01 — PROJECT OVERVIEW
Designing an Accessible Operations Platform for Newport Aquatic Center
A research-driven approach to simplifying equipment management, reservations, and accessibility for a multi-user aquatic facility.
Product Design
Accessibility
Role
Product Designer · Researcher
Timeline
2022 · UCI MHCID Capstone
team
5-person multidisciplinary team · Newport Aquatic Center + Makapo
platform
Figma · Dovetail · Maze
ROLE
Product Designer · Researcher
TEAM
5-person multidisciplinary team
ORGANIZATION
Newport Aquatic Center + Makapo
PROGRAM · YEAR
UCI MHCID Capstone · 2022
METHODS + TOOLS
Generative Research · Interviews · Surveys · Competitive Analysis · Journey Mapping · Personas · Ideation · Prototyping · Usability Testing · Dovetail · Figma
Designing predictable access across the whole facility experience.
Newport Aquatic Center is a nonprofit facility serving paddlers and rowers across ages and ability levels. Makapo, one of its programs, supports outrigger paddling for people who are blind and visually impaired. I helped reframe a broad accessibility brief into a product opportunity: make equipment, reservations, check-in, and shared resources easier to understand and manage.
The initial question was simple: make the NAC experience more accessible. Research showed that accessibility extended beyond physical infrastructure. The operational experience itself—availability, staff coordination, communication, and predictable access to equipment—could either support or limit independent participation.
02 — THE CHALLENGE
Accessibility was bigger than the physical environment.
Research showed that availability, staff coordination, communication, and predictable access to equipment could either support—or limit—independent participation.
THE PROBLEM
The full member journey needed to become more accessible—from arrival through departure.
THE USERS
Members, members with disabilities, and staff each experienced different parts of the same operational system.
THE COMPLEXITY
Equipment, reservations, check-in, shared resources, and staff availability were interconnected—not isolated screens.
THE CONSTRAINT
The team had to identify where design could meaningfully influence a broad accessibility brief.
Accessibility was bigger than the physical environment. NAC wanted to improve the full member journey from arrival through departure and establish a stronger standard for athletes with mixed abilities. We asked: where does accessibility break down, and which problems can design meaningfully influence?
Understanding the System — NAC’s informal culture created belonging and confidence, but it also produced uneven operational processes. We mapped interconnected friction around equipment availability and storage, check-in, rentals, shared spaces, staff availability, wayfinding, team communication, physical access, and disability support.
Accessibility wasn’t only a physical problem. It was also an operational problem.
03 — CONTEXT / SYSTEM
A multi-user operational system—not a single-screen UX problem.
MEMBERS
Plan, reserve, check in, and access shared equipment.
ACCESSIBILITY
Predictable access enables independent participation.
STAFF
Coordinate reservations, returns, people, and availability.
SHARED RESOURCES
Equipment, reservations, check-in, and availability must stay connected.
04 — RESEARCH
Research revealed the gap between NAC’s informal culture and the structure needed for accessibility.
For research, I used each method to answer a product question, not to document activity. Competitive analysis identified accommodation patterns at adaptive sports facilities. Surveys broadened our view of attitudes toward possible changes. Moderated interviews exposed behavioral and attitudinal context. Onsite observation revealed the gap between NAC’s valued informality and the structure needed for an accessible experience.
COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS
QUESTION — How do adaptive sports facilities support accommodation?
FINDING — Accommodation patterns can be designed into the operational experience.
SURVEYS
QUESTION — How did people feel about possible changes?
FINDING — Broader attitudes helped distinguish a local inconvenience from a system-level concern.
MODERATED INTERVIEWS
QUESTION — What behavioral and attitudinal context shaped the member experience?
FINDING — Operational ambiguity created different dependencies for members and staff.
ONSITE OBSERVATION
QUESTION — Where did the lived experience depart from the facility’s informal culture?
FINDING — Informality created belonging, but uneven processes made access unpredictable.
05 — KEY INSIGHTS
Accessibility wasn’t only a physical problem.
Equipment could be hard to locate, heavy gear could require assistance, staff could be unavailable, and portable accessibility equipment could take time to find. Teams could unintentionally use resources reserved for another group; informal communication created downstream friction. For members with disabilities, those moments could become barriers to independent participation.
EQUIPMENT
Could be difficult to locate.
ASSISTANCE
Heavy gear could require assistance.
staff
Could be unavailable when needed.
SHARED RESOURCES
Teams could unintentionally use resources reserved for another group.
COMMUNICATION
Informal communication created downstream friction.
For members with disabilities, operational friction could become a barrier to independent participation.
06 — PROBLEM REFRAMING
Reframing — Initial assumption: make the physical NAC journey more accessible. Research revealed barriers across physical and operational touchpoints. New understanding: members and staff needed shared visibility around resources. Opportunity: create a system that makes equipment, reservations, members, and availability easier to coordinate. When operational systems are difficult to navigate, accessibility becomes dependent on other people.
INITIAL ASSUMPTION — Make the physical NAC journey more accessible.
RESEARCH REVEALED — Barriers existed across physical and operational touchpoints.
NEW UNDERSTANDING — Members and staff needed shared visibility around resources.
OPPORTUNITY — Create a system that makes equipment, reservations, members, and availability easier to coordinate.
07 — USERS & NEEDS
Designing for Multiple Users — Members need to understand availability, make reservations, check in, and access equipment independently. Members with disabilities need predictability and fewer unnecessary dependencies. Staff need a reliable way to manage reservations, equipment, check-ins, returns, and status. The system had to connect these needs rather than optimize for one role.
MEMBERS
Need to understand availability, make reservations, check in, and access equipment independently.
MEMBERS WITH DISABILITIES
Need predictability and fewer unnecessary dependencies during the facility experience.
STAFF
Need a reliable way to manage reservations, equipment, check-ins, returns, and status.
08 — OPPORTUNITY
The Solution — A centralized inventory, reservation, and member-management system. Inventory makes equipment and individual item details visible. Reservations connect availability to planning. Check-in and check-out structure equipment pickup and return. Member profiles connect people to reservations and equipment activity.
We shifted from designing individual touchpoints to designing the system connecting them.
EQUIPMENT
Make item details and availability visible.
RESERVATIONS
Connect availability to planning.
MEMBERS
Connect people to reservations and equipment activity.
AVAILABILITY
Create a shared view of what is ready, reserved, or in use.
09 — EXPLORATION
Exploration — We explored QR-based equipment check-in/out, an accessibility playbook, an accessible website, a communication platform, scheduling, and a centralized inventory-and-reservation concept. The strongest opportunity was not another standalone accessibility feature. It was a coordinated operational system that could address several connected problems.
We explored six directions before selecting a coordinated system.
EQUIPMENT CHECK-IN / OUT
Addressed equipment handoff.
ACCESSIBILITY PLAYBOOK
Addressed guidance and standards.
ACCESSIBLE WEBSITE
Addressed online information access.
COMMUNICATION PLATFORM
Addressed informal coordination.
SCHEDULING PLATFORM
Addressed time and availability.
SELECTED — INVENTORY + RESERVATIONS
Connected several operational problems in one shared system.
10 — SOLUTION
The Solution — A centralized inventory, reservation, and member-management system. Inventory makes equipment and individual item details visible. Reservations connect availability to planning. Check-in and check-out structure equipment pickup and return. Member profiles connect people to reservations and equipment activity.
Design Principle — Create a shared source of operational truth for the facility.
A centralized inventory, reservation, and member-management system.
INVENTORY
Problem → hard-to-find equipment. Solution → visible item details. Benefit → clearer access and coordination.
RESERVATIONS
Problem → uncertain availability. Solution → planning around reservations. Benefit → fewer conflicts around shared resources.
CHECK-IN / CHECK-OUT
Problem → informal handoffs. Solution → structured pickup and return. Benefit → staff and members share the same operational record.
MEMBER PROFILES
Problem → disconnected people and activity. Solution → connect members to reservations and equipment. Benefit → usable context in the moment.
11 — CORE WORKFLOWS
Core Workflow — Reserve → Check In → Access Equipment → Use → Return → Update Status.
I explored smart-device interactions and unique QR codes to streamline the equipment handoff, while keeping the experience legible for both staff and members.
Reserve → Check in → Return.
01
RESERVE EQUIPMENT — Goal: plan access. Interaction: select equipment and a reservation window. Outcome: shared visibility before arrival.
02
CHECK IN — Goal: access reserved equipment. Interaction: staff confirms member and reservation. Outcome: the handoff becomes explicit.
03
RETURN EQUIPMENT — Goal: close the loop. Interaction: return and update status. Outcome: availability is ready for the next person.
12 — DESIGN DECISIONS
Evidence changed the design.
Design Decisions — Evidence changed the design. Users often began member-related actions in Members rather than Reservations, so navigation needed to better match their mental models. Reservation inputs should place date before time. QR scanning needed a larger interaction target to reflect real-world behavior. “Equipment condition” needed a more actionable status model: available, unavailable, requires maintenance, or same condition as rental.
01 — ALIGN NAVIGATION WITH USER MENTAL MODELS
EVIDENCE — Users expected member-related actions to begin from Members.
DECISION — Reconsider the relationship between Members and Reservations.
02 — REORDER RESERVATION INPUTS
EVIDENCE — 83% expected to enter the date before selecting a time.
DECISION — Reorder the reservation workflow.
03 — SIMPLIFY QR INTERACTIONS
EVIDENCE — The prototype interaction created unnecessary friction.
DECISION — Expand the interaction target to better represent scanning.
04 — RECONSIDER EQUIPMENT STATUS
EVIDENCE — Users questioned the subjectivity of “condition.”
DECISION — Explore more actionable equipment-status models.
13 — PROTOTYPE
Inclusive design meant reducing uncertainty and unnecessary dependencies in everyday operations.
From Wireframes to Validation — I moved from low-fidelity workflow maps to interaction exploration and a high-fidelity prototype focused on inventory items, product details, reservations, check-in, and member profiles. We tested realistic staff workflows—not just isolated screens. The check-in task reached a 90% success rate. In the reservation flow, 83% of participants expected to choose a date before selecting a time.
PROTOTYPE FOCUS — Information architecture, workflow, interaction model, and system complexity—not an unstructured gallery of screens.
14 — USABILITY TESTING
The evidence demonstrated stronger information architecture, clearer navigation, and a more coordinated operational model without fabricating adoption outcomes. Next, I would validate during high-traffic periods, test directly with members across ability levels, clarify the equipment-status model, measure check-in and equipment-search time, and explore scale across teams, outside boats, complex reservations, and accommodations.
We tested the workflows—not just the screens.
90%
CHECK-IN TASK SUCCESS RATE
83%
EXPECTED DATE-BEFORE-TIME RESERVATION FLOW
15 — ITERATION
Test → finding → design change.
BEFORE
Reservation flow placed time before date.
FINDING
Participants expected to choose a date first.
AFTER
Reorder the workflow around the expected sequence.
16 — IMPACT
USER IMPACT
The concept aimed to reduce unnecessary dependencies by improving visibility and predictability.
PRODUCT IMPACT
The system made a shared source of operational truth possible across equipment, reservations, and members.
OPERATIONAL IMPACT
Staff could coordinate handoffs, reservations, returns, and status from a clearer record.
VALIDATION
Evidence supports stronger information architecture and workflow decisions—not production adoption outcomes.
17 — WHAT I WOULD DO NEXT
01 — Validate real staff workflows
02 — Test with members across ability levels
03 — Validate the equipment-status model
04 — Measure operational outcomes
05 — Explore scalability
FUTURE VALIDATION METRICS — Check-in time · Equipment-search time · Reservation conflicts · Staff intervention · Member wait time
18 — REFLECTION
Accessibility changed how I think about systems. A ramp can make a space physically accessible, but a member can still face an inaccessible experience when they cannot locate equipment, understand availability, or move through an unpredictable process without staff intervention. This project taught me to look beyond individual screens and see how small operational decisions accumulate into barriers. Designing for accessibility isn’t always about adding features; sometimes it’s about removing the operational friction that makes people dependent on others in the first place.
WHAT I LEARNED — Accessibility is a systems problem, not simply a physical-design problem.
HOW MY THINKING CHANGED — Small operational decisions can accumulate into meaningful accessibility barriers.
HOW THIS INFLUENCES MY DESIGN PRACTICE — Look beyond the interface and understand the systems and dependencies surrounding the user.
19 — FINAL TAKEAWAY
Designing for accessibility isn’t always about adding accessibility features.
Sometimes it’s about removing the operational friction that makes people dependent on others in the first place.