round 1 to ensure consistency of site familiarity and allow for accurate comparison. With a sample size of 5, participants were again selected from those who had already participated in our deliverable 2 generative research but had not already participated in any deliverable 3 testing. We selected new participants for round 2 to ensure a variety of unique insights were used from all three rounds of testing to inform our final prototype design.
Overall, there was a high level of success for tasks in this round of testing. Results were fairly mixed, with scenarios 2 and 3 having improved overall scores, while scenarios 1 and 4 had decreases in overall score. Success rates increased across all 4 repeated scenarios, with the main decreases coming from slightly lower ease of use and confidence scores across participants and scenarios. However, overall scores remained significantly positive and indicate the designs overall continue to be effective and usable. Most changes to quantitative metrics, both positive and negative, were changes less than 5%, making them not exceptionally significant.
Additionally, a slight decrease in ease of use may be expected: mid-fidelity prototypes do not allow users to freely click through the entire site, meaning there are less opportunities for users to get lost. In high-fidelity tests, users can fully explore incorrect pages; meaning even if a design is better overall, it may feel less easy or intuitive because users are able to make mistakes they couldn’t in earlier testing. Since qualitative feedback was significantly more positive, and issues brought up in previous rounds did not appear in this round, research results indicate that design changes we made did positively impact the overall experience.
Two of five participants also reported that challenges with the Figma software or task scenario wording influenced their ease of use and confidence ratings, meaning results may be skewed slightly lower than they would be if interacting with the designs in a functional, non-study environment. The lowest overall score was scenario 5, with the majority of confusion arising from unclear task wording which led to users being unsure if they had completed the task.
In terms of qualitative feedback, participants reported fewer points of confusion or uncertainty within the design than previous rounds of testing. The main points of friction that emerged were:
Based on the qualitative feedback and points of error during testing, we identified a few key elements in our task workflows for events, volunteer, and the global navigation that needed to be adjusted. Additionally, we mapped a few minor features such as additional print functionality and removing additional steps from link sharing that will help improve the efficiency of certain task flows.
Confusion around event registration requirements.
Differences between virtual and in-person events
Confusion around how to access the global navigation parent pages
A lack of ability to apply for a specific volunteer position from the relevant information card
Quantitative Metrics
Final Design
Our final prototype includes full functionality and interactions for navigating between pages and accessing content.
This final prototype is a culmination of all our research, with our solution focusing on a simple, intuitive, and scalable design that is easy to expand while remaining useful and efficient for future users.
Home
Search Results
Newsletter
Community Planning
Resources and Services
Saved List
R&S local navigation bar
Events
Discounts
Past Workshops
About Us
Volunteer
Donate
Contact Us
Blue-Sky Design & Ideas
Mobile App
Chatbot/AI
Social and Skills Exchange Programs
Social Media
These designs use the same components and layouts as mobile web, just scaled to fit the smaller viewport. Mobile apps allow for more customization, personalization, and flexibility than a web-based platform, as they do not rely on caching data on a web browser. This allows us to focus on providing unique and valuable features to users, such as the ability to create custom collections of resources, add friends, and document their community involvement.
Users can search within the search bar and see AI overview results
AI results are based on user data (age, what they click on or have saved in the past), so results are more accurate and personalized
Allows users to gain direct answers
Users can ask the AI Chatbot widget questions
Can help them with answering general questions and navigation with no matter where they are on the website
Based on direct user insights:
~35% of users use Artificial Intelligence (AI) search engines/summarizers to reduce the effort needed for reading, finding links and sources, etc.
We recommend exploring social mentor and skills exchange programs as a new type of event or online program to help people in the community build connections and learn new skills. These can be integrated into the Events sections of the website or primarily marketed through social media. These types of programs align well with the social focus that arose during testing, and could provide community members with more opportunities to share areas of interest and expertise, creating a connection point between many of our archetype.
We recommend utilizing Instagram and Facebook to increase awareness of the GRCOA, to promote events and resources, and to increase engagement with the community. These social media platforms are widely used today and play a significant role in how people access information, provide feedback, and stay connected. In addition, being active and engaging on Instagram can potentially garner a younger demographic aged 20-30, while Facebook garners a target demographic aged around 30-60.
The benefits of both platforms include:
Instagram post and story examples:
The ability to collect direct feedback on the potential number of people who show up to events
The ability to interact directly with those involved or interested in GRCOA
The ability to spread more awareness on the GRCOA, upcoming events, open volunteer positions, etc.
The ability to conduct polls/surveys/research through the polling feature (e.g., can set up a poll to decide on whether to set an event on Tuesday or Friday OR a poll to decide on whether the community wants to do event A or event B)
The ability to link forms and other documents to allow easier and more direct contact and communication with younger demographics, while having a large reach
Mentorship programs: Have community members submit applications to be a Mentor or Mentee, alongside relevant skills and areas of interest. Connect individuals as Mentor and Mentee based on shared interests and relevant skill level.
Skills exchange programs: in-person or online events where people can describe their skills and interests, and explain their value. During the sessions, people can connect in small groups or one-on-one based on skills they are interested in learning, and facilitators can facilitate regular meetings to navigate learning and exploring these skills with each other.
Caption uses emojis and breaks up the wording for better legibility
Instagram polling feature can be used to garner feedback from users.
Q&A or advice video from a senior/mentor using the reels feature. Meant for longer-form, high attention-seeking content
Form link can be used to re-direct users to forms and adjacent outside links.
Facebook post example:
Accessibility Audit
In order to ensure accessibility is being considered on the website (as the original site included an extensive accessibility button), we made a checklist for accessibility. We used WCAG standards, AODA Standards and Nielson Norman group to help determine criteria to check-off for our designs. We hope GRCOA will be able to continue following accessibility standards as our re-design is mostly accessible. We hope GRCOA will improve upon the categories that don't fully meet standards.
Accessibility compliance meter for several areas.
Checklist sections for each sub-category. Most accessibility conditions are fully met except "accessible names", "forms" and "recognition and recall".
Documentation for Developers & Web Designers
In order for the GRCOA's volunteer web developers and designers to understand how to implement our designs onto the site, we created a documentation guide.
Colour and text styles, design system.
Padding and spacing pixels for homepage.
Search bar results flow documentation.
Error states and flow for Volunteer page.
Flow and overlay for Resources and Services: Health and Wellness page. Overlay and flow for saved items in Navigation bar.
Flow for Resources and Services: Discounts page.
AI Chatbot flow.
What I learned & accomplished
I learned a lot about client relations and working in big teams. I strengthened my abilities to analyze research, as well as prototype throughout many iterations. Overall, this was a valuable and transformative client project to be apart of.
"Your thoughtful approach to developing a digital solution and enhancing our website has not only met the needs of today’s 45-year-olds but has also positioned the GRCOA to evolve alongside them. You have helped us take a meaningful step forward in supporting individuals as they age, while strengthening our ability to foster a more connected, inclusive, and age-friendly community over the next 20 years.
We were particularly impressed by your ability to blend innovation with practicality—delivering a solution that is both forward-thinking and grounded in real community needs. Your professionalism, creativity, and commitment to excellence were evident at every stage of the project."
Lucy Marco
Executive Director
Claudio Pavan
Retired Resident Member
"These deliverables and your work throughout the year has displayed the highest level of UX maturity and sophistication, which has resulted in a very valuable and impressive outcome and handoff for the client. Kudos on all of your excellent work throughout the year!"
Kenneth Werbin
UX400: Capstone Wilfrid Laurier Professor
Final in-class presentation!!!
You've reached the end! Thanks for taking a look 👀
2026 ©️ Nida Shanar
You've reached the end! Thanks for taking a look 👀
2026 ©️ Nida Shanar