Designing for Dignity: How User Experience Testing Helped Shape a Justice System That Works for All
The Challenge
Court buildings can be overwhelming. The unfamiliar setting, high stakes, and emotional pressure make every friction point harder. Wayfinding becomes part of the justice process—it shapes how people access services, where they turn for support, and how they feel from the moment they arrive.
At Wyndham, multiple jurisdictions and services were being brought together for the first time. The facility would be the largest outside central Melbourne and needed to support a wide range of users, from first-time visitors to court professionals.
To ensure the wayfinding system could handle this complexity, we needed more than assumptions. We needed to see how it actually worked—for real people, in real scenarios—before the building opened.
Project
Wyndham Law Courts
Client
Court Services Victoria
Collaborators
Location
Werribee, Victoria, Australia
Size
Project Build Cost
Focus
The Response
We built a full-scale immersive virtual model of the court precinct using Unreal Engine, incorporating all wayfinding signs from the design documentation. In collaboration with Deakin University, we created interactive test scenarios for users wearing VR headsets. Eye-tracking and interviews captured both observed and spoken feedback.
Participants completed realistic court-related tasks: finding courtrooms, navigating to information points, reaching toilets or exits. Their experiences revealed what worked and where improvements were needed.
The research method followed clear protocols drawn from environmental psychology and UX design. Testing conditions were carefully controlled, and the data was rigorously analysed.
Diverse Users, Real Experience
Over eight days, we tested with 38 participants across Melbourne and Wyndham. The group reflected the full diversity of the court’s future users:
First-time and returning public court users
Court professionals
CALD community members
Local Aboriginal participants
LGBTQIA+ individuals
People with mobility limitations, low literacy, or hidden disabilities
Neurodiverse participants
Wyndham residents
Ages ranged from 18 to 84, and 42% spoke a language other than English at home. Most participants had never used VR before but could complete their tasks after a short induction. Each scenario was tailored to reflect realistic experiences—from attending a hearing to finding legal aid.
What We Found
Participants were able to complete their journeys, but the testing made visible a set of consistent usability issues—especially under cognitive load. Many of these had already been raised earlier in the project. Testing brought them back into focus, with clear evidence to support changes.
1. Signage needed to work harder at key points
72% of users had difficulty reading suspended signs. Fonts were too small, positioning was too high, and directional cues weren’t clear.
→ Recommendation: Lower signs, simplify layouts, use more signage at eye level and provide visual cues near lifts and stairs.
2. Information grouping caused misinterpretation
Unrelated destinations looked like they were part of the same room.
→ Recommendation: Clarify visual hierarchy using spacing, arrows, and layout conventions.
3. Pictograms didn’t stand alone effectively
Icons without accompanying text caused confusion. Even ISO-standard symbols like “i” weren’t universally recognised.
→ Recommendation: Combine text and pictograms consistently across all touchpoints.
4. Human interaction remained a preferred fallback
69% of users said they would prefer to ask someone for directions—even when signs were available.
→ Recommendation: Add a staffed information point and make wayfinding support roles highly visible and easy to approach.
5. Language needed to be more direct
Terms like “Community Connections” and “General Enquiries” were vague. People didn’t always know what they referred to.
→ Recommendation: Use clear, action-based labels and clarify functions with additional signage where needed.
6. Stress amplified minor challenges
Even without real-world pressure, participants forgot instructions, second-guessed directions, and hesitated at decision points.
→ Recommendation: Reinforce wayfinding cues consistently. Include orientation aids in arrival materials and at key transition points.
7. Numbering systems were inconsistent with user expectations
Room numbers like 2.1, 2.10 and 210 appeared near each other and caused confusion.
→ Recommendation: Restructure numbering so it reflects user logic, rather than internal categorisation.
8. Missing confirmation signage slowed movement
People paused at lift exits or stair landings when no clear reinforcement signage was visible.
→ Recommendation: Add directional prompts at every transition to maintain momentum and reduce anxiety.
The Outcome
Many of the changes identified through testing had already been raised during earlier design reviews. The test results brought them back into focus and gave Court Services the evidence and ammunition needed to follow through.
By analysing user behaviour and interview feedback, we turned early-stage design recommendations into well-supported, actionable decisions.
By identifying these patterns through observed behaviour and qualitative interviews, we were able to turn early design recommendations into defensible, data-backed decisions.
The findings were used to make strategic updates to the system before fitout. These included:
Adjustments to sign height, placement, and grouping
Clearer, simpler language on signs and support materials
Revised room numbering
Added signage at decision points
Pre-visit instructions and visual stories to reduce stress
Recommendations for staff presence and support visibility
These updates were integrated into the project while still in development—avoiding costly retrofits and enabling a smoother launch.
Why It Matters
A justice building needs more than security checks and courtrooms. It needs to work for the people who use it—especially those arriving under pressure, navigating unfamiliar systems, or unsure where to begin.
This project didn’t leave that experience to chance. The team made decisions with evidence, grounded in real-world behaviour. The wayfinding system was shaped through testing, refined through feedback, and delivered with the needs of all users in mind.
Designing for dignity means reducing friction, building clarity, and ensuring people feel supported from the start. That’s the standard we set here.
