EXPERT REVIEW CASE STUDY
BACKGROUND
I was tasked into looking digging into the customer feedback data to see how I could improve the user experience of an online application form for help with legal fees that was run by a UK government department.
​
This was a remote role. I was given access to around 3000 pieces of feedback, and I began my analysis by grouping the data into themes, based on the common issues reported by users.
THE USERS
It soon became apparent that while the majority of users had a positive experience, a small group of users were experiencing deep frustration, anxiety and confusion.
​
I called this user group the Disenfranchised Users. They included :
1.
The elderly
2.
Non native English speakers
3.
Users with disabilities ranging from vision impairment to dyslexia
4.
Users with low literacy skills (linguistic and digital)
5.
Users with mental health issues, and those suffering anxiety or stress
USER NEEDS & PAIN POINTS
Their context of use also had an impact on their ability to complete the tasks assigned by the form. Some users were in public libraries, or unable to print off the form to post it.
​
They were unsure whether they were checking to see if they were eligible for this service, or had in fact completed the application form.
​
Although they were given information throughout their journey, this was hidden in a link beneath the call to action button, and it was obvious from the feedback that some users were not seeing this link.
​
In addition to the helpful information being hidden, the label was not self-evident and this added to the "invisibility" of that information.
​
Another issue was the time taken for the service to process the application. This information was given at the end of the application, and because expectations were not managed at the outset, this information exacerbated the feelings they already had.
In addition to upsetting the disenfranchised users, this was the number one complaint from the users who had taken the happy path. The areas were disenfranchised users encountered the most difficulty was split into five themes :
​
Preparing Users
​
-
The copy did not provide users with a clear understanding of the process
-
Users were not prepared sufficiently to complete the form
-
Users were not given alternative routes to applying if they were unable to do so online
-
Some users assumed that the application was all processed online
-
Users were not told that they could download, print and post the form instead
-
Eligibility was not clear enough
-
Users were not told what details of income/savings they would need to provide
Usability
-
Some Users did not notice the “help” link, which contained useful information that was hidden from the natural view
-
Users were not given the opportunity to upload and/or email supporting documents
-
Users were forced to adopt specific formats (date input/RTF upload)
Clarity
-
Some users did not understand the difference between a claim form and the application form, with a number of users assuming that it was the same thing
-
Some users do not know where to find the relevant claim form and/or the name of the relevant claim form
Lack of support when one size does not fit all
-
Users were not given the opportunity to elaborate on their personal circumstances and some believe this would impact their application
-
Some users had difficulty in calculating wages if they were not paid monthly
-
Some users had difficulty in understanding what is classed as income
What happens next?
​
-
Some users were unsure at the end of the process of whether they had achieved what they expected to achieve
-
Some users did not understand what form they had to fill in
-
Some users were unclear about the Reference Number and where it needed to go
-
Some users were unsure if they still had to pay the fee and wait for a refund
THE SOLUTION
The solution was expressed via a comprehensive set of annotated wireframes and a report. The wireframes adopted the style guide set by central government.
The recommendations were that the eligibility section of the form should be separated from the application and that clarity should be provided on the process. Users are given thorough preparation of what steps lie ahead.
​
The help information was more appropriately positioned next to the instructional text for the Disenfranchised Users, without interrupting the journey for more confident users.
​
The bulk of the complaints were due to the positioning, visual treatment and copy, and by optimising the usability of the form to address the needs of disenfranchised users, I am confident that the solution will work more efficiently for all users.
