BOUNDLESS ACCESS
Boundless Access is a map-first accessibility platform that helps UW students and visitors find trustworthy building access details, navigate campus with more confidence, and share real-time community updates.
Client / Context: University of Washington
Role: Lead UX Designer
Team: 3 researchers, 1 designer
Timeline: 11 weeks
Tools: Figma, FigJam, Illustrator
My contributions: Led UX direction, structured building accessibility information, designed the map / building info / comments flows, created the icon system and map key, and synthesized usability testing into navigation and information-clarity improvements.
Product impact: Reduced accessibility information hunting by centralizing building access details, map wayfinding, and community updates into one map-first campus tool.
Boundless Access
Designed for University of Washington students and visitors, Boundless Access combines a campus map, building access details, and a community update feed.
All of campus, all in one place
Open the map to see where you are, what changed, and how to get around.
Confirm access, choose what works
Open a building to confirm entrances, elevators, bathrooms, parking, and floor plans before you go.
Share updates, learn from others
Add a comment or reply to share real-world updates like blockages, confusing entrances, and restroom location tips.
The access information problem
Accessibility info for UW’s campus was scattered and hard to trust in the moment. Participants described ineffective maps, unclear wayfinding, and unclear communication pathways, so people relied on peers and word of mouth to avoid getting stuck.
The real issue isn’t access to data, it’s confidence in the moment.
Why this matters
The lack of accessible information creates barriers for UW affiliates with physical disabilities, hindering seamless navigation and discouraging active engagement with campus. This reduces the burden on informal channels and staff, while helping campus accessibility info stay current. Right now, updates are buried in scattered sources, maps and wayfinding cues are inconsistent, and accessibility details are incomplete or unclear, so people default to word of mouth and have to guess before they go.
How might we centralize University of Washington’s accessibility information and improve campus communication?
What we learned
With a short course timeline, we ran lightweight research to surface high-risk moments fast. We focused on campus wayfinding, building access details, and how people share updates when official info is incomplete. One theme came up quickly: navigating campus is already stressful, and it’s even more anxiety-inducing with a disability. Participants needed reliable basics like automatic doors, ramps, and a clear path from accessible parking to the classroom.
Comparative user interview (cross-campus): Interviewed a quadriplegic student to understand navigation stress, accommodation realities, and what “good” support looks like when information isn’t centralized.
Survey: Distributed a survey across University of Washington channels to capture how people find accessibility info and where maps and sources break down, so we could prioritize the biggest trust gaps.
1:1 Zoom interviews: Held deep-dive conversations with UW affiliates with physical disabilities to understand safety risks and reporting pain points, so we could design information that feels trustworthy in the moment.
On designing with disabled users: We treated participants as experts in their own access needs, using interviews and usability testing to understand where official campus information broke down and what details people needed before trusting a route.
What we found
Info is scattered
Ineffective maps and unclear way-finding make it difficult to plan ahead with confidence.
Wayfinding risks safety
For wheelchair users, especially in extreme weather, missing route and entrance details can increase risk.
Reporting is messy
Issues are spread across platforms, so participants wanted one simple, streamlined way to report and share updates.
Peers fill gaps
Word of mouth fills official gaps, and participants wanted a community space for tips, lived experience, and invisible health needs.
How we designed
The question we anchored on
We reset around one question: How do students quickly access trustworthy access info, and keep it current?
We focused on getting people to answers fast without adding extra steps, so the experience stays usable when someone is already stressed or navigating on the go.
Concepts we explored
Each team member sketched 6 directions for “ways we can share info about accommodations around campus.” We clustered the set, compared it against what users asked for in research, then narrowed to three testable concepts.
What we explored
Building pamphlet +
Physical entry point with a digital layer for accessibility settings and updates.
Interactive accessibility kiosk
A campus hub for navigation help and reporting.
Quarterly community meeting
A community-first forum for sharing lived experience.
Our decision
Critique surfaced a clear risk: pamphlet → QR → website was too many steps under time constraints. We committed to a website-first solution, then kept the “everyday object” idea by exploring a Husky ID RFID “tap” as a quick entry point into building info.
Building the solution
With a direction picked, we started with wireframes and a low-fidelity flow across two core screens: the map and building details. We scoped the prototype to Sieg Hall, a high-traffic HCDE building we could access and validate fast. Early iterations focused on map way-finding, a consistent baseline of building info, and lightweight reporting for obstacles and accessibility feedback. We also explored profile-based accessibility settings: screen reader, bigger text, contrast, saturation, line height, and text spacing.
How we validated
Using our prototype, we ran usability studies with 3 students to pressure-test both the digital experience and the Husky ID RFID “tap” concept. Each participant walked through a different flow so we could cover the full system: finding building accessibility info, submitting feedback, and testing the tap interaction. After each session, we asked quick follow-up questions about expectations, confusion points, and what information felt trustworthy.
Changes after testing
Testing surfaced where confidence broke first. One participant summed it up bluntly: “Where am I on this map? Where am I going on this map?” Another asked, “What symbol represents entrances on the maps?” Those moments drove a focused iteration pass.
Symbols weren’t self-explanatory
Participants struggled to understand what the map markings meant, especially entrances, and asked for a clear key.
What we observed: 2 of 3 participants searched for meaning and made incorrect assumptions about colors and symbols.
Why it matters: If symbols are unclear, users cannot trust what they are seeing on the map.
Design response: Added an in-depth map key accessible from the info button and updated iconography to better center users with physical disabilities.
Before: Pins/icons lacked a legend
After: Cleaner icon set for faster scanning & a map key
Accessibility details needed to be more explicit
Participants called out missing or unclear information (gender-neutral restrooms, parking attributes).
What we observed: Users assumed details that weren’t explicitly stated.
Why it matters: Accessibility info needs to be explicit to support planning and reduce surprises.
Design response: Added gender-neutral restroom info and clarified parking details (including indoor/outdoor where applicable).
Before: Key access details missing
After: Access details broken
into sections
Navigation needed a faster return path
Users wanted a direct way back to the map from building info screens.
What we observed: Users looked for a “home” or “back to map” control.
Why it matters: Deep pages slow task flow, especially on mobile.
Design response: Added a persistent “back to map” control on info screens.
Before: No quick way back
to the map
After: Persistent “back to map” control
Where it landed
What I’d measure next: If Boundless Access moved beyond prototype, I’d measure successful route planning, time to confirm an accessible entrance, confidence before arrival, report/comment submissions, repeat use, and whether users rely less on informal word-of-mouth channels.
What it unlocked
Validated in testing
Faster map orientation
Added a compass and “you are here” indicator so users could anchor themselves before planning a route.
Clearer symbols users could trust
Added a map key so entrances, pins, and icons were understandable at a glance, not guesswork.
More confident building choices
Reorganized access details into scannable sections so users could quickly confirm what works before they go.
Potential impact if implemented
Less reliance on word of mouth
Centralizes access info and updates in one place.
Lower navigation stress
Helps people plan ahead and avoid getting stuck due to missing details.
What I learned
As this was my first team project as a UX designer, and on a larger scale my team’s first design project ever, I learned how important it is to create clarity for the group while keeping the work collaborative. Since I was the only designer, I helped steer the direction, translate feedback into concrete next steps, and shape ownership around each person’s strengths so everyone had a meaningful lane. The biggest takeaway for me was that when you’re intentional about roles and decision-making, the team moves faster and the work gets better.
Next steps
To scale beyond Sieg Hall, I’d standardize the building access model across entrances, elevators, restrooms, parking, floor plans, route notes, and community updates.