Learner needs and the recommended review focus
A learner should be able to decide whether an offering is useful, practical and appropriate before taking the next step.
This comparison of project material and outside research proposes needs and situations for the review. SUNY audience sizes and behavioral groups remain unconfirmed.
What the comparison changes
| Supplied material | What the outside research adds | Review consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Draft profiles name many roles and goals | Goals can overlap and change; current roles do not establish behavioral groups | Use the person's decision and circumstances to define a scenario. F-003, F-020 |
| The catalog lists cost, timing, format and campus | These can determine whether participation is possible | Check practical fit early in the decision. F-004, F-013 |
| Credit pathways and credentials are prominent | Further study is one possible goal; enrichment and family goals also appear | Explain value in the offering's context. F-014, F-016 |
| Employer and youth roles appear in requirements | Chooser, participant, payer and helper can be different people | Check responsibilities and conditional paths. S10 §6, F-015, F-019 |
| Course/credential definitions are documented | Some learners in other studies were unsure of credential type | Test understanding, not just label visibility. S05, F-018 |
Agreement between a requirement and a study makes a useful review question. It does not prove how the current prototype performs or authorize a product-scope change.
Proposed needs to use in the review
These are indirectly supported needs, not findings from this service's own users. Confidence describes their value as review questions. Reach and frequency within NCSIM are unknown for every row.
| Need | Person's desired outcome | Evidence and confidence | How to check it |
|---|---|---|---|
| N-001: Judge attendance fit | When considering an offering, understand required dates, hours, pace, location and format so they can assess participation | S10 §5, F-013 and F-017. Moderate | Can someone explain the actual attendance commitment, including what remains unknown? |
| N-002: Understand the commitment to pay | Before proceeding, understand mandatory costs, relevant funding conditions and who pays | S10 §§5–7; E-019, E-022 and E-026. Moderate; Finance rules incomplete | Can someone distinguish a listed fee from a complete cost and identify the appropriate funding/payment next step? |
| N-003: Understand the learning outcome | Judge whether the offering meets their goal and distinguish learning, a completion credential, exam preparation and possible credit | S05; S10 §§5, 9; F-014, F-016 and F-018. Moderate | Can someone explain what they receive and what further conditions or actions apply? |
| N-004: Understand the next action | Know whether an action asks a question, submits an application, registers a place or begins another step | S10 §§4–6; F-005. Strong as a documented distinction; untested comprehension | Can someone predict the result and identify requirements before acting? |
| N-005: Find a useful route when unsure | When information or readiness is missing, know how to clarify it or find another suitable option | S10 §§4–5, 12; E-019. Moderate | Can someone find relevant help and understand who will answer? Availability and response promises need verification |
| N-006: Understand responsibilities | When someone else chooses, sponsors or helps, know what the learner must do and what the other person controls | S10 §§4, 6; E-021 and E-026. Moderate; guardian details tentative | Can each actor identify their own next step without assuming another person's authority? |
Source detail: S10, outside evidence. A future review should connect each issue to the applicable need and an observed state. Keep the need separate from any proposed feature.
Working scenarios, before personas
A person with a known offering. They arrive from a search result, recommendation or shared link. The task is to confirm fit and reach the right action. Check direct entry to details and whether they can understand conditions without restarting discovery. Entry-route prevalence is unknown. [E-019; E-021.]
A person exploring a change. They have an outcome in mind, such as a new skill or different work, but have not chosen an offering. The task is to compare credible options and understand how each relates to the goal. Further study may be one option. Course-to-job suitability and outcome claims need authoritative content. [E-019; E-020.]
A person learning for interest or personal value. They seek knowledge, an experience or a practical skill without needing a career claim. The task is to judge topic, level, learning experience and practical fit. Do not infer this situation from age or employment status. [E-023; E-024, adjacent populations.]
A person joining arranged training. An employer or another organizer may already have chosen or funded it. The learner needs the correct offering, requirements and personal next steps. Employer group administration is a separate task with different permissions. [S10 §§4, 6; E-021.]
These situations can overlap. A returning learner's identity history, access or language needs, uncertain funding and youth/guardian involvement add conditions to a scenario. They do not automatically require another persona or page. No scenario's frequency is established.
Shared and varying priorities
The labels below are proposed review priorities derived from the scenarios and evidence above. They are design judgments, not survey results. “Conditional” means essential when that condition applies. It does not mean optional for the affected person.
| Decision or need | Known offering | Exploring a change | Personal interest | Arranged training |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attendance and practical fit, N-001 | Essential | Essential | Essential | Essential |
| Costs and payer, N-002 | Essential | Essential | Essential | Essential, show who pays |
| Learning outcome, N-003 | Essential | Essential, compare relevance | Essential, explain personal value | Essential, clarify expected outcome |
| Compare several alternatives | Helpful | Essential | Helpful | Unknown, choice may be limited |
| Degree or credit pathway | Conditional | Conditional | Unknown | Conditional |
| Meaning and requirements of the next action, N-004 | Essential | Essential | Essential | Essential |
| Human clarification, N-005 | Conditional | Conditional | Conditional | Conditional |
| Sponsor/organizer responsibilities, N-006 | Conditional | Conditional | Conditional | Essential |
This supports testing a common information foundation with conditional content and different next steps. It does not yet justify automatic personalization, forced persona selection or a separate page for each group.
Recommended first journey
Find and assess a suitable offering, then reach the correct registration or inquiry handoff. Include both a visitor with a known offering and one comparing options. Use a personal-interest example to check whether the structure relies too heavily on career goals. Include relevant access needs throughout.
The research source map records how well each outside source fits this product. This review follows the public course path to its registration or question handoff. Payment and identity rules still matter where they change that decision.
Why this focus is useful:
- It joins the supplied catalog requirements, the concrete prototype and the research on decision-making.
- Misunderstanding suitability, cost, eligibility or outcomes can affect a person's time, money and choice. That gives the review a clear user consequence.
- Several needs are ready for an expert check even while policy owners resolve dependent rules.
- It can show one coherent improvement rather than scattering recommendations across unrelated modules.
Reach remains unknown. This is not a claim that discovery has the largest audience or that it will improve conversion. Employer group administration and guardian-specific enrollment remain material adjacent paths; excluding their full redesign does not remove their requirements from the service.
What the review should produce next
The bounded assessment now considers the four working situations and a separate ask-before-commitment case. Healthcare and Spanish examples were inspected; the sponsored learner's own route still needs an owner-backed walkthrough. Findings connect gaps and positives to the proposed needs and requirements. Screenshot comments provide short feedback tied to precise areas. Continue to distinguish observed behavior, owner questions and hypotheses requiring learner testing.
Scenarios and checks ready for the walkthrough
These are expert review tasks based on offerings visible in the prototype. They are not learner interviews or tests.
| Scenario | Entry and goal | Evidence needed from the interface | Useful outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Known offering | Begin with an available course name or direct detail link and assess whether to proceed | Search/direct-entry result, owning campus, actual dates/times, costs, prerequisites, outcome and action label | The information supports an informed next step or makes missing answers clear |
| Exploring options | Browse or search a subject, narrow practical conditions and compare suitable offerings | Results, filters, selected conditions, sorting, empty-result recovery and detail-page differences | A visitor can assess alternatives without losing important conditions |
| Personal interest | Find a visible enrichment offering and assess its topic, level and attendance fit | Available non-career route, relevant content, practical details and inquiry/registration handoff | The journey supports a learning goal that does not require a job or credential claim |
| Arranged training | Follow a referral or sponsorship to the correct offering and personal next step | Learner's entry route, worksite/schedule, eligibility, payer, and what the learner must do | The learner can distinguish their task from the employer's administration and avoid an unintended payment |
| Unsure or not ready | Reach details with an unanswered suitability, eligibility or funding question | Help/inquiry route, the context it preserves, required fields and any stated response expectation | The next step clarifies what happens and who can help |
For each route, inspect a normal result and any available unavailable/full/coming-soon state relevant to the task. Check browser-back context, clear focus and keyboard reachability where possible. These are bounded checks, not a complete accessibility assessment. Stop before submitting an inquiry, creating an account, reserving a place or paying.
Access status
Observed states are recorded in S20. The review checked filters, return context, workshop/cart and campus handoffs, selected searches and empty-search recovery. Phone and keyboard checks cover sampled states. Registration completion and learner validation remain open. The proposed needs have not become validated personas.
The review points to showing decision facts sooner while preserving the useful detail already in the prototype. PruTech repository access would let the team trace each recommendation to the real pages, components and course data before choosing targeted fixes. The presentation stays within 30 minutes, with research and detail linked.