A portal used by every military branch — and nobody could figure it out.

The DCCP is the DoD's source for the DEOCS climate survey, administered annually to over 1 million service members across Marine Corps, Army, Air Force, and Navy. The UI was unintuitive, the information architecture was outdated, and most users didn't interact often enough to build muscle memory. Service administrators on 2-year rotations had zero structured knowledge transfer.

Stakeholder interviews. Heuristic eval. Then 60 usability sessions.

• Stakeholder interviews: Kicked off with leadership from DoD's Office of People Analytics and Service-level stakeholders.
• Heuristic evaluation (team of 6): Led 6 UX researchers evaluating the UI while completing user tasks. Findings informed the usability testing protocol.
• 60 usability interviews: Sessions with Commanders, Service Administrators, and Survey Administrators — each group received tasks aligned with their actual DCCP usage.

Three systemic problems. All fixable.

• Steep learning curve, no repetition: Users didn't interact often enough to build knowledge or muscle memory.
• Zero knowledge transfer: 2-year rotations with no structured way to pass tips from seasoned users to new ones.
• Unintuitive information architecture: Participants consistently described the information flow as outdated.

35% fewer hotline calls. Every year.

Recommendations were implemented — a more intuitive, accessible UI — resulting in 35% fewer annual calls to the DCCP hotline.

The scale made it real. The knowledge-transfer gap made it urgent.

The insight that stuck wasn't about the UI — it was about the 2-year rotation cycle. Every new admin started from zero. The design recommendations addressed the symptoms. The knowledge-transfer recommendation addressed the root cause. Both shipped.

Diverse stakeholders, constant turnover, and a site that needed a full rethink.

Stakeholders included active duty military, marketing, design, and research — each needing different language when we presented findings. Frequent duty station changes meant constantly onboarding new team members, which led to creating a research repository.

IA evaluation → A/B testing → 14 rounds of sprint usability.

• Information architecture: Open card sort with Army recruiters, prospects, parents, and influencers. Validated findings with tree testing.
• A/B test (n=150): Identified user preferences for the visual identity using two distinct Army branded Figma prototypes.
• 14 rounds of sprint testing (n=9 each): Iterative usability testing as we implemented design changes round by round.

14% more recruiter contacts. Fewer wasted page visits.

Website analytics showed our redesigned pages improved navigation through fewer duplicative visits and a 14% increase in conversion rate for the "Contact a Recruiter" intake form.

Stakeholder interviews. Quantitative analysis. On-site field testing.

• Stakeholder interviews: With CFPB's Director of Consumer Response and CRC leadership.
• Quantitative analysis: Evaluated average complaint handle time using a representative sample.
• On-site QC assessment: Evaluated process workflow approach at each CRC location.
• Field eye tracking: Used Tobii X2-60 portable eye tracker to evaluate the triage UI Consumer Guides used.

$300K+ saved annually by reducing average handle time.

Multiple FDA Centers. Four audiences. Strict federal research constraints.

Each FDA Center (Tobacco Products, Human Foods, Biologics, etc.) had its own leadership and vision for the website. OMB guidance limited us to n=9 per audience segment without triggering a 4-6 month review delay. We had to devise a research plan inclusive of each Center's unique goals.

Analytics → heuristic eval → 4 rounds of audience-specific testing.

• Stakeholder interviews: FDA's Web and Digital Services team plus Center representatives.
• Quantitative analytics review: Identified traffic patterns to inform which pages we tested.
• Heuristic evaluation: Assessed adherence to design principles and uncovered usability issues.
• 4 rounds of usability testing: Each round focused on one primary audience segment.

ROI matrix, design workshop, and FDA-wide design guidelines.

Collaborated to generate an ROI/LOE recommendation matrix. Led an in-person design thinking workshop with FDA Directors. Culminated the project with an FDA Design Guidelines document to promote consistency across all divisions.

Political volatility. 19-day timelines. No room for waste.

CFPB is congressionally appropriated, creating a dynamic environment where goals shifted due to political pressures. Most projects ran on a 19 business day timeline — kickoff to report delivery. That meant meeting the team, identifying objectives, formulating a plan, executing research, and generating findings fast.

Two modes: exploratory when discovering, evaluative when validating.

• Exploratory: Focus groups for broader consumer behavior insights. Competitive analysis and environmental scans to evaluate existing artifacts.
• Evaluative: In-depth interviews (n=9) for existing assets — website, consumer tools, or prototypes. Eye tracking, heuristic evaluation, and IA optimization when possible.

Trusted partner. Consumer tools that improved financial literacy.

Created effective consumer-facing tools for financial literacy. Regularly presented findings to Directors and Department Heads. My team became a valued resource across CFPB.

Stakeholder interviews → card sort → tree test → 5 rounds of eye-tracked usability.

• Stakeholder interviews: With NCI's CBIIT leadership team.
• Card sorting + tree testing: With bioinformaticists as participants to evaluate and optimize IA.
• 5 rounds of lab-based usability testing: 9 participants per round from targeted user populations, using Tobii X2-300 eye-tracking software.
• Task analysis + heuristic evaluation: Process workflows for primary and secondary tasks per audience.
• Personas + journey maps: Generated for each audience based on research insights.

The platform's purpose was unclear — even to NCI's own people.

• Identity problem: CBIIT's informatics role was unclear to internal researchers and extramural collaborators.
• Resource gaps: Key resources like ITCR and NCIP weren't accessible from the CBIIT platform.
• Poor IA: Information architecture was not intuitive.

Actionable recommendations for awareness, accessibility, and IA.