Our team is growing! + News and Updates

It’s been a really exciting couple of weeks!

First of all, we welcomed two new members to the MLN Product team. Long time Mofo Pomax has taken the lead on transitioning X-Ray Goggles to a new home and Kristina, our newest designer, has had a productive first couple of weeks, focusing on creating wireframes for our badging platform. Welcome to the MLN product team!

Vidyo weirdness with the new team! Why is Kristina covered by Sabrina?

Vidyo weirdness with the new team! Why is Kristina covered by Sabrina?

Second, we released the new Thimble! It’s been really well-received (my favorite example is this Polish article – I ran it through a translator), and feels like a major step up from the last version. Be sure to watch Humph’s demo from last Friday. This release represents months of work. Read about it here.

"New Thimble is Fantastic" Poland loves Thimble!

“New Thimble is Fantastic” Poland loves Thimble!

We also added the care and feeding of the MozFest site and schedule app to our list of projects. Mavis wrote a script to export the 400+ session proposals into a github repo, where event staff and Space Wranglers are now working their magic to create an amazing program. Also in MozFestLand, Ryan Pitts spun up a version of the SRCCON schedule app for MozFest, and it works beautifully. We have some UI and UX changes to make (to make it more MozFest-y), but this will be a great resource for attendees.

Sneak Peek of the MozFest schedule app

Sneak Peek of the MozFest schedule app

On the teach.mozilla.org front, Sabrina has made major headway on the design for the MLN Directory. We’ve now got streamlined, mobile wireframes for the member profile and the Clubs page.

For editing your Club page on the go!

For editing your Club page on the go!

Mavis installed Optimize.ly which allows us to run A/B tests on teach.mozilla.org. Our first test compared the control homepage, which has three CTAs, to a variation which has a single CTA (Pledge to Teach the Web). So far, the single CTA does not seem to create a dramatic difference in the number of people taking the pledge. We’re plotting two more variations for the next heartbeat, to see if we can increase our conversion rate.

Here's the control version with three CTAs

Here’s the control version with three CTAs

And here's the single CTA variation, which so far, has not increased conversions.

And here’s the single CTA variation, which so far, has not increased conversions.

Finally, I just wanted to provide an updated list of documentation and links to things we’re working on:

Vancouver Trip Summary

I spent Thursday and Friday of last week with my lovely colleagues in Vancouver. Some things to note:

  • The Vancouver office is awesome, especially the art (h/t David Ascher’s wife)
  • Thanks to Jennie and the rest of the YVR team for making me feel welcome around the lunch table!
  • Luke promised to play guitar but he never did :(

Here’s how the two days went down:

  • Sabrina and I started off by having a morning meeting with Michelle via Vidyo. This produced several clarifying insights including the use of “portfolio” as the key metaphor for Clubs pages in the MLN Directory. This helped shaped our conversations during the rest of my visit.
  • Sabrina and I then reviewed what we already know about our audience, our programs and offerings, and value adds for the user.
  • We then sketched out a model for an engagement funnel


    • Then we got to work on the MLN Directory model. We came up with streamlined sketches for the various content types, thinking in terms of mobile-first.
      • Member profile:
        • See field listing
        • Implied functionality: certain Leadership roles might be auto-applied (e.g. if the user owns an approved Club page, the system can apply the “Club Captain” role), while others might require an admin interface (e.g. Regional Coordinator, Hive Member). We’d like to allow for flexible Role names, to accommodate local flavor (i.e. Hive Chicago has specific role names they give to members).
      • Club and Hive pages:
        • Club page field listing
        • Hive page field listing
        • A key insight was that we should treat each distinct entity differently. That is, Club pages and Hive pages might be quite different, and we don’t need to try to force them into the same treatment. We also recognized that our MVP can simply address these two specific types of groups, since this is where our programs are focused.
        • We decided that focusing on Reporting for Clubs would be the highest value functionality, so we spec’ed out what that would look like (wireframes coming soon)
        • For Hive pages, we want to re-create the org listings and contact cards that the current Hive Directories have
  • We also met with Laura de Reynal and David Ascher to hash out plans for the audience research project. More on that soon, but you can see our “most important questions” at the top of this pad.
  • The issue of badges came up a few times. First, because we found that the plan for “Club Captain” and “Regional Coordinator” badges felt a little redundant given the concept of “roles.” Second, because we saw an opportunity to incentivize and reward participation by providing levels of badges (more like an “achievements” model). Seems like our colleagues were thinking along the same lines.

All in all, it was a really productive couple of days. We’ll be getting wireframes and then mockups out to various stakeholders over the next heartbeat, along with hashing out the technical issues with our engineering team.

Feel free to share any comments and questions.

Pledge to Teach Survey Results (first month)

At the very end of June, we added a “Pledge to Teach” action to teach.mozilla.org. After people complete the pledge, they are able to take a survey that allows us to find out more about their particular context for teaching the Web, and their needs.

I’d like to share results from the first month, during which 77 people completed the survey, out of 263 users who took the pledge (29% response rate).

First, we asked what people are interested in, in terms of teaching the Web, and provided some options for people to choose from (people could choose as many as they liked).

  • Starting a Mozilla Club: 57%
  • Getting access to Digital Literacy curriculum: 79%
  • Running learning events (Maker Party, Hive Pop-Ups, etc.): 61%
  • Professional Development to help me get better at teaching digital skills: 81%
  • Connecting with a network of peers: 77%
  • Exploring tools to make the Web: 66%

The results from this question align with our strategic plans to develop more curriculum, provide more professional development offerings, and build tools to help people connect with one another.

We asked about the age range of learners:

  • 6-13: 40%
  • 14-24: 78%
  • 25-34: 44%
  • 35-44: 26%
  • 45-54: 17%
  • 55+: 19%

These findings align with the age-range that most of our existing curriculum is optimized for (14-24). That said, we know our audience is broader, and that content can be adapted for different audiences. Certainly we have community members that work in the K-12 space and higher ed. Given the numbers for learners over 24, we may consider more intermediate/advanced web literacy content, and/or address this audience with more in-depth Teach Like Mozilla and MDN content.

We asked how many learners people expect to reach this year:

  • 0-50: 32%
  • 51-100: 22%
  • 101-200: 26%
  • 201-500: 5%
  • More than 500: 14%

This data speaks to the fact that survey participants are more likely individuals who have direct interactions with learners, vs larger partners with wider networks. The survey was intended to reach individual educators/mentors, but we might consider a similar survey directed to partners, too.

Note: we’ve since added a question to the survey that will allow us to know how many learners people reach at any one time. This will inform our curricular design process.

We asked about the contexts in which people teach (again, respondents were able to choose multiple answers):

  • At standalone events (for example, a one-day workshop, hackathon or Maker Party event):  51%
  • In a classroom during the school day: 52%
  • As part of an afterschool or summer program: 31%
  • With my friends and family at home: 56%
  • At professional meet-ups or training events with other adults/mentors/educators: 51%
  • At a college or university: 27%
  • At a library or other community space: 26%

Some of these results surprised us. For example, the responses for teaching at home and with friends is higher than we’d expected, as were the number of people teaching in professional meetups. If these trends continue, they will inform our curricular and professional development content offerings. We are also having a Web Literacy Training Fellow join us later in the year, and she will specifically address these contexts.

These findings also show that people are teaching across various contexts, which may speak to some leadership pathways (e.g. classroom teachers also hosting standalone events to reach more people).

Finally, we asked people about their motivations for teaching the Web. Here is a sample of those responses:

  • The Internet is a place where any information is available, and people ought to know how to access the best of the information they seek, and know how to protect themselves beyond anti-virus programs. I want the opportunity to teach and engage with learners and peers outside of the classroom. (Canada)
  • I always believe that I should never wait for opportunities to help other people rather I should let myself open doors to help others. I want to share a part of what I know to people who wants to learn more about the digital world. (Philippines)
  • I think technology especially the Web could be a wonderful facility to awaken and support children being creative and using free thought as a positive means of fully participating in communities, society and the world. (UK)
  • Am driven by the passion to make the world a better place. I want students from my school to have extra skills apart from the normal curriculum taught in school. (Kenya)

This is a very small sample so far, but we’ll look at results for the second month soon and see if trends continue.

In the meantime, the results of the survey will inform several of our next steps, including:

  • Consider iterations on site information hierarchy and calls-to-action
  • Create content strategy that reflects community needs—this includes everything from site copy to blog content to curricular content to social media
  • Advance partner strategy given these insights

We are also starting a new research effort with support from the Webmaker product team, to complement the survey. The project hasn’t been fully designed yet, but will likely help us dig deeper into questions about our community’s assets, needs, and contexts.

User Testing the Teach Site

We are soooooo close to releasing the new Teach site.

People seem to dig the bright colors and quirky illustrations throughout the site.

People seem to dig the bright colors and quirky illustrations throughout the site.

In advance of the release, I wanted to conduct some user tests to make sure we’re still on the right track. This week I conducted two user tests with members of the community (yay!). As is always the case with user testing, I learned a lot from observing users interact with the site.

You can see detailed notes here and read my recommendations below.

These recommendations are based on formal user tests with two users as well as feedback from people who’ve been involved or observing the process throughout.  Also, please note that I wasn’t able to test the primary functionality on the site (adding a Club to the map), so these recommendations are more about IA and other content issues.

Findings and Recommendations

Screen Shot 2015-04-10 at 2.48.07 PM



  • People want to see more activities and resources.
  • People expect to be able to sort and filter.
  • Our internal distinction between the Clubs Curriculum (the official curriculum for Clubs; with a strong recommendation for following the prescribed path) and Teaching Activities (more “grab and go”-style) is not intuitive to users.
  • The Teach Like Mozilla content needs to be more integrated into common user flows.


  • Continue with current plan for developing and publishing more approved curriculum and activities.
  • Continue brainstorming work around scalable presentation of curriculum begun in this heartbeat. The ideas discussed so far address sorting and filtering, and make good use of the Web Literacy Map as an organizing tool.
  • As part of that design work, we should also allow users to access all teaching materials from the same page, and provide specific views for “official Clubs curriculum.” I recommend we keep the Teaching Activities page, and remove the Clubs Curriculum sub-page. This content is one of our primary offerings so it belongs at the top level. /cc @iamjessklein
  • We need to offer a solution for sharing resources—e.g. maker tools, other curricula, programs. (Hello, Web Lit Mapper!)
  • We need to design a stronger connection between teaching activities and the Teach Like Mozilla content. A short-term solution might be to link to the TLM page from every individual activity page, but we should also be working towards a better longer-term solution. /cc @laurahilliger

Screen Shot 2015-04-10 at 2.50.46 PM



  • The Clubs Toolkit is not findable, and needs to be supplemented with content targeted towards helping people “get started.”
  • We are not providing enough information for the use case of a person who is deciding in the moment whether to start a Club.


  • Make the Clubs Toolkit more visible on the page.
  • Consider renaming the Clubs Toolkit something like “Getting Started Guide” or “A Club’s First Month” – and editing content to match. /cc @thornet
  • Based on my understanding of the expected pathways to starting Clubs, I do not think we need to make any significant changes to the Clubs page to address the use case of someone coming to the site and deciding in the moment whether or not to start a Club. As I understand it, our plan for growing Clubs makes use of the following scenarios:
    • 1) Someone is “groomed” by staff member, Regional Coordinator, or other community member. By the time they arrive at the site, they have the specific intent of adding their Club.
    • 2) Someone finds out about us through Maker Party, and through a series of communications learns about Clubs and decides to start one. They are coming to the site with the specific intent to add their Club.
    • 3) Someone with an existing program or group wants to be listed in the database. Again, they are coming to the site with the intent to add their Club.

In short, I don’t think we’ve yet seen a reason to have the site serve a “selling” or persuasive function. I *do* think the Clubs page is a natural first stop for someone who is looking to understand how to start a Club. I think the changes recommended in the bullet points above address that.

Screen Shot 2015-04-10 at 2.51.21 PM



  • The copy describing the Events page in the main navigation is misleading, since the content on the Events page is about Maker Party.
  • People may understand throwing a Maker Party as a “first step” to starting a Club, rather than a lower-bar option for people who do not want to start a Club (and perhaps never will).


  • I think we should re-brand what is currently the Events landing page as “Maker Party.” We’ve already sort of done this in that, while the page is called “Events” in the nav, the h1 copy in the hero image is “Host a Maker Party.” I suggest we change the copy in the nav to “MAKER PARTY” and the teaser copy to “Our annual global campaign”. /cc @amirad

Screen Shot 2015-04-10 at 2.52.06 PM



  • Users tend to ignore, not see, or misinterpret the CTAs at the bottom of every page
  • Users do not notice links to the sub-pages in the main navigation


  • We need to design better, more intuitive pathways for viewing secondary pages


I’m going to keep banging this drum: We need to clarify our audience! I think we’ve made good progress in terms of clarifying that our “first line” audience includes educators and activists. But I think we have to take it a step further and clarify who those educators and activists are working with. There are at least two axes that I think are important to be clear about: first, the global nature of our work, and second, the specific age groups of what I’m calling the “end learners,” for lack of a better term.

I think we do a pretty decent job of conveying the global nature of the program through copy and imagery, though obviously implementing our l10n strategy is absolutely fundamental to this.

I think we are less clear when it comes to the age groups we’re targeting with our programs and materials.   For example, I think we ought to specify the appropriate age level for each activity. (And the images, activity titles, and copy should reflect the target audience.)

Questions, comments, disagreements wholeheartedly welcomed!

Teach.webmaker.org: Initial Card Sorting Results

This past week I conducted a small user research project to help inform the IA of the new teach.webmaker.org site.

I chose a card sorting activity, which is a common research method for IA projects. In a card sorting activity, you give members of your target audience a stack of cards, each of which has one of the site content areas printed on it. You ask the participants to group items together and explain their thought process. In this way, you gain an understanding of the participants mental models. This is helpful for avoiding a common pitfall in site design, which is organizing content in a way that make sense to you but not your users.

Big Giant Caveat

This study was flawed in a couple ways. First, Jacob Nielsen (who is generally considered to be a real smartypants when it comes to usability and user research) recommends that you do card sorting with 15 users. I’ve only been able to get 11 to do the activity so far, though I think a few more are pending.

Another flaw is that I deviated from a common best practice of running these activities in person. A lot of the insights are gained by listening to the person think aloud. There are some tools for running an online card sorting activity, but they’re largely for what’s called “closed” card sorts, where you pre-determine the categories and the person’s task is to sort cards within those categories. Since one of my goals with this activity was to generate a better understanding of what terminology to use, I wanted to do an “open” sort, where the participants name their groupings themselves.

All that’s to say that we shouldn’t take these results or my analysis as gospel. I do think the participant responses will be useful as we move forward with designing some wireframes to user test in the next heartbeat.

Participant Demographics and Background Information

There were a range of ages and locations represented in the study.

Four participants are between 18 and 24 years old, three are between 25 and 34, two between 35 and 44, one between 45 and 54, and one between 55 and 64.

Four participants are from the United States, three from India, and one each from Colombia, Bangladesh, Canada, and the United Kingdom.

Participants were asked to rate their level of familiarity with the Webmaker Mentors program on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the most familiar. Again, there was a range. Four participants rated themselves a 5, two a 4 or 4.5, two a 3, one a 2, and two a 1.

Initial Findings

The participants in the study had a range of different mental models they used to organize the content. Those models were:

  1. Grouping by program offering—that is, organizing by specific programs, concepts, or offerings, typically expressed as nouns (e.g. Web Literacy, Teaching Kits, Webmaker Clubs, Trainings, Activities, Resources, Social, Learning, Philosophy, Mentoring, Research, Events, Supportive Team)Five participants used a model like this as their primary model. The average familiarity level with Webmaker Mentoring for these participants matches the average for the entire sample (3.7 on a five-point scale).
  2. Grouping by functional area—that is, actions that a user might take, typically expressed as verbs (e.g. participate, learn, market/promote, meet others, do, lead, get involved, collaborate, organize, develop yourself, teach, experiment, host, attend).Four participants used a model like this as their primary model. Notably, all of the participants are from the United States, Canada, or the United Kingdom, and their average familiarity with Webmaker Mentoring is below the average of the entire sample (2.75 as compared to 3.67).
  3. Grouping by role or identity—some study participants organized the content by the type of user who would be interested in it (e.g. Learner, Mentor).One participant  used this as their primary model. Another made a distinction between Learning and Teaching, but it was framed more like the functional areas described above. One more used “Learning Geeks” as a topic area.
  4. Level of expertise—in this model, there is a pathway through the content based on level of expertise (e.g. intermediate, advanced).One participant used this as their primary model.

Other patterns, themes, and notable terminology:

  • Seven participants grouped together content related to hosting or attending events, and three participants made references to face-to-face communication. Of the seven who grouped content into the “Events” topic, five of them included the one item that referenced “Maker Party” (including two participants who rated their level of familiarity with the program at a 1), indicating a strong understanding of “Maker Party” as a type of event.
  • Five participants made references to the broader community. Three of them are from the United States, one from Canada, and one from India. (The specific terminology used were “Meet others,” “Social,” “Webmaker Community,” “Collaborate,” and “Supportive team”).
  • Four participants used the word “Webmaker” in their groupings, which gives us some insight into how they understand the brand. In each case, participants seem to connect the term to either teaching and teaching kits, or to the community of interested people.
  • Three participants used the term “Leading.”
  • One participant referenced a particular context (“Webmaker for Schools”).
  • One participant distinguished Mozilla-produced content (as “Mozilla Outputs”).
  • We included the term “Peer Learning Networks” in the content list to represent Hives (we assumed the meaning of “Hive” would be difficult to intuit for those unfamiliar). While we can’t draw any conclusions based on this data, it’s notable that this term was grouped into a wide variety of topics, including community (“Meet others,” “Social,” and “Collaborate”), “Get Involved,” “Intermediate,” “Mozilla Outputs,” and “Learning Geeks.” Three participants felt it didn’t fit under any category.
  • We tested both “Professional Development” and “Trainings” to see if we could understand how people interpret those terms. The results are fairly ambiguous. Both terms were associated with “Activities for teachers & mentors”, “Leading,” “Get Involved,” and “Research (things you learn on your own).” “Professional Development” was also associated with “Learning,” “Develop Yourself,” and “Learning Geeks”. “Trainings” was associated with “Intermediate,” “Mentoring,” “Organize in person events,” and “Supportive team.” For both terms, three participants could not categorize this term.

Let me know if you’re interested in seeing the raw data.

I need to reprint my business cards

Okay, so I don’t actually have business cards, but on this morning’s All Mofo call, it was announced that I’m leaving the wonderful Engagement team to serve as a product manager for the equally wonderful Learning Networks team. So, if I had business cards, I’d need new ones.

This is, for obvious reasons, bittersweet. I’ve LOVED working with the engaging folks on the Engagement team, and it provided a fantastic vantage point for learning the ins and outs of Mofo. I’m sending a big heartfelt thank you to Geoffrey and Co. for being so dang awsm to me ever since I joined.

Fortunately for me, I’m not going far. I’ve been admiring the work of both the Mentor Networks and the Product teams from a distance, so I’m thrilled with my new spot right smack in the middle of them.

Wait….Hannah, what do you know about product management? And Learning Networks?

It might seem strange at first blush, since I’ve been talking about scrum mastering and engagement-y stuff on this blog so far. But, lest you think I’m totally unqualified, let me share a few relevant experiences I haven’t shared here before:

  • I was a Product Owner at my last job. “Product Owner” is a title specific to Scrum shops, but it’s got a whole lot in common with Product Manager. Working with devs? Check! UI and UX designers? Yup, them too. End users and stakeholders? Love ‘em. Caring about product adoption rates, product marketing, and customer service? For sure, uh huh, no doubt.
  • I have experience shepherding a product to serve a local groups-based organizing model, much like the vision for Webmaker Clubs. I hope to bring useful knowledge from that project, drawing on both successes and failures (because, hey, “what not to do” lists are useful, too!)
  • While I won’t be contributing in this way, I do have a bit of experience as a trainer—I’ve developed and delivered service-learning and social justice careers curricula to kids, college students, and adults. I’m nowhere near as savvy as our #TeachTheWeb team, but I can promise to keep the needs of the mentors at the forefront of my brain.

OK, so what are you going to be working on?

The Big Picture answer is: developing products that serve the needs of our constituents in our ground game programs (Hive, Webmaker Clubs, Maker Parties). These products will be separate from, but complementary of, the Learning Products, which serve independent learners who aren’t (yet!) affiliated with our ground game programs.

In the short term, my top priorities are:

  • Building a new home for all of our teaching resources and a launching point for all of our ground game programs (teach.webmaker.org). v1 will be a re-org of our existing content, so we’ve launched a small user research study (you may have seen Lucy’s recent email to the Webmaker listserv asking for volunteers). The participants are doing a virtual version of what’s called a “card sorting” activity to help us understand their mental models around all of the content we currently have. The results will inform the information architecture for Teach.w.o v1.
  • Launching a platform for local groups (i.e. Clubs and potentially Hives). Q1 is about two flavors of research: 1) Developing a deep, nuanced understanding of our own business needs and the needs of our users—in this case, the Club Leaders in the Q1 Pilot. 2) Investigating off-the-shelf options for the platform.
  • Iterating on our credentials platform. Again, this starts with developing a deep, shared understanding of business needs. Stakeholder kick-off meeting coming soon!

I’m so very excited to be working on these things. Like, I’m seriously being a nerd about it all.

At the same time, I’m already missing my Engagement team buddies (though that’s tempered by the fact that I still get to work with nearly all of them :)).

Questions? Want to discuss the Learning Networks products? Hit me up.

We are very engaging

Yesterday someone asked me what the engagement team is up to, and it made me sad because I realized I need to do a waaaaay better job of broadcasting my team’s work. This team is dope and you need to know about it.

As a refresher, our work encompasses these areas:

  • Grantwriting
  • Institutional partnerships
  • Marketing and communications
  • Small dollar fundraising
  • Production work (i.e. Studio Mofo)

In short, we aim to support the Webmaker product and programs and our leadership pipelines any time we need to engage individuals or institutions.

What’s currently on our plate:

Pro-tip: You can always see what we’re up to by checking out the Engagement Team Workbench.

These days we’re spending our time on the following:

  • End of Year Fundraising: With the help of a slew of kick-ass engineers, Andrea and Kelli are getting to $2M. (view the Workbench).
  • Mozilla Gear launch: Andrea and Geoffrey are obsessed with branded hoodies. To complement our fundraising efforts, they just opened a brand new site for people to purchase Mozilla Gear (view the project management spreadsheet).
  • Fall Campaign: Remember the 10K contributor goal? We do! An-Me and Paul have been working with Claw, Amira, Michelle, and Lainie, among others, to close the gap through a partner-based strategy (view the Workbench).
  • Mobile Opportunity: Ben is helping to envision and build partnerships around this work, and Paul and Studio Mofo are providing marketing, comms, and production support (the Mobile Opportunity Workbench is here, the engagement-specific work will be detailed soon).
  • Building a Webmaker Marketing Plan for 2015: The site and programs aren’t going to market themselves! Paul is drafting a comprehensive marketing calendar for 2015 that complements the product and program strategies. (plan coming soon)
  • 2015 Grants Pipeline: Ben and An-Me are always on the lookout for opportunities, and Lynn is responsible for writing grants and reports to fund our various programs and initiatives.
  • Additional Studio Mofo projects: Erika, Mavis, and Sabrina are always working on something. In addition to their work supporting most of the above, you can see a full list of projects here.
  • Salesforce for grants and partnerships: We’ve completed a custom Salesforce installation and Ben has begun the process of training staff to use it. Much more to come to make it a meaningful part of our workflow (Workbench coming soon).
  • Open Web Fellows recruitment: We’re supporting our newest fellowship with marketing support (view the Hype Plan)