← Back to Projects
UX Research · Contextual Inquiry · 2024

Sidebar Navigation Contextual Inquiry for LigoLab Platform

A qualitative investigation into how laboratory professionals interact with the LigoLab LIS sidebar navigation, observed in their natural work context, performing real daily duties, across 14 participants.

Researcher: Anastasiia Pozdniakova
April – May 2024
Remote · United States
Qualitative Research
14
Participants
5
Roles
60min
Sessions
8
Key Insights
5
Recommendations
Overview

Studying sidebar navigation
in a real laboratory context

The LigoLab LIS sidebar is how laboratory professionals access everything, queues, reports, orders, and patient records. This study examined how they actually navigate it day-to-day, not how they're supposed to.

Research Context

LigoLab was entering a full platform redesign, a high-stakes moment. Laboratory professionals had spent years building muscle memory around the existing navigation, and a poorly informed redesign could make their work harder. Before touching the most heavily used part of the platform, rigorous research was needed.

Research Goal

Discover how new and existing users interact with the LigoLab sidebar navigation, understand their mental models when navigating the system, determine the challenges they face, what frustrates them most, and which patterns consume the most time.

Research Questions
Question 01

Finding elements

What challenges and frustrations do users encounter while interacting with the sidebar navigation?

Question 02

Search behavior

How do users find the right elements in the sidebar? What logic or heuristics do they apply?

Question 03

Page management

How do users navigate between multiple pages and manage tabs throughout their workday?

Question 04

Common patterns

What are the most frequently accessed pages and the most time-consuming navigation patterns?

Team Collaboration

Research grounded in
cross-functional input

Before a single session was scheduled, I worked closely with the UX designer and product manager to define what the research needed to answer, and to build enough platform fluency to observe meaningfully.

01

Collecting design requirements

I collaborated with the UX designer and product manager to surface the design challenges the team was facing and identify what questions needed to be answered in order to design successfully. This shaped the research objectives and interview script from the ground up.

02

Understanding the user base

I gathered information from the product manager about who was currently using the platform, mapping out the different roles, their responsibilities, and how each role interacted with LigoLab differently day-to-day.

03

Deep-diving into the platform

To observe meaningfully, I needed to understand what I was watching. Before any sessions began, I independently studied LigoLab's functionality, watching platform walkthrough videos, learning the terminology, and familiarizing myself with the sections and workflows.

This informed ↓
Method choice

Understanding that each role interacted with the platform differently, and that those differences would only be visible in real work context, made contextual inquiry the clear choice. Asking users to perform tasks wouldn't capture the same thing as watching them do their actual job.

Recruiting decisions

Knowing the role landscape meant we could recruit with intention, making sure every key role was represented. The product manager also made warm introductions to each participant, which increased response rates and put users at ease before sessions began.

Methodology

Contextual inquiry +
semi-structured interviews

The cross-functional discovery phase made the method choice clear: to understand how different specialists truly navigate the platform, I needed to observe them in their real work environment, not ask them to perform tasks. Each 60-minute session was split equally between naturalistic observation and a semi-structured interview.

🔬

Study Design

Type
Qualitative, Contextual Inquiry
Methods
Contextual observation + semi-structured interviews
Location
Remote (United States)
Platform
Google Meet with screen sharing
👁️

Observation Focus

Behaviors
Confusion, errors, multi-step tasks, repetition
Patterns
Most-visited sections, time spent, access order
Cognition
The logic behind how users locate menu items, inferred from behavior, not self-report
Analysis
Affinity diagramming (Miro)

Recruiting

14 participants across
5 laboratory roles

Recruiting was also a collaborative effort. The role map built with the product manager told us exactly who we needed to hear from, and her warm introductions to each participant made access faster and sessions more candid.

# ID Role Date LigoLab Version
01#2824Client ServicesApr 01Old version
02#1409Grossing Tech / Ops SupervisorApr 02Old version
03#5506HistotechApr 02Old version
04#5012Client ServicesApr 04Old version
05#4657AccessionerApr 04Old version
06#3286AccessionerApr 11Old + New version
07#2679HistotechApr 11Old + New version
08#9935Client ServicesApr 11Old version
09#2424Clinical TechApr 11Old + New version
10#7912Grossing TechApr 12Old + New version
11#1520HistotechApr 23Old version
12#1488Multi-role specialistApr 29New version only
13#2535Multi-role specialistApr 30New version only
14#4582Multi-role specialistApr 30Old version
Findings

8 findings from
14 interviews

Findings are organized by theme and supported by direct participant quotes. Each finding points to a concrete design implication.

F-01
Sidebar organization is generally well-received, but report placement causes friction
✓ Convenient placement

Most users feel elements are logically grouped and aligned with their natural workflow. Labeling is intuitive once learned.

✗ Reports scattered across sections

Client Services and QA specialists struggle to locate reports because they're distributed across sections, not consolidated under "Reporting."

"Everything's in a good place, that it's convenient."
"Histology isn't gonna be pulling those reports as much as your quality person might be."
"The grouping is nice, the heading tells you where you need to go."
"I'd rather it be in more places than not at all."
F-02
Navigation is almost entirely memory-based, creating a steep onboarding curve
⚠ Muscle memory replaces discoverability

100% of experienced users navigate by memorized location. New users are overwhelmed initially but eventually adapt. The sidebar offers few affordances for the uninitiated.

✗ High training burden

Memory-based navigation means staff turnover and role changes require significant retraining. SOP documentation can become outdated when navigation changes.

"It's just kind of muscle memory. When I was first learning Ligo, it definitely took a little bit of time. But now that I utilize these sections every single day, I'm able to find it very easily."

— Participant #2424, Clinical Tech (Old + New version)
Pages used per day by role
Client Services
7–8/day
88%
Multi-role specialists
5–7/day
75%
Grossing Techs
6–7/day
60%
Accessioners
6–9/day
55%
Histotechs
2–5/day
40%
F-03
Tabs are essential to daily workflow, but the inability to open search twice forces workarounds
✓ Tabs are widely adopted

Almost all participants use tabs regularly. Most keep 2–7 tabs open simultaneously. Some open all tabs at the start of the day; others open them situationally.

✗ Single-search-tab constraint

A user cannot open the Search tab twice in the same window. To search while mid-task, she must open a second LigoLab instance entirely, a significant workflow disruption.

"When you're in the search tab and looking for one thing, and then a call comes in, I can't open another search tab. That's why I have to open LigoLab again."

— Participant #5012, Client Services
F-04
Collapsible sections in the new version are well-liked, ustomizable defaults are even better
✓ One-at-a-time collapsing reduces clutter

New version users appreciate that sections collapse when a new one opens. This reduces visual load and simplifies scanning.

✓ Auto-expanded defaults feel efficient

Users who have their most-used sections expanded by default love it. They find it less tedious than manually opening sections each session.

"Whenever I open up LigoLab, it usually just expands my sections and I go off of that. It would be more tedious if I had to open them manually every time."

— Participant #1488, Multi-role specialist (New version)

"I do like that you can close it instead of having it all open, it makes a huge difference for scrolling and time."

— Participant #2535, Multi-role specialist (New version)
F-05
Widgets in the new version impress, but availability gaps and limited options frustrate
✓ Widgets create enthusiasm

Users who tested the new version were visibly impressed by widgets. They see clear value in quick-access dashboard elements.

✗ Unavailable and insufficient options

"Case Distribution" widget doesn't exist yet. Users want more widget options tailored to their role's specific queues and tasks.

"The widgets are great for when you first open it, but I find myself mostly navigating the sidebar after that. More options that we can cater to our team would be a lot more helpful."

— Participant #2535, Multi-role specialist
F-06
Icon removal in the new version concerns existing users, specially visual learners
✗ Icons aid visual recognition

2 of 4 users who tried the new version miss the icons. They serve as visual anchors which text-only labels cannot replicate for experienced users.

⚠ Training implications

Icons help new staff learn faster and help existing staff navigate by visual scanning. Their removal could slow both onboarding and expert navigation.

"It's difficult without icons, especially for visual learners. I know it's the sixth one down and it has a magnifying glass next to it, with just words, that reference is gone."

— Participant #2679, Histotech
F-07
Minimize sidebar is never used intentionally, and causes problems when triggered accidentally
✗ Zero intentional use

Not a single participant reported intentionally using the minimize sidebar function. It provides no observed workflow benefit.

✗ Window resizing triggers accidental minimization

When users resize the application window, the sidebar auto-minimizes. Re-expanding it requires precise cursor positioning, adding friction and cognitive interruption.

"I have so many things on my desktop that I have to make it smaller and then the sidebar gets smaller and it's annoying that I have to keep changing it."
"It always goes really, really small, when I have to make it really big again."
F-08
The sidebar search bar is nearly invisible, and too limited to be useful when found
✗ Most users didn't know it existed

The majority of participants had never knowingly used the sidebar search. Only one user used it regularly. Others dismissed it on discovery.

✗ Limited scope kills utility

The search only works within a single section. Users often don't know the exact label of what they're looking for, making it unreliable.

"Sometimes the word is not what you expect. You'd expect 'grossing case search' and it's actually 'microscopic case search.' So the search doesn't help if you don't know the exact label."

— Participant #2424, Clinical Tech
Recommendations

5 actionable recommendations
based on findings

Each recommendation is directly grounded in participant feedback. They're ordered by estimated impact on the most affected user groups.

01

Reorganize and duplicate reports into the Reporting section

Key reports currently buried under section-specific folders (e.g., Histology, Anatomic Pathology) should be duplicated or aliased under the Reporting section. Client Services and QA specialists, the most report-heavy roles, should be able to access all relevant reports from a single location without knowing which department "owns" the report. Duplicates are acceptable; users prefer redundancy over guessing.

High Priority
02

Investigate and improve widget accessibility in the new version

Widgets are the most-praised feature of the new version, but they're underutilized because they're only accessible from the home screen, which is rarely visible once tabs accumulate. Research should investigate how users access widgets mid-session, and whether making them persistent would improve utility. The Case Distribution widget should be prioritized for development based on explicit user requests.

High Priority
03

Implement user-customizable section expansion defaults

The collapsing section behavior of the new version is well-received overall, but users with high-frequency workflows benefit significantly from having their preferred sections auto-expanded on load. Implement a preference setting allowing users to designate which sections (1–2) open by default. This should be a per-user setting, not organization-wide.

Medium Priority
04

Remove or redesign the minimize sidebar option

No participant uses the minimize sidebar feature intentionally. Its primary effect is accidental minimization during window resizing. Recommend either removing the feature entirely, or at minimum: (a) preventing auto-minimization on resize, (b) improving the restore target area, and (c) adding a clear visual affordance for restoring the full sidebar.

Medium Priority
05

Expand and improve the sidebar search bar, or replace it with a global cross-section search

The current search is largely unknown to users and too limited (single-section scope, exact-name requirement) to provide value when discovered. Two directions: (1) Expand the search to work globally across all sections and handle synonymous terms. (2) Alternatively, if full-text improvement is not feasible, consider removing the feature and redirecting effort toward better visual hierarchy and progressive disclosure.

Lower Priority
Impact

What Happened After
the Research

01

Designing the new navigation

The findings from this study fed directly into the product roadmap. After I presented the research insights to the design and product team, the UX designer began working on the navigation as part of a broader design modernization effort, with the contextual inquiry findings shaping the direction from the start.

02

Testing new designs

Once the new designs were ready, we brought users back to test them. The validated designs then moved to development, shipping across two consecutive sprints.

03

Building and feedback

After the changes went live, users noticed the difference. Feedback was positive, and measurably so:

−10% time on task reported by users, eaning more lab work done faster. A direct outcome tied to the navigation improvements the research had identified.
Get in touch

Let's work together

Reach out and I'll share more about how I can solve your problem!