Decision Guide
Physics Help Room Digital Queue System
Decision Guide for Stakeholders
Date: November 2025
Purpose: Detailed analysis of key design decisions requiring stakeholder input
How to Use: For each decision, review the options, consider the impact, and provide your feedback
Introduction
This guide focuses on 8 critical design decisions that will shape how the help room queue system functions. Each decision includes:
- Context: Why this decision matters
- Options: 2-3 alternatives with detailed pros/cons
- Impact Analysis: Who is affected and how
- Our Recommendation: Based on best practices and stakeholder interviews
- Your Input: Questions to guide your feedback
Please review each decision and share your preferences via the feedback survey or stakeholder meetings.
Decision 1: Student Feedback Visibility
Context
After each help session, students can optionally rate their experience (1-5 stars) and leave comments. This feedback helps improve service quality, but we need to decide: Who sees what?
Options
Option A: Aggregate Only (RECOMMENDED)
How it works:
- Helpers see only aggregate statistics: "4.8 ⭐ from 42 ratings this semester"
- Managers see individual ratings and comments for quality assurance
- Low ratings (≤2 stars) auto-flagged for manager review
Pros:
- ✅ Encourages honest student feedback (students feel safe being critical)
- ✅ Protects student privacy (comments are truly anonymous to helpers)
- ✅ Reduces helper stress (not dwelling on one bad rating)
- ✅ Focuses on trends, not individual incidents
- ✅ Industry standard for customer feedback systems
Cons:
- ❌ Helpers can't respond to specific concerns in real-time
- ❌ Less immediate learning from mistakes
- ❌ Requires trust in manager oversight
Option B: Individual Ratings Visible to Helpers
How it works:
- Helpers see each rating and comment
- Students know their feedback is not anonymous
Pros:
- ✅ Helpers can learn from specific feedback immediately
- ✅ Opportunity to follow up with students
- ✅ Full transparency
Cons:
- ❌ Chilling effect on honest feedback (students fear retaliation or hurting feelings)
- ❌ Privacy concerns (even "anonymous" students can be identified by context)
- ❌ Helpers may obsess over individual bad ratings
- ❌ Research shows feedback quality decreases when not truly anonymous
Impact Analysis
Impact on Students:
- Option A: More likely to give honest, constructive feedback
- Option B: May sugar-coat feedback to avoid awkwardness
Impact on Helpers:
- Option A: Less stressful, focuses on improvement over time
- Option B: More stress, potential for rumination
Impact on Managers:
- Option A: Responsible for reviewing flagged feedback (small time commitment)
- Option B: Less oversight needed, but lower quality feedback
Our Recommendation
Option A: Aggregate Only
Rationale: Research in educational feedback systems shows that truly anonymous feedback yields higher response rates and more actionable insights. Helpers still get meaningful feedback (trends, overall performance), while students feel comfortable being honest.
Your Input
Questions to consider:
1. As a helper, would you prefer to see aggregate trends or individual comments?
2. As a student, would you give honest feedback if you knew the helper would see your name/comment?
3. As faculty, do you trust the manager to handle flagged feedback appropriately?
Provide your feedback: [Survey link] or stakeholder meeting
Decision 2: Helper Flexibility
Context
When faculty assign helpers (TAs/LAs) to courses, should those helpers be required to ONLY help students in their assigned courses, or can they help anyone?
Options
Option A: Can Help Anyone (RECOMMENDED)
How it works:
- Helpers are assigned to primary courses (e.g., Garai → PHYS 1110)
- Schedule displays their primary course ("Garai - PHYS 1110")
- System prioritizes matching them with students from their course
- BUT they can also help students from other courses if needed
Pros:
- ✅ Matches current practice ("I might be able to help with that")
- ✅ Better resource utilization (no idle helpers when other queues are long)
- ✅ Flexibility for students (especially cross-topic questions)
- ✅ Helpers appreciate autonomy ("I know I can help, so I will")
- ✅ Less rigid, more collaborative environment
Cons:
- ❌ May dilute expertise (helpers spread too thin)
- ❌ Less clear accountability (who's responsible for which course?)
- ❌ Potential for helpers to avoid difficult courses
Option B: Assigned Courses Only
How it works:
- Helpers can only accept students in their assigned courses
- System blocks them from seeing students in other courses
Pros:
- ✅ Clear expertise boundaries (you help what you know)
- ✅ Accountability (each course has designated helpers)
- ✅ Focused specialization
Cons:
- ❌ Inefficient (helpers sit idle while other queues grow)
- ❌ Frustrating for students (longer waits even when helpers available)
- ❌ Rigid system doesn't match real-world help room culture
- ❌ Helpers feel constrained ("I could help but the system won't let me")
Impact Analysis
Impact on Students:
- Option A: Faster help (more helpers available)
- Option B: Longer waits (fewer helpers per course)
Impact on Helpers:
- Option A: More autonomy, better utilization of time
- Option B: May sit idle while other helpers are overwhelmed
Impact on Faculty:
- Option A: Less predictable (helpers may help other courses)
- Option B: Clear accountability (my TAs help my students)
Our Recommendation
Option A: Can Help Anyone (with prioritization)
Rationale: The current help room culture is collaborative and flexible. Helpers say "I might be able to help" rather than "that's not my course." The system should support this culture while still prioritizing helpers for their assigned courses (e.g., "Call Next" shows PHYS 1110 students first for Garai).
Your Input
Questions to consider:
1. As a helper, do you want the flexibility to help other courses, or prefer to stick to your assignment?
2. As faculty, do you want your TAs focused exclusively on your course, or is flexibility okay?
3. As a student, would you accept help from a helper assigned to a different course?
Provide your feedback: [Survey link] or stakeholder meeting
Decision 3: Faculty Permission Scope
Context
Faculty will be able to assign helpers (TAs/LAs) to support their courses. The question is: How broad should that permission be?
Options
Option A: Section-Specific Only (RECOMMENDED)
How it works:
- Faculty can only assign helpers to course sections they teach
- Example: Prof. Martinez teaches PHYS 1110 Section 1 → can assign helpers to Section 1
- If Prof. Jones also teaches PHYS 1110 Section 2, she assigns helpers to Section 2 independently
- No conflicts between faculty
Pros:
- ✅ Appropriate oversight (you manage your TAs)
- ✅ Matches real-world responsibility (TAs are section-specific)
- ✅ No conflicts when multiple faculty teach same course
- ✅ Clear accountability
- ✅ Faculty control their teaching teams
Cons:
- ❌ Less coordination across sections of same course
- ❌ May result in duplicate assignments (both faculty assign same TA)
- ❌ Faculty can't help with other sections if needed
Option B: Course-Wide
How it works:
- Any faculty teaching a course can assign helpers to ANY section of that course
- Example: Prof. Martinez (PHYS 1110 Section 1) can assign helpers to Section 2, 3, 4, etc.
Pros:
- ✅ Better coordination across sections
- ✅ Flexibility for course-wide TA management
Cons:
- ❌ Conflicts when multiple faculty teach same course
- ❌ Unclear ownership (whose TA is this?)
- ❌ Faculty may step on each other's toes
Option C: Department-Wide
How it works:
- Faculty can assign helpers to any course in the department
Pros:
- ✅ Maximum flexibility
Cons:
- ❌ Too broad, no clear ownership
- ❌ Faculty managing TAs for courses they don't teach (inappropriate)
- ❌ Chaos in assignment tracking
Impact Analysis
Impact on Faculty:
- Option A: Control your team, no interference
- Option B: Coordination but potential conflicts
- Option C: Too much power, confusing
Impact on Helpers:
- Option A: Clear who they report to
- Option B: May get conflicting assignments
- Option C: Complete chaos
Impact on Manager:
- Option A: Clear delegation, handles edge cases
- Option B: Mediates conflicts between faculty
- Option C: Constant troubleshooting
Our Recommendation
Option A: Section-Specific Only
Rationale: In the real world, TAs are typically assigned to specific course sections and report to the instructor of that section. This option maintains appropriate oversight while preventing conflicts. If coordination across sections is needed, the manager can facilitate.
Your Input
Questions to consider:
1. As faculty, do you need to manage helpers beyond your own sections?
2. Do you foresee conflicts with other faculty teaching the same course?
3. Is the manager an appropriate coordinator for cross-section needs?
Provide your feedback: [Survey link] or stakeholder meeting
Decision 4: Public Display Information
Context
The public display monitors will show the queue. What information should be visible to anyone in the help room?
Options
Option A: First Names + Courses (RECOMMENDED)
How it works:
- Display shows: "Sarah, PHYS 1110"
- Students see their first name and course number
- No last names, no sensitive information
Pros:
- ✅ Minimal privacy disclosure (first names are common)
- ✅ Students can easily identify themselves ("Oh, that's me!")
- ✅ Less awkward than numbers (more personal)
- ✅ Complies with FERPA (educational records not exposed)
- ✅ Students informed during sign-up ("Your first name will be displayed")
Cons:
- ❌ Minor privacy disclosure (first name is public)
- ❌ May identify students by context (only one Sarah in room)
Option B: Queue Numbers Only
How it works:
- Display shows: "#1, PHYS 1110" (no names)
- Students must remember their queue number
Pros:
- ✅ Maximum privacy (fully anonymous)
- ✅ No FERPA concerns
Cons:
- ❌ Students must remember their number (cognitive load)
- ❌ Helpers must ask "Are you #3?" (awkward)
- ❌ Less personal, more transactional
- ❌ Easy to forget your number and miss your turn
Option C: Full Names + Courses
How it works:
- Display shows: "Sarah Johnson, PHYS 1110"
Pros:
- ✅ Clearest identification (no ambiguity)
Cons:
- ❌ Privacy concerns (full names are sensitive)
- ❌ May violate FERPA (directory information rules)
- ❌ Students may not consent to full name display
- ❌ Could deter students from seeking help (embarrassment)
Impact Analysis
Impact on Students:
- Option A: Comfortable, easy to identify yourself
- Option B: Requires remembering number, less personal
- Option C: May feel invasive, embarrassing
Impact on Helpers:
- Option A: Can call "Sarah" naturally
- Option B: Must say "Number 3?" (awkward)
- Option C: Full names may feel too formal
Impact on Privacy:
- Option A: Minimal disclosure, FERPA compliant
- Option B: Maximum privacy
- Option C: Risky for FERPA compliance
Our Recommendation
Option A: First Names + Courses
Rationale: Strikes a balance between usability and privacy. Students can easily see when it's their turn, helpers can call them by name naturally, and privacy risk is minimal. FERPA allows directory information (which includes first name) with proper notice. We'll inform students during sign-up that their first name will be displayed publicly.
Your Input
Questions to consider:
1. As a student, would you be comfortable with your first name displayed?
2. As a helper, do you prefer calling names or numbers?
3. Are there cultural or safety concerns we should consider?
Provide your feedback: [Survey link] or stakeholder meeting
Decision 5: Helper Break Behavior
Context
Helpers need breaks during long shifts. When a helper wants to go "on break," should they be required to finish helping their current student first, or can they reassign that student and immediately break?
Options
Option A: Finish Current Student First (RECOMMENDED)
How it works:
- Helper toggles "On Break"
- System checks: "Are you currently helping someone?"
- If YES: "Please finish your current session before taking a break"
- If NO: Break mode activates immediately
Pros:
- ✅ Better student experience (not abandoned mid-session)
- ✅ Professional courtesy and continuity
- ✅ Students feel valued (helper completes what they started)
- ✅ Sessions typically short (5-15 min), so break is only slightly delayed
Cons:
- ❌ Less flexible for helpers (may need urgent break)
- ❌ Could delay break by 10-15 minutes
Option B: Can Reassign Immediately
How it works:
- Helper toggles "On Break"
- If helping a student, system prompts: "Reassign current student to [Alex]?"
- Helper confirms, student transferred, helper goes on break
Pros:
- ✅ Maximum flexibility for helpers (urgent needs)
- ✅ Immediate break
Cons:
- ❌ Disruptive for students (mid-session transfer is jarring)
- ❌ Loss of context (new helper doesn't know what's been covered)
- ❌ May feel unprofessional or rude
- ❌ Could damage student-helper relationship
Impact Analysis
Impact on Students:
- Option A: Continuity, better experience
- Option B: Jarring interruption, may need to re-explain problem
Impact on Helpers:
- Option A: Slight delay to break (typically <15 min)
- Option B: Immediate break but ethical concerns
Impact on Help Room Culture:
- Option A: Professional, student-centered
- Option B: Transactional, less personal
Our Recommendation
Option A: Finish Current Student First
Rationale: Help sessions are typically short (5-15 minutes). Requiring helpers to finish their current session before breaking is a reasonable expectation that prioritizes student experience. For truly urgent needs (bathroom, emergency), helpers can quickly complete the session or ask the manager for help.
Your Input
Questions to consider:
1. As a helper, is a 10-15 minute delay to break acceptable?
2. As a student, how would you feel being transferred mid-session?
3. Are there urgent scenarios we should accommodate differently?
Provide your feedback: [Survey link] or stakeholder meeting
Decision 6: Queue Release Notification
Context
At the end of a shift or during high demand, a helper may need to "release queue" - returning all unhelped students back to the general pool. Should students be notified of this change?
Options
Option A: Silent (RECOMMENDED)
How it works:
- Helper clicks "Release Queue"
- All unhelped students go back to general queue
- Students see no notification, just still "waiting"
- Next available helper will help them
Pros:
- ✅ No confusion or alarm for students
- ✅ Seamless experience (still getting help, just from different helper)
- ✅ Reduces unnecessary notifications
- ✅ Students don't feel "abandoned" or "rejected"
Cons:
- ❌ Students don't know they were reassigned
- ❌ Less transparency
Option B: Notification
How it works:
- Helper releases queue
- Students get notification: "Your helper changed. You're now in the general queue and will be helped by the next available helper."
Pros:
- ✅ Full transparency
- ✅ Students know what's happening
Cons:
- ❌ May cause confusion ("Why did my helper leave me?")
- ❌ May cause alarm ("Did I do something wrong?")
- ❌ Unnecessary information (they're still getting help)
- ❌ Could deter students from joining queue (fear of being dropped)
Impact Analysis
Impact on Students:
- Option A: No change in experience, still waiting
- Option B: May interpret as rejection or problem
Impact on Helpers:
- Option A: Can manage queue without worrying about student reactions
- Option B: May feel guilty about releasing queue
Our Recommendation
Option A: Silent
Rationale: Students care about "Will I get help?" not "Which specific helper?" Notifying them of a queue release doesn't improve their experience and may cause unnecessary concern. The system seamlessly reassigns them, and they get help from the next available helper.
Your Input
Questions to consider:
1. As a student, would you want to know if your helper released you back to general queue?
2. As a helper, would notifications make you reluctant to release queue when needed?
Provide your feedback: [Survey link] or stakeholder meeting
Decision 7: Color Scheme Assignment
Context
To improve visual clarity on public displays, courses can have color-coded badges (e.g., PHYS 1110 = green, PHYS 2010 = blue). How should these colors be assigned?
Options
Option A: Manual Admin Assignment (RECOMMENDED)
How it works:
- Manager manually assigns specific colors to each course
- Includes WCAG compliance checking (contrast ratios ≥4.5:1)
- Includes pattern overlays for colorblind users (stripes, dots, grid)
- Suggested palette: 1xxx=Green, 2xxx=Blue, 3xxx=Orange, 4xxx=Purple
Pros:
- ✅ Guaranteed WCAG compliance (manager validates contrast)
- ✅ Consistent, predictable colors
- ✅ Can match department preferences or existing branding
- ✅ Colorblind-safe with pattern overlays
- ✅ Manager has full control
Cons:
- ❌ Requires initial setup time (1-2 hours)
- ❌ Must be updated when new courses added
Option B: Auto-Generated
How it works:
- System automatically assigns colors based on course number hash
- Example: PHYS 1110 → green (computed from "1110")
Pros:
- ✅ Zero setup time
- ✅ Automatic for new courses
Cons:
- ❌ May not be WCAG compliant (unpredictable contrasts)
- ❌ No pattern overlays for colorblind users
- ❌ Unpredictable results (similar courses may get vastly different colors)
- ❌ No control over aesthetics
Option C: Course-Level Defaults
How it works:
- All 1000-level = green, 2000-level = blue, etc.
Pros:
- ✅ Logical grouping by level
- ✅ Easy to remember
Cons:
- ❌ Not enough visual distinction within a level (all 1000-level courses same color)
- ❌ Students need to distinguish PHYS 1110 vs 1120 vs 1140 (all green)
Impact Analysis
Impact on Accessibility:
- Option A: Guaranteed accessible (WCAG AA, colorblind-safe)
- Option B: Risky for accessibility
- Option C: Accessible but less useful
Impact on Usability:
- Option A: High (clear visual distinction)
- Option B: Unpredictable
- Option C: Low (not enough distinction)
Impact on Manager:
- Option A: 1-2 hours setup, minimal maintenance
- Option B: Zero work
- Option C: 30 minutes setup
Our Recommendation
Option A: Manual Admin Assignment
Rationale: Accessibility is non-negotiable. Manual assignment ensures WCAG compliance, colorblind safety, and clear visual distinction. The initial setup time (1-2 hours) is worth the long-term usability and accessibility benefits.
Your Input
Questions to consider:
1. Is 1-2 hours of manager time for color setup acceptable?
2. Are there existing department color preferences we should use?
3. Should colors be semantic (e.g., red for advanced courses) or arbitrary?
Provide your feedback: [Survey link] or stakeholder meeting
Decision 8: Feedback Alert Urgency
Context
When a student gives a low rating (≤2 stars), the system auto-flags it for manager review. Should this trigger an immediate email alert, or be part of a weekly review process?
Options
Option A: Weekly Review (RECOMMENDED)
How it works:
- Low ratings auto-flagged
- Manager reviews all flagged feedback once per week (e.g., every Friday)
- No immediate emails or alerts
Pros:
- ✅ Avoids alert fatigue (not interrupted constantly)
- ✅ Allows patterns to emerge (one bad rating vs consistent issues)
- ✅ Manageable workload (batch review)
- ✅ Prevents overreaction to single incidents
- ✅ Weekly cadence is sufficient for quality assurance
Cons:
- ❌ Slower response to serious issues (up to 7-day delay)
- ❌ Bad helper could continue for a week
Option B: Immediate Email Alert
How it works:
- Each low rating triggers immediate email to manager
- Manager can respond in real-time
Pros:
- ✅ Fastest response to issues
- ✅ Can intervene immediately if serious problem
Cons:
- ❌ Alert fatigue (constant emails)
- ❌ Interrupts manager workflow
- ❌ May overreact to single bad session (everyone has off days)
- ❌ Low ratings may come in clusters (Monday evening rush = stressed helpers)
Impact Analysis
Impact on Manager:
- Option A: Weekly review = ~30 min per week
- Option B: Constant interruptions, email overload
Impact on Quality:
- Option A: Catches persistent issues within a week
- Option B: Catches issues immediately but may cause overreaction
Our Recommendation
Option A: Weekly Review
Rationale: Quality assurance is important, but immediate alerts create alert fatigue and encourage overreaction to single incidents. One bad session doesn't define a helper; patterns do. Weekly review allows managers to see trends (e.g., "Garai had 3 low ratings this week" vs "Garai had 1 low rating out of 20 sessions"). For truly urgent issues (safety, misconduct), separate reporting channels exist.
Your Input
Questions to consider:
1. As a manager, can you commit to weekly feedback review (~30 min)?
2. Are there scenarios where immediate alerts are necessary?
3. What threshold would warrant immediate alerts (e.g., 3+ low ratings in one day)?
Provide your feedback: [Survey link] or stakeholder meeting
Summary of Recommendations
| Decision | Recommendation | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Feedback Visibility | Aggregate only | Encourages honest feedback, protects privacy |
| 2. Helper Flexibility | Can help anyone | Matches culture, better resource utilization |
| 3. Faculty Permissions | Section-specific | Appropriate oversight, no conflicts |
| 4. Public Display | First names + courses | Balanced usability and privacy |
| 5. Break Behavior | Finish student first | Professional, student-centered |
| 6. Queue Release | Silent | Seamless experience, no confusion |
| 7. Color Assignment | Manual admin | Guaranteed accessibility, clear distinction |
| 8. Feedback Urgency | Weekly review | Manageable, prevents overreaction |
These recommendations are based on best practices, stakeholder interviews, and accessibility requirements. However, your input is critical to finalizing these decisions.
How to Provide Feedback
Option 1: Feedback Survey
[Survey link] - Takes ~10 minutes
Option 2: Email Feedback
Send to: kristopher.bunker@colorado.edu
Format: "Decision #X: I prefer Option [A/B/C] because..."
Option 3: Stakeholder Meetings
- Faculty Session: [Date/Time TBD]
- Helper Workshop: [Date/Time TBD]
- Student Focus Group: [Date/Time TBD]
Option 4: One-on-One Discussion
Schedule time with Kristopher Bunker
Feedback Deadline
Please provide feedback by [Date] so we can incorporate your input into the final design.
Questions? Contact Kristopher Bunker - kristopher.bunker@colorado.edu
Next Steps After Feedback
- Compile all stakeholder feedback (Late Fall 2025)
- Make final decisions based on majority preferences and constraints
- Document final design with rationale
- Share updated plan with all stakeholders
- Begin phased development throughout 2026 with confidence in stakeholder buy-in
Thank you for your thoughtful input!