senior UX Researcher — Accessibility & Inclusive Design
Exploring how people think, what they need, and where systems fail them.
I lead mixed-methods research that turns overlooked voices into strategic decisions — with accessibility as the baseline.
Leadership, decisions and measurable impact
Each case is built for a one-minute read —
open one to follow the decisions behind it.
Making an enterprise ERP usable for non-technical teams
The problem An Oracle Cloud ERP implementation introduced complex enterprise workflows to teams with no technical background. The interface assumed expert knowledge most users didn’t have, putting adoption — and the value of the whole implementation — at risk.
Business objective Protect ERP adoption and reduce the post-launch support burden by translating complex enterprise workflows into user-centered flows non-technical staff could complete with confidence.
Research strategy Embed research throughout the implementation lifecycle rather than testing at the end — defining the research approach, mapping real workflows, and validating each iteration with the people who’d use the system daily.
Methods Usability studies Workflow & task mapping Stakeholder interviews Think-aloud testing
Key findings Enterprise terminology, dense multi-step screens and no recovery path were the main blockers. Users couldn’t map their real tasks onto the system’s structure, and quietly built error-prone workarounds outside the tool.
Decisions as Lead I championed accessibility and plain-language standards across the product lifecycle, and prioritized simplifying the highest-frequency workflows over cosmetic fixes — focusing limited build capacity where evidence showed the most friction.
Stakeholder influence Turned research findings into actionable recommendations and brought stakeholders into evidence-based decisions, shifting conversations from feature opinions to observed user behaviour.
Measurable impact
Lifecycle: Research embedded end-to-end, not bolted on
Plain-language: Standards adopted across workflows
Inclusive: Accessibility built into the rollout
Learnings When the workflow fits how people actually work, adoption stops being something you have to enforce.
Service quality across 41 social care centers
The problem Service quality varied widely across 41 provincial social care centers serving people from diverse backgrounds and with functional diversity. Without a shared, evidence-based view, improvement efforts were based on assumptions rather than need.
Business objective Identify performance gaps and inform service improvements at scale, aligning change with the organisation’s People Care Framework and advancing accessibility and inclusion for the people served.
Research strategy A mixed-methods service-quality analysis across all 41 centers — combining on-the-ground qualitative research with structured analysis to surface patterns that held true system-wide, not just in isolated sites.
Methods Service quality analysis Qualitative interviews Ethnographic & shadowing research Journey mapping
Key findings Inaccessible formats, inconsistent processes between centers and unspoken assumptions about users were the recurring failure points. The gaps clustered exactly where people with functional diversity entered the service.
Decisions as Lead I translated findings into actionable redesign recommendations and anchored them to the People Care Framework — making accessibility and inclusion a measurable standard for service quality rather than an optional add-on.
Stakeholder influence Generated evidence-based recommendations that gave leadership a shared, comparable picture across all centers, aligning stakeholders around the same priorities instead of local interpretations.
Measurable impact
41: Provincial centers analysed
Framework: Recommendations aligned to People Care Framework
Inclusion: Accessibility set as a service-quality standard
Learnings At scale, the job isn’t finding one broken thing — it’s naming the pattern everyone can act on.
Cutting platform incidents on a national learning campus
The problem
A national virtual learning campus supporting social-inclusion programs was producing frequent platform incidents that disrupted learning. The friction sat in information architecture, navigation and the learning journey itself.
Business objective
Reduce platform incidents and improve engagement and learning outcomes, so that social-inclusion programs reached the people they were designed to serve.
Research strategy
Analyse real user behaviour across the learning journey to separate genuine usability barriers from noise, then target the redesign at the points generating the most incidents.
Methods
Behavioural analytics Usability evaluation Information architecture review WCAG 2.2 accessibility audit
Key findings
Confusing navigation and information architecture forced learners into dead ends, and accessibility gaps blocked some users entirely — together driving the bulk of reported incidents.
Decisions as Lead
I prioritized IA, navigation and learning-journey fixes grounded in behavioural evidence, and applied WCAG 2.2 standards as a baseline rather than a final review step.
Stakeholder influence
Generated evidence-based recommendations that gave the team a clear, ranked roadmap — connecting each proposed change to the behaviour and incidents it would resolve.
Measurable impact
−20% Reduction in platform incidents
WCAG 2.2 Accessibility standards applied
↑ Engagement & learning outcomes
Learnings
Behavioural data tells you where people struggle; accessibility standards make sure the fix doesn’t leave anyone behind.
About me
I bring the voices too often left out into the room where decisions are made.
With 5+ years in UX research, I work at the intersection of human behavior, accessibility, and strategy — uncovering insights that don’t just inform design, but challenge the assumptions behind it. I believe inclusive experiences aren’t a feature to add at the end. They’re the foundation everything else is built on.
I’m drawn to complex problems where understanding people deeply can change not just a product, but how an organization thinks.
Using UX research to uncover insights that inform strategy, shape inclusive experiences, and challenge assumptions.
Accessibility and inclusive design aren’t optional features. They’re the baseline.