Surfacing Disenfranchised Users
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 user feedback collected from the website.
Approach
I began by analysing a large volume of existing customer feedback to understand not just what users were struggling with, but who was struggling and why.
​
I grouped the feedback into themes and examined how language, structure, and process interacted to create confusion or anxiety for certain users. This allowed me to distinguish between isolated usability issues and more systemic problems affecting users with specific needs or constraints.
​
The analysis was used to frame the subsequent evaluation of the form, focusing on how well it prepared users, supported them during completion, and helped them understand what would happen next.
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
Needs & pain points
The analysis showed that users struggled less with the mechanics of completing the form, and more with understanding what they were doing, what was expected of them, and what would happen next. These issues were amplified for the disenfranchised users.
​
Preparation and expectations were poorly managed
Users were unclear whether they were checking eligibility or submitting an application, what information they would need to provide, how long the process would take, or whether alternative routes (such as printing and posting the form) were available.
​
Support and guidance were present but often invisible
Help information was hidden behind poorly labelled links, input formats were rigid, and users were unable to submit supporting documents in flexible ways. As a result, many users did not notice or benefit from the assistance provided.
​
Clarity broke down where users did not fit a standard model
Users struggled with terminology, distinguishing between different forms, calculating income in non-standard situations, and explaining personal circumstances that didn’t fit predefined options.
​
Uncertainty persisted at the end of the journey
Many users were unsure whether they had completed the process successfully, what the reference number was for, whether further forms were required, or what would happen next regarding fees and refunds.
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.
