Motivation
- To understand students’ first impressions and initial experiences of the newly renovated building
- To observe how people actually navigate, communicate, and behave across different physical spaces
- To determine which spaces, features, and wayfinding elements needed design or operational attention
Methodology & Timeline
A two-phase field study:
- Phase 1 — First Impressions: An online survey (N=81) plus an in-person “UX Desk” (N=34) set up inside the library to talk directly with students and staff
- Phase 2 — Ethnographic Observation: Direct, structured observation of five major spaces (McGregor Room, Weinstein Room, Memorial Hall, Study Courts, Reference Room), each observed at three points across the semester, Regular Usage, Exam Week, and the First Week of the semester, to capture how behavior shifted over time, not just a single snapshot
Phase 1: First Impressions — Survey (N=81) & In-Person UX Desk (N=34)
Methodology: An online survey capturing visit frequency, affiliation, which floors people used, and first impressions, followed up with an in-person UX desk in the building itself — approached 34 people (27 students, 5 staff, 1 student worker, 1 community member) with a simple, low-barrier prompt (cookies included) and open questions about what they liked, disliked, and wanted changed.
Findings — usage: Most respondents were still relatively new to the space — only 4 visited every day, while 40 had visited only “a few times since it opened,” and 10 hadn’t visited the newly renovated library at all yet.
Findings — first impressions: Words like “space,” “library,” and “study space” dominated open-ended responses, alongside recurring notes on natural lighting and tables — but also “confusing,” a signal echoed later in the ethnographic navigation findings.
Findings — by space (selected highlights):
– Study Carrels: Praised for natural light and privacy, but outlets that didn’t work and chairs described as uncomfortable and too tall for the desks were recurring complaints
– Open Seating Areas: Consistently “always occupied” — not enough seating relative to demand, and chairs described as loud when moved
– Study Courts: Loved for ambiance (“feels outdoors,” “café vibe”) but criticized for undersized power outlets and a lack of tables
– McGregor Room: The most emotionally positive responses in the whole study — “homely,” “beautiful,” “very posh” — though also consistently over-crowded
– Service & Information Desk: The highest-rated single feature (95% positive) — central, easy to find, and staffed by people described repeatedly as “super helpful”
Findings — navigation & wayfinding: This was the clearest pain point in Phase 1. Students described getting lost, being unable to find exits (“couldn’t get out for 10 minutes”), and inconsistent floor maps — despite the building having what some called “so many maps.” This directly set up the deeper investigation in Phase 2.
Summary — top likes vs. dislikes:
| Liked | Disliked |
| Large open spaces, natural lighting | Not enough electrical outlets |
| Quiet, dedicated study spaces | Not enough tables and chairs |
| Well-located front desk | Unclear quiet vs. conversation zones |
| McGregor & Weinstein ambience | Not enough floor maps/signage |
Phase 2: Ethnographic Observation
Rather than rely on self-reported impressions alone, this phase directly observed five key spaces across three distinct time periods each, Regular Usage, Exam Week, and the First Week of the semester, tracking occupancy, noise levels, navigation paths, and behavior.
McGregor Room (max occupancy 57): Averaged 34 people during regular use at just 5% noise level (typing, whispering), but noise nearly doubled during exam week even as average occupancy dropped, and the room’s two sofas and leather chairs near the fireplace were consistently the most contested seats across all three periods.
Weinstein Room (max occupancy 32): Noise levels swung the most dramatically of any space observed, from 10% in regular use up to 35% during exam week, before settling to 20-30% in the first week, when groups were observed talking and even playing videos aloud.
Memorial Hall (max occupancy 30-40): The building’s highest-traffic corridor by far, as many as 212 people entering during a single regular-use observation window, and the space where students most often stopped to ask staff practical questions (printing, directions to the campus café).
Study Courts (max occupancy 32): Noise levels stayed low and stable (~15%) across periods, but seating patterns shifted, early in the semester, people sat near the entrance; by exam week, occupied seats had moved further from the entrance corridor, suggesting a preference for privacy or quiet once students had learned the space.
Reference Room (max occupancy 126): The most consistent space observed, 36-38 average occupancy and stable ~10-15% noise levels across periods, with the large central tables absorbing the bulk of use.
Cross-space insight: Enclosed rooms (like McGregor) got quieter during exam week even as usage intensified, while open spaces (like Memorial Hall) got louder, a genuinely counterintuitive finding with real implications for how “quiet space” should be defined and signposted differently by room type, not applied as a single building-wide rule.
Insights
- Navigation and wayfinding is the building’s clearest unresolved problem — consistent across both the self-reported survey data and observed behavior (people visibly pausing, backtracking, or asking staff for directions)
- “Quiet” is not one setting — noise tolerance and behavior vary dramatically by room type and by time in the semester, meaning uniform noise-level signage likely under-serves every room type simultaneously
- Physical infrastructure (outlets, chairs) is the most repeated concrete complaint — a straightforward, actionable fix distinct from the more nuanced wayfinding and noise issues
Recommendations
- Add clearer, more consistent wayfinding signage — particularly near exits and between floors, where students most reported feeling lost
- Consider room-specific (not building-wide) noise guidance, informed by each space’s actual observed behavior pattern rather than a single uniform policy
- Address recurring infrastructure complaints — non-functional outlets and uncomfortable/loud seating — as a straightforward, high-confidence first fix
- Investigate seating capacity mismatches in consistently over-occupied spaces (Open Seating Areas, McGregor Room)
Conclusion and Outcome
This research was delivered to UVA Library stakeholders as a direct input into space planning and wayfinding decisions for the newly renovated building. The library will use these insights, spanning both self-reported impressions and independently observed behavior, to inform the design and construction of future library spaces, ensuring new spaces are built around how students and staff actually use and move through the building, not just how they’re assumed to.
← Back to Selected Work