ServeIT · Fall 2026 · Final portfolio case study
Town of Nashville ACCAccessibility assessment · recommendations only
Town of Nashville ACC, this term: accessibility recommendations only. I do not edit the live town site. The deliverable is a clear set of useful next moves, because access is a condition of agency.
Who it is for: Nashville residents and visitors on the municipal site, including keyboard and screen-reader users. What shipped: accessibility assessment and prioritised recommendations (in progress through 15 Dec 2026). How judged: paths tested and a list the town can use after the clinic leaves; recommendations only, no live-site edits.
This page is long because the final rubric asks for every row, and empty rows stay marked through 15 Dec 2026.
Where detail is not ready, you will see [still writing: …].
01 · 5 pts
Introduction / professional profile
Who you are
Jade Zhao. Informatics student at IU Bloomington Luddy (May 2027). Program Assistant, Office of Student Life, HHSP (Hudson & Holland Scholars Program). Student Digital Humans project lead and Serve IT team lead. Nashville this term is recommendations only.
Your area(s) of interest
Digital Humans, human-centred AI, UX (user experience), and business technology. This semester the clear case study is the ServeIT Town of Nashville ACC.
Your technical strengths
Accessibility-minded web work and clear scoping for nonprofit and municipal partners. Business Technology minor habits help here: intake, partner language, and realistic deliverables when staff cannot keep a student developer on retainer. This term is an accessibility audit, recommendations only. Earlier Serve IT semesters were website leads with Middle Way House, Indiana Phenology, and the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce. The ladder is on the home page; how clinic work ties to UX and HCI.
The kinds of work you want to do
GTM (go-to-market) engineering, AI product, and solutions work, with Digital Humans as the student project I keep studying. I care about interfaces people might still want to use on an ordinary day. I only write down what has actually shipped.
Links
02 · 5 pts
Project overview
Problem statement
Residents and visitors need town information and services online. Accessibility barriers on a municipal website shut people out of content they have a right to use. This case study tracks an ACC (accessibility assessment) of townofnashville.org: recommendations the town can act on, not a student redesign of the live site. Detail that backs this up lives in Process, Deliverables, and Reflection (some rows still marked placeholder while the semester runs).
- Dates
- ServeIT Fall 2026 clinic term. Case study in progress through 15 Dec 2026. [still writing: exact kickoff and handoff dates from Canvas / clinic calendar]
- Team
- ServeIT Fall 2026 · Nashville ACC. Team Lead / Co-lead: Jade Zhao and Aanya Arora. Interns: Chiara Bouckaert, Mueyae Pae, Bhumika Sati. Clinic supervisor: Maya Marotti. Weekly team meeting window: Thursday 18:00 to 19:00. Lead Design Manager = N/A (ACC assessment, not a design build).
- What the team as a whole was asked to do
- Assess accessibility of the Town of Nashville public website and produce clear, prioritised recommendations for town staff. Recommendations only. Students do not edit the live municipal site. [still writing: add one sentence from the Design Scope / Scope of Work once you can quote it publicly]
- What my part of the work entailed
- Team Lead / Co-lead with Aanya: sprint planning, Microsoft Planner / kanban, delegation, quality of assessment work, Canvas attendance / team-doc submits (co-leads alternate), and client-facing clarity through clinic channels. [still writing: list specific cards or artefacts I personally owned once they exist]
03 · 5 pts
Client description
Client: Town of Nashville (Brown County, Indiana). Agency website: https://www.townofnashville.org/. The town site says it provides information to residents and visitors about boards, commissions, water and sewer utilities, and town ordinances and resolutions. The work this term is recommendations. Students do not edit the live municipal site.
1. What the client wanted
[still writing: quote or paraphrase from the team Design Scope / Scope of Work once it is safe to publish] True line for now: an accessibility assessment with findings packaged so staff can improve access, without student edits on the live site.
2. What problem you tried to solve
[still writing: client-stated problem in their words] True line for now: accessibility barriers on a public municipal site block people from town information and services.
3. The process you went through to reach the final solution
[still writing: short process summary once stakeholder research, training, and evaluation passes are written down] See also the labelled rows under Process / how you worked.
4. What that final solution is
[still writing: final prioritised recommendations report / presentation at handoff] True line for now: the planned solution is recommendations only, not a live-site rebuild by the student team.
04 · 5 pts
Process / how you worked
True boundary for every row below: this ACC produces recommendations, and students do not edit the live municipal site. Case study in progress through 15 Dec 2026.
Research
[still writing: stakeholder research notes / public-safe summary]
Data collection
[still writing: page inventory and visitor-journey notes]
Accessibility assessment
[still writing: evaluation method notes and first public-safe findings]
Wireframes
[still writing: annotation sketches only if used to explain a recommendation] ACC track is not a UI redesign. Lead Design Manager = N/A.
Agile / sprint workflows
Weekly team meeting window: Thursday 18:00 to 19:00. Co-leads alternate Canvas attendance / team-doc submits. [still writing: Planner / sprint goal wording once safe to share]
Testing
[still writing: automated triage + manual review notes for priority paths]
Iteration
[still writing: how findings were re-prioritised before handoff]
Technical decision-making
[still writing: which tools we trusted for triage versus confirmation, and how recommendations were phrased for staff] Boundary that stays firm: recommend, do not silently change the live municipal site.
05 · 5 pts
Tools and technologies
Only real lines where confirmed. Unconfirmed tools stay marked.
- Figma
- [still writing: name the tool if you used it]
- Tableau
- [still writing: name the tool if you used it]
- GitHub
- Real for this portfolio: github.com/jadexzhao versions the public case study page.
- Excel
- [still writing: name the tool if you used it]
- Accessibility tools
- [still writing: name specific tools once training and evaluation use them, for example WAVE, axe DevTools, keyboard-only checks] True line: this project is an accessibility assessment (ACC) for Town of Nashville; students do not edit the live site.
- CMS platforms
- [still writing: name the tool if you used it]
- APIs
- [still writing: name the tool if you used it]
- Microsoft Planner / Teams (clinic rhythm)
- Real for team lead rhythm on this project: Planner / kanban and Teams for clinic coordination. Meeting window Thursday 18:00 to 19:00.
06 · 10 pts
Deliverables / artifacts
Security-team documents must keep client privacy. Block out or remove client names and website mentions on any item shown. On this public page, do not paste private scope text, vulnerabilities, or non-public names. Town of Nashville ACC is the public project name and is fine.
Screenshots
[still writing: public-safe screenshot]
Dashboard images
[still writing: dashboard image if used]
Wireframes
[still writing: wireframe or annotation if used]
Reports
[still writing: recommendations report]
Code snippets
[still writing: code snippet if relevant]
Data visualisations
[still writing: data visualisation if used]
Videos / demo links
[still writing: video or demo link if used]
Presentation slides
[still writing: presentation slides]
Before / after comparisons
[still writing: before / after only if the town publishes fixes and permits sharing]
Testimonials or client feedback
[still writing: attributed quote with permission, in quotation marks]
07 · 10 pts
Final reflection
I am collecting this while the semester is still going, through 15 Dec 2026, so the detail stays fresh. Empty rows stay marked until the work is real.
What you learned
[still writing: what I learned]
Challenges encountered
[still writing: challenges encountered]
What you would improve
[still writing: what I would improve]
Team communication lessons
[still writing: team communication lessons]
Ethical considerations
[still writing: ethical considerations]
Technical growth
[still writing: technical growth]