The Background
When UC-wide budget cuts hit, UCSD students felt the impact firsthand—especially in our beloved library, Geisel. Reduced services and limited resources left us frustrated, searching for alternatives. That’s when we turned to public libraries, initially out of necessity, but soon out of genuine admiration. We were amazed by the wealth of services they provided, from community programs to technology-driven operations that kept everything running smoothly. This sparked our curiosity: how do libraries of all kinds function behind the scenes?
​
Determined to learn more, we spent 10 weeks working as a team of project managers, product designers, and UX researchers, collaborating with the San Diego Public Library system and Geisel Library @ UCSD . Our goal? To improve some part of their technical system to give back. This is where we stumbled upon LibraryMarket—their central platform where staff manage events, approve programs, and connect with the community. What started as frustration over budget cuts became an eye-opening journey into the power of public libraries and the technology that keeps them thriving.
Role
Product Designer
Timeline
3 months; Jan - March 2025
Tools
Figma, AI Bots (Prof. Guo @ UCSD)
Team
Marie Nguyen
Khoi Nguyen
Irene Joo
How can we improve library calendar systems to better fit librarian needs?
Problem Statement
Library staff members need to make precise room scheduling decisions in order to avoid frustrating scheduling errors caused by mentally cross-referencing multiple calendars and accounting for hidden event details.
This statement was crafted by Affinity Diagramming & Problem Statement Drafting discussed later in the Case Study
Main Goals
Research - Stakeholder Interviews
Once we had narrowed down our focus for this project, we reached out to the San Diego Public Library and Geisel Library to talk to a representative. We knew that we needed to get a good look into the inner working of their current technologies to be able to improve it.
Participants
For our user testing we had 2 stakeholders participate
Dana: San Diego Library Branch Manager
Woman, mid-30s, in person
Adele: Business and Entrepreneurship Librarian
Woman, 40s, in person
Interview Guide
To ensure a semi-structured approach, we prepared a detailed set of questions with room for additional questions based on the individual interview.
​
Through our interviews and observations, we gained insight into how library technologies shape the daily operations of both public and academic libraries.​ Meanwhile, at Geisel Library, technology is more focused on research assistance, academic resource management, and compliance with licensing agreements, all of which are essential
Key Technological Findings
From the data we collected, we were able to pinpoint 3 key softwares/technologies that both our librarians used in their day to day activities and functions: Sharepoint, Polaris Leap, and Library Market
Competitive Analysis
To further develop this, we ran 2 very comprehensive comparisons of all event scheduling and management platforms that we could find and conclude were relatively similar to the above technologies.
We found TAP’s structured modules and list format particularly useful, while Calendly’s intuitive design and smooth user experience stood out as well. However, TAP struggles with a clunky UI and mobile limitations, and Calendly has very limited functions. LibCal is highly customizable for libraries with a great filter mechanism but comes with a poor way to view the reservations and calendars, while Jira offers extensive project management capabilities but can be overwhelming for new users. Looking ahead, we plan to integrate the best aspects of TAP and Calendly into Library Market while using Google Calendar as a reference for key features.
Main Takeaways
To consolidate all the quantitative and qualitative data, we employed an Affinity Diagram to visualize all our findings.
Doing this helped us narrow down our 4 key limitations of the current technological systems. These also helped us craft the Problem Statement that would guide our main design decisions throughout this project.
Design Process
User Personas
By designing Library Market with these personas in mind, we can ensure it meets the needs of both public and academic librarians—helping them work more efficiently while removing unnecessary barriers in their day-to-day tasks.
Tina represents library managers who juggle daily operations, staff coordination, and community engagement. Based on our research, people in her role often struggle with outdated systems that make organizing programs, managing resources, and handling outreach more complicated than necessary.
Maya represents research librarians who navigate complex academic environments. Unlike public library managers, her role is more interdisciplinary, requiring her to collaborate with various departments, support mentorship programs, and ensure that researchers can easily access the information they need. Our user research shows that people in her position often struggle with siloed data, clunky systems that don’t integrate well, and the challenge of balancing research support with other responsibilities.
UX Flows
We then went through the ideas and imagined their implementation feasibility and decided to keep it simple and decided on the four core functions for Library Market and made these UX flows
Sketching
We quickly drew out sketches of these functionalities and flows to create a guide for lo-fi construction. Here are some of the key sketches
Lo-fi + Mid-fi Iterations
Using the sketches from above, we were able to create some low to mid fidelity prototypes on Figma. We also prototyped them to make them semi-functional as we wanted to get some user testing done. We were conflicted on the layouts for a couple of our screen and thought it would be best to get some stakeholder opinions on them. So, we made a couple versions of the screens we were conflicted on and set out to test.
Home Page - Master Calendar
Prototype A
Prototype B
'Create a New Reservation' Flow
Prototype A
Prototype B
'Filter by Reservation Status' Flow
Prototype A
Prototype B
'Manage Events' Flow
Prototype A
Prototype B
A/B Testing with Stakeholders
Participants
For our user testing we had 3 stakeholders participate
Dana: San Diego Library Branch Manager
Woman, mid-30s, in person
Karen: Business Research Librarian
Woman, 40s, in person
Deborah: STEM Research Librarian
Woman, 60s, Zoom
Preferences by Flow
User Testing Guide
​Our first user test participant was one of our original stakeholders who we interviewed for our user research process. We found our remaining two participants by asking the front desk at the UCSD Geisel Library for any available librarians.
​
We followed a general guide to help structure our user testing sessions but allowed for flexibility as the two new user test participants needed more context about our project than the first. To focus on the participants’ interaction and responses to our questions/tasks, we made sure to record (screen record + audio) and transcribe each session to take notes on and analyze afterward.
Flow 1: Create a Reservation
Most users preferred Prototype A to create a reservation flow and display of relevant information (e.g. pending event view). The flow of Prototype A appears more intuitive with high visibility that enables users to confidently create reservations easily.
Flow 2: Filtering for Pending Reservations
Most users preferred Prototype A due to high accessibility when navigating filtering on the sidebar whereas Prototype B use of a hover state limits the visibility of the reservation status.
Flow 3: Managing Notifications and Reservation Approvals
Most users preferred Prototype A for its clear reservation details, which provided enough information without overwhelming or requiring excessive page traversals. Users additionally favored its list and sidebar view for updates, making it easier to track changes while keeping other reservations visible.
High Fidelity Prototype Development
Through the initial A/B Testing, we strategically narrowed down the screens in this prototype to include only the most preferred features across the 2 low-fis as well as several design changes to address confusions, challenges, and suggestions from our user testing participants. This allowed us to create 2 versions of select hi-fi screens and conduct a second round of A/B Testing to make sure we fit the purpose our stakeholders presented us with.
Version 1
Version 2
Second A/B Testing
Participants
For our user testing we had again 3 stakeholders participate. 2 were the same as earlier
Dana: San Diego Library Branch Manager
Woman, mid-30s, in person
Ton Vo: Branch Manager at the Balboa Public Library
Man, 40s, in person
Deborah: STEM Research Librarian
Woman, 60s, Zoom
Second User Testing Guide
Our goal was to gauge the usability, visual design, and preferences of our stakeholders.
​
​To focus on the participants’ interaction and responses to our questions/tasks, we made sure to record (screen record + audio) and transcribe each session to take notes on and analyze afterward.
Based on our findings, we found that the majority of our stakeholders preferred our alternative screens, however, wished to add certain elements of the prototype. We also noticed certain design aspects that led to user frustrations.​
Key Changes Made
Final Prototype
Here's the latest prototype with all current updates. Further changes to the design based on feedback will be posted, if any.
Personal Reflection
One of the biggest lessons from this experience was learning to be flexible and open to stakeholder expectations. Initially, we had ideas about what we wanted to build, but we quickly realized that successful design isn’t just about personal vision—it’s about balancing style and purpose. Through conversations with library staff, we learned how they actually used the platform, what their biggest pain points were, and where our design ideas needed to shift.
Instead of forcing our own preferences, we found ways to blend user needs with thoughtful design, creating something both functional and intuitive. What started as frustration over budget cuts became an eye-opening journey into the power of public libraries and the importance of designing with, not just for, the people who use these tools every day.
Team Contributions
Marie Nguyen
Marie contributed significantly to the team’s research and design efforts, conducting three in-person interviews with a La Jolla Library stakeholder to gather firsthand insights. She played a key role in UX research, helping to analyze findings and inform design decisions. Her work included conducting competitive audits, creating user flow sketches, and contributing to both low-fidelity and high-fidelity prototypes. Through her research and design efforts, Marie helped shape the project’s direction and ensure that user needs were effectively addressed in the final designs.
Khoi Nguyen
Khoi played a vital role in both research and design, conducting in-person stakeholder interviews to gather key insights that shaped the project. He also led usability testing sessions, helping to evaluate the effectiveness of the team’s designs through direct user feedback. Additionally, he contributed to crafting user flows and consolidating data to ensure a clear and structured design approach. Throughout the project, Khoi actively participated in ideation and iteration, refining sketches, mid-fidelity, and high-fidelity prototypes to enhance the overall user experience.
Irene Joo
Irene played a key role in connecting the team with stakeholders by finding and reaching out to the La Jolla Riford Library. She also took the initiative to set up the team’s Figma workspace and kept things organized by maintaining weekly meeting notes. Her contributions to user research included setting up the affinity diagram and conducting a competitive analysis. She worked on user flow development and UI sketches, as well as designing both low-fidelity and high-fidelity prototypes. Additionally, Irene conducted two user testing sessions with Deborah, gathering valuable feedback to refine the project.
Janhavi Shah
I played a key role in both research and design, starting with scheduling the interview with the Riford Library stakeholder to gather important insights. I also worked on the competitive analysis, creating visualizations to help the team better understand similar platforms. Additionally, I conducted a user testing session with Karen, gathering feedback to refine our designs. I contributed to user research for specific flows, analyzing user needs and translating them into sketches. Finally, I worked on the high-fidelity prototypes, ensuring our final designs were both polished and user-friendly.