Thanks for coming to me with your idea for being able to manually sort the content on your page. I know that you’d like some more control over how your posts are displayed, but we’re intentionally limiting the amount of control we’re giving content creators to help maintain some consistency, so let’s talk about the best way to help you.

Familiar and semi-familiar situations, with a reaction based on prior experiences Our challenge is that each view is supposed to be sorted chronologically so that users know to expect the most recent content at the top. This keeps the list of posts fresh and ensures that all the content creators are submitting new content each week.

Rather than give you the ability to manually sort all of the content, I would suggest adding a feature with which you can “pin” one article to the top of your stream at any time. If you were to pin a new one, it would replace the existing one. We’ll add a special icon or visual clue to show that it’s been pinned.

This will maintain the user’s understanding of our content streams being sorted chronologically. The visual clues will help them know that this one pinned piece has been removed from the regular stream of content.

For you, it will highlight that single post out of all the others, giving it extra exposure for a longer period of time. Plus, it gives you a greater sense of control over how things are displayed without running the risk that everyone will start reordering their content.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us about this project. Your insights are really valuable, and I appreciate you going through all of that with us. I’m going to go back through all of your points so that we can discuss them, but I want you to know that some of the things we decided on are rooted in an explanation that I think you’ll agree with when we start talking about it.
First, I want to review the new “Add to Cart” interaction.

The issue we’re trying to address is that when a user sees this interface for the first time, they’re confused by the presence of two buttons and don’t really know what each one means or which one they should tap.

Our solution is to consolidate those into one button labeled “Add to cart.” Tapping on the single button reveals more options and gives the user the option to make the second choice after committing to the first rather than having to make all those decisions up front.

Keep in mind that our users are frequently ordering at their place of business. It could be a busy manager walking down the hall who notices that a light bulb is out and needs to order a new one on the spot. We don’t necessarily have his full attention and need to present him with really simple options that don’t require too much thought.

We believe our solution is going to increase conversion, because even though it creates an extra tap for the user, it makes the choice of adding an item to their cart much, much simpler. There is no question about what “Add to Cart” means because it relates to standard commerce. Very simply, more people are going to tap “Add to Cart.”

Thanks for your input on the logo and colors. I agree with you that we could adjust a few things to improve it. The challenge is that the marketing department is driving this effort, and we’ve had little input in final decisions. However, I think there are some points of discussion here.

Marketing would like to brand this initiative separately from the rest of the product to create a campaign and awareness around it. The problem is that, in my opinion, our users will not understand the difference between these subbrands. They use the application for its utility, not for its branded add-ons, and placing these extra elements like logos and tag lines gets in their way.

My suggestion is avoid the use of a logo in this space and instead focus the branding effort on the use of color and copy to communicate the message. In this particular view, we could work with small icons to identify the add-on services or add a line of copy in a new color to highlight the value. This will save us a significant amount of space with minimal impact to the user. To do this, we’ll need to go back to marketing and work with them on this solution.

From the users’ perspectives, a subbrand like this is meaningless. They are primarily interested in completing their tasks and getting their job done. By putting a logo in their way, we are hindering their ability to use the application efficiently, and therefore, slowing them down. This is not only potentially frustrating to our users, but also risks conversion for paid services when users aren’t able to get into the flow as quickly as they could.

Our goal for this initiative was to create a new revenue stream for add-on services when the user enters the flow. Although I know marketing wants to capitalize on this opportunity to create a new product with these add-ons, I believe that a branded approach does not provide value to the user (at best) and confuses them and slows them down (at worst). In other words, it might actually dampen our efforts at creating revenue from this channel.

Thanks for your input. I really appreciate your viewpoint on these changes and I understand your suggestion about needing to add these new options to the main menu. However, I think there’s a better solution we can discuss to make sure these new features have visibility.

The problem I see is that we frequently add new options to the main menu and it’s becoming a catch-all for links that we don’t know what to do with. Secondly, these are time-based promotions rather than permanent offers so it’s unlikely that a user will explicitly look for them in the menu since they don’t view them a constant feature set.

My suggestion is focus our effort on highlighting these promotions in the content slots that we already use for other important messaging, like system alerts or the search suggestion text. When these new offers are available, we can display them in those content areas and have even more space for images and other content.

We don’t want our users to be overwhelmed by the number of options in the main menu. Instead, we can provide more value to them by adding appropriate context-aware messaging that’s relevant to their current task.

If we put these items in the main menu, it will actually backfire because the people will be less likely to find it buried in that menu. However, strategically placing them on the page in our existing slots will actually increase visibility for the offers and improve engagement for this initiative.

Thanks for your suggestion to add the logo to the header of the app. I know you want to brand the experience and I agree that’s important, so let’s talk about how to best accomplish that.

The challenge with an application like this is that we have a limited amount of space for the user to have access to everything in the navigation. Plus, we want them to remain focused on their tasks with as few distractions as possible.

The reason we chose not to include the logo in the header is because it does not actually provide any functionality for the user. By not including it, we have more space for the navigation options and a simpler interface for the user.

The logo doesn’t directly provide value to the user after they’re in the app. It only serves to reinforce the brand of a service they are already consuming. The user can more easily focus on using the application efficiently because they have one less visual distraction. The more we can remove from the interface, the more the user experience will be improved.

Branding is important, which is why we’ve worked the brand into our colors, language, and interactions throughout the app. We’re also providing an “About” option with a page that has the logo and links to our other products. It’s also worth pointing out that users are already invested in our brand because they signed up for the service. The login view also prominently displays the logo.

Thanks for your time and for sharing your thoughts with us on this new design. You made several suggestions for changes, which I’ve noted, and I’d like to go through each one so that we can be sure we’re in agreement.

The first thing you mentioned was the need to add a phone number field to the sign-up form. Our focus with this effort is to increase conversions on the form, so our design is optimized for that goal.

We removed the phone number field for a few reasons. First, it’s a best practice to contact customers using the same medium that they contacted you. So, an online form submission warrants an email, rather than a phone call. Next, fewer fields on any form typically boosts conversion because users can complete it more quickly and don’t need to think as much about what they’re entering. But finally, I have some research showing that just the presence of a phone number field on a form will hurt conversion by more than 30 percent, even if the field isn’t required.

The reason for this is because many users are wary of sharing their phone number for fear of being added to a telemarketing call list. Further, the presence of the phone field alone makes them skeptical of the company that is asking for it. Many wonder, “Why would anyone need my phone number for an online form?”

I know you’d like to have the user’s phone number for your records, but it will be better for our goal of improving conversion if we remove it from the form. After a user has converted, we’ll have plenty of opportunities to follow up with her, engage her in a relationship, and progressively add information to her profile. This will create more meaningful relationships with new customers and establish trust right from the beginning. Removing the field is the best balance of creating a great user experience while also achieving our goals for the business.

Thank you for your time today. I appreciate your input on our project. You have a unique perspective on the business and I’d like to discuss some of your concerns as well as bring up a few of my own. But I think we’re on the same page, as far as what we need to focus on.

The problem we’re trying to solve with this design is communicating the savings value to the shopper. Our approach is focused on highlighting just how much people can save on these items without them having to think about it too much. The challenge with this current implementation is that the business has defined too many messages to communicate those savings all in one small space. Here we have the list price, percentage savings, dollar off, free shipping, and a “Great Value” flag. In addition to that, we’re also tasked with including messaging around urgency with a timer, quantity available, and “Limited Time Offer.”

Our solution is to apply some logic and rules regarding what messages are shown and when, so that we don’t overwhelm the user with too many messages at once. For example, we should always choose between showing the percentage and the dollar off, but never both. In this case, we show the savings percentage because it’s greater than 30 percent and communicates the value more than the amount of dollars off, which is only $3. Next, we will show the timer only if the value will expire within 24 hours, and we show the quantity available only when it reaches a certain threshold. Structuring our messages around this logic is the best way to communicate that value to the shopper, without creating a jackpot of showing all the messages at once.

Shoppers do not have time to read all the details, do the math, and figure out which items represent the best value. Showing them too many messages will only confuse them more because they won’t know which message to focus on. Our approach allows us to have some control over which messages to present to them so that we can remove the burden from them and they can focus on purchasing the item. This will result in faster purchase decisions.

If we focus only on the most important, relevant messages for each item, we are more likely to increase sales and revenue on these items because they will be easier for the shoppers to read and purchase. Reducing the number of messages the user sees frees them up to make the purchasing decision faster, resulting in better conversion.

Thank you for your perspective on the case list view. You have some great feedback, and I’d like to go through everything to be sure we’re on the same page about what needs to be done.

You mentioned that you’d like the ability to customize each report directly on the view of the graph itself. I agree that would be a great addition to the app.

We purposefully left out this idea because it wasn’t within our scope for this phase of the project. The concept requires adding quite a bit of functionality and design effort to really implement it well.

We understand that although this feature would be useful for some users, the majority of people using the application do not require this level of customization. For the time being, the interface will be simpler without it.

If we stay focused on finishing the case view in its simplest form as is, we’ll be able to complete this core feature set within our timeline and get this view to users sooner. Afterward, we can collect additional feedback from users and make a plan to implement your idea.

Thank you for your thoughts on the dashboard. Yes, I agree that a new widget showing the overall totals would be useful, but that wasn’t in the original designs, so let’s discuss the best solution.

The problem is that the graphs need to take up the full width of the application because we have less control over the display, given that it’s a third-party solution. Also, we already are including widgets for the current status as well as follow-ups, so there just isn’t very much space available to add another one. The current arrangement of widgets is designed to optimize the application for reducing late follow-ups.

I would recommend replacing either the Current widget or the Follow-up widget with a new Totals widget, if that is the priority now. We can use the existing slots for the new widget without modifying the design and we keep the interface simpler by not adding one more thing.

The challenge with this approach is that we’ve already reviewed the needs with our internal users, and they agreed that our current widgets were the most needed in this first version. I don’t want to add one and create clutter or information overload for them. At the same time, I want to satisfy the request for what they expressed they needed from this dashboard. I know Hannah is expecting to train her staff based on our current designs.

To be practical, even just swapping one widget for another will slow down our progress because we don’t have a design for the new widget and it will need new support from the developers. From our perspective, that could delay the release a week. Maybe more. And even though the Totals widget is nice, it does not help us accomplish our goal of reducing late follow-ups. If we remove one of the existing widgets in favor of a Totals widget, I’d suggest modifying our objectives, too, because we’ll need a new target to focus on with a different arrangement of widgets.

Thank you for your time today and for sharing your feedback with us on these new designs. I’ve taken notes on everything you suggested and I’d like to go through each one to be sure we understand. With all of our designs, we are taking into consideration both the needs of the business and the users. I think it will help the discussion for you to understand our thought process on some of these areas.

Your first suggestion was that we change the input fields on the medical history form. This is an interesting part of the application because it has the highest abandonment rate compared to the other parts of the app. About 40 percent of users drop off before completing this section. We’d like to solve getting users through this step so that we can make sure they make it to the subsequent steps and complete the process.

Our solution was based on an assumption that the field labels were confusing to the average person, so the first thing we did was to update the names with more user-friendly language. But next, we spoke with some of the call-center associates who helped us understand that many users simply don’t have the details of their medical history with them at the time, so requiring all these fields before moving on forces them to abandon the site.

To make it easier for our users, we’ve removed many of the required fields on purpose and allowed them to indicate which information they have and which information they will provide later. This allows them to complete this step for now, even if their data is incomplete. We can prompt them to complete it the next time they log in or send them an email notification after a few days. The user will have a greater sense of control and be more likely to get to the next step because of these changes.

What that means for us is that we will see significantly higher submission rates because more people will be able to make it to the next step. Not only that, but we’ll have more accurate data because some users were filling in fake information just to move forward. But the bonus is that we’ll see fewer support calls because users will be able to complete the application now without assistance. That will save us real money in the call center. We’re already storing the data as it is entered, so we can still go back and complete their profile with them when they’re on site, if needed. There’s no risk of losing information.