From creating designers to helping devs get jobs.
V1 and V2: Creating and iterating the CodeYourFuture UXUI Design course.
Designing for Employability - Creating and Iterating the CodeYourFuture UX/UI Training Courses.
Project: Designing, launching, and iterating CodeYourFuture's first UX/UI design training courses.
My Role: Project Lead. Hands on work: strategy, planning, syllabus design lead (incl. facilitation), stakeholder collaboration, data analysis, process facilitation, design trainee mentorship, partnership lead.
Timeline: March 2022 - June 2023
Overview
CodeYourFuture (CYF), a non-profit providing free tech training to underrepresented groups, aimed to expand its offerings beyond software development by launching its first UX/UI design course. As the Project Lead, my focus was on ensuring the course design was grounded in user needs (trainees) and market realities (employability).
This involved research, stakeholder collaboration, and an iterative design process, moving from a pilot (Version 1) focused on creating dedicated designers to a refined programme (Version 2) to enhance aspiring developers' design skills.
This case study details this journey, highlighting how research and cross-group collaboration led to a strategic pivot that ultimately broadened impact.
The Challenge
Launching CYF's inaugural design course presented several core challenges:
Employability Goal: Could we realistically equip many new-to-tech trainees with job-ready UX/UI skills within a part-time, ~12-week timeframe?
Bridging the Gap: Many applicants perceived design primarily as visual (UI/Graphic Design). Could we effectively teach the more theoretical and research-heavy aspects of UX?
Diverse Starting Points: Trainees had varied backgrounds; some had zero design experience, while others joined after struggling with coding, potentially lacking intrinsic motivation for design.
Market Reality: Initial research indicated a challenging job market for junior UX/UI roles in 2022, which could potentially impact our primary goal of employment.
Resource Constraints: As a volunteer-led charity, we needed to design a sustainable and effective course using available resources, including volunteer time and external learning platforms
The Approach & Process
Our process followed an iterative, research-led approach, mirroring the design thinking principles we aimed to teach.
Phase 1: The Pilot Course (Version 1)
Goal: Test the feasibility of training job-ready UX/UI designers from the CYF community.
Initial Research & Planning:
Understanding Requirements: We researched UX/UI occupational standards (e.g., SFIA framework) and leveraged the experience of design volunteers.Employer Insights: We consulted CodeYourFuture's key partner, Capgemini, speaking with their Head of UX/UI to understand entry-level expectations and employment pathways.Defining Outcomes: Based on research, we identified key demonstrable skills needed for employability.Learning Journey Design: We mapped out 7 core topics roughly following the Double Diamond process (Empathise, Synthesise, Ideate, etc.) and used Bloom's Taxonomy to structure learning objectives.Readiness Assessment: Interested trainees completed a foundational Figma course on Udemy before acceptance (to gauge commitment and grow baseline design skills).
Course Design & Implementation (V1):
Structure: Trainees split from the main software development track for approx. 12 weeks part-time.Pedagogy: Emphasised self-study and project-based learning, guided by volunteer mentors (precursor to a Flipped Classroom in V2). No formal lectures.Content: Leveraged external courses (e.g., Udemy) supplemented with custom-built CYF materials where needed.
-
Okay, here is a summary of the UX/UI Practical Assignment:
Problem: Code Your Future (CYF) wants to raise funds by selling branded merchandise online via their website.
Assignment Goal: To research, design, test, and iterate a solution for displaying and selling CYF merchandise on their website. This involves understanding potential customers, deciding on merchandise types, and creating the user interface (UI) and user experience (UX) for the online shop.
The assignment is broken down into four main tasks, following a typical UX design process:
Task 1: UX Research (Due Week 2)
Conduct research to understand potential users and the market.
Activities: Perform at least two user interviews. Optional: competitive analysis (looking at other non-profits selling merchandise) and secondary research.
Deliverables: User interview plan, interview evidence (screenshots/recordings), an affinity diagram summarising findings (desired merchandise, buying methods, purchase factors), 1-2 user personas, and a description of a specific user journey to focus on for the design phase (e.g., Browse products).
Task 2: Design & Prototype (Due Week 3)
Create initial design concepts based on research findings.
Activities: Use Figma to create high-fidelity mockups and a clickable prototype.
Deliverables: A minimum of 4-5 hi-fi screens illustrating the design and an interactive prototype focusing on the key user journey identified in Task 1.
Task 3: Usability Test (Due Week 4)
Validate the design prototype with real users.
Activities: Conduct moderated usability tests with at least five participants using the Figma prototype.
Deliverables: A usability testing plan, testing evidence (screenshots/recordings), detailed findings (pain points, confusion, delights) annotated on relevant screens, and a list of required design improvements based on user feedback.
Task 4: Design Iteration & Final Prototype (Due Week 5)
Refine the design based on usability testing feedback.
Activities: Update the designs in Figma.
Deliverables: The iterated design highlighting changes made and the reasons for them, plus the final clickable prototype.
A final presentation sharing the design process and outcome may also be required.
Student response example:
Practical Application: Trainees acted as designers for student developer teams on final keystone projects, conducting user research with real clients, wireframing, prototyping, and doing UI design.
Pilot Outcomes & Key Learnings (V1):
Mixed Results: Two trainees with prior design experience successfully found jobs in tech. Those without prior experience struggled to find design roles; some left CYF, others found non-tech work.
UX Research Barrier: The theoretical and language-intensive nature of UX research (conducting interviews, synthesis) proved particularly challenging, especially for non-native English speakers.
Time Constraint: 12 weeks part-time was insufficient to reliably skill up complete novices to an employable level in both UX and UI and build a strong portfolio.
Phase 2: The Pivot & Refinement (Version 2)
The V1 results, combined with ongoing market analysis, triggered a crucial reassessment.
Understanding the New Landscape (Research for V2):
Market Analysis: Desk research by volunteers confirmed the junior design market remained tough in mid-2023, with fewer roles and high competition compared to development.
Employer Network: CYF had stronger employer connections for developer roles.
Trainee Feedback: Incorporated V1 feedback regarding challenges (UX theory, language) and successes (practical application).
Stakeholder Interviews: We conducted interviews with:
Alumni (Developers): To understand what design skills proved useful in their developer jobs.
Senior Developers & Tech Leads: To identify design skills that make developers stand out and collaborate better.
CYF Leadership & Volunteers: To align on organisational priorities and resource allocation.
Redefining Goals & Strategy (The Pivot):
New Goal: Instead of creating dedicated designers, V2 would focus on equipping CYF's core software development trainees with valuable design skills to make them more competitive developers.
Strategic Rationale:
Play to CYF's strengths (developer placement network).
Address a broader need within the CYF community (some graduates still seeking jobs).
Focus on more practical, achievable skills (UI, interaction design fundamentals, user-centred thinking) within the timeframe.
Provide a pathway: Get a dev job first, potentially transition to design later.
Designing and Delivering Version 2:
Target Audience: Software development trainees/graduates.
Structure: An optional add-on course (8-10 weeks flexible) taken during a break or after the main dev course. Asynchronous learning via Slack, weekend workshops, ongoing mentorship. Encouraged self-organisation.
Pedagogy: Formalised the Flipped Classroom model. Trainees engaged with materials and content independently, using mentored sessions for practical application and discussion.
Content Focus: UX Foundations, practical UX Research methods, Wireframing & Prototyping (Figma), UI Principles, Usability Testing basics. Less emphasis on deep theoretical UX, more on practical application relevant to front-end development. [Link to V02 track syllabus could be included here].
Partnership: Secured free, unlimited access to Uxcel courses, which trainees found engaging and well-structured.
Expanding Collaboration & Impact:
Recognising a broad need for design literacy, we extended support beyond the formal V2 course participants. This required connecting with all CYF trainees finishing their software development courses, and graduates seeking employment (a diverse group with varying needs). In addition, we utilised the support of CYF employees charged with trainee and graduate support.
Delivery Mechanisms:
Design Workshops: Developed and delivered workshops on practical UI design principles and portfolio improvement, sharing insights from our research (alumni/developer interviews). This involved design volunteers sharing their expertise with the broader trainee/graduate community.
1:1 Portfolio Support: Offered dedicated sessions where design mentors provided tailored feedback on developer portfolios, helping them showcase their (newly acquired) design awareness and skills.
Promotion: We shared well-designed graduate portfolios in newsletters and social media, increasing their visibility to potential employers (another stakeholder group). Here is a link to Levi’s portfolio post, after some suggested design tweaks.
Result: This broader collaborative effort allowed us to scale the impact of the design expertise within CYF, reaching far more individuals than just the V2 cohort and directly addressing a key bottleneck (portfolio quality) for developer employment. It required coordinating volunteer availability, tailoring content for a developer audience, and liaising with internal CYF stakeholders.
The Results & Impact (Resolution)
The strategic pivot and collaborative approach yielded significant results:
Version 1: Laid the groundwork, provided critical learnings, and resulted in 2 hires (those with prior experience). Highlighted the difficulty of the initial approach.
Version 2 & Expanded Support:
Broader Organisational Impact: At least 18 trainees and graduates benefited from the updated design course, workshops and 1:1 portfolio reviews.
Employability: Helped at least 10 graduates find employment (primarily in developer roles) attributed to participation in V2 activities (including the workshops/portfolio reviews). In a job market that was not improving, we had successfully shifted the design programme to better align with market realities and CYF's core strengths, demonstrably improving employment outcomes for a wider group of beneficiaries.
Community Building: We were able to build a bigger design volunteer community than V1, and one employed graduate from V1 returned to volunteer as a mentor for V2, demonstrating a positive feedback loop.
Key Takeaways
Research was Crucial for Strategy: Initial assumptions were tested against market reality and user capability. Our research (market analysis, stakeholder interviews) was key for the pivot from V1 to V2.
Befit of Agile Iteration: We learnt from V1's outcomes and redesigned based on evidence.
Collaboration Amplifies Impact: By coordinating between design volunteers, the CYF education team, tech partners (Uxcel, CYF tech volunteers), and engaging the broader trainee/graduate community, we significantly extended the reach and effectiveness of the design initiative beyond the formal V2 course.
Understand Diverse Needs: Recognising the specific challenges of the target audience (e.g., language barriers impacting UX research in V1) allowed us to tailor the V2 approach more effectively.
Define Success Appropriately: Shifting the definition of success from "creating designers" to "enhancing developers" allowed us to deliver greater value within the context of CYF's mission and the prevailing job market.