Usertesting

Introduction

These usertesting sessions were all conducted in the context of Erediensten.

In order to find out whether the application we are building works well for the users, we have conducted some interviews and user testing sessions. The sessions were planned in the week of 21/06/2021 and 25/06/2021. This is before the launch of the MVP.

To read the conclusions of the sessions, jump to the conclusions section of the page.

Usertesting

The format of the sessions follows the usertesting template.

Users

We invited 9 people from LOW to the sessions:

• Case handlers

  • Legal experts

  • Executive staff

• Management support workers

Introduction

We started with a short introduction to the Organisation Portal, for those who hadn't yet had an introduction. [the link shows some mock-ups as well, but we purposefully did not include those in the presentation as we wanted them to see it during the test]

The slides presented to the LOW case managers can be found here (Dutch)

Interview

We asked some questions to find out how the users do their job [in the context of Erediensten] to better understand how they would use the application we're building. Although we had prepared questions, this was more of a conversation we had together.

We asked questions such as:

• Can you tell me what a typical day looks like for you? [in the context of Erediensten]

  • What data do you edit? How often?

  • What data do you look up?

  • How do you communicate with administrative units?

• What tools do you use for your job?

  • What do you like/dislike about Sharepoint?

• Do you communicate [internally] about updated/edits in Sharepoint?

Usertest

To conduct the test, we used the real application [dev environment] for the first session for the pages that already existed (administrative units - Kerngegevens, and Personen).

We used a Figma prototype for all other pages, and used the prototype in all subsequent sessions, as there was a bug on the real application, preventing us from using it.

We let the user navigate through all the screens in the application, asking them:

• What they saw

• What certain information meant

• If they thought the lay out was logical

• Whether they would use it

Closing remarks

After testing the prototype, we came back together to gather some generic feedback and thoughts.

Conclusions

To draw conclusion, we used this template.

Interview

The users mostly use Sharepoint as a tool, although both Kalliope and Religopoint were also mentioned.

Most users thought Sharepoint worked well for them, but we still identified some UX issues:

• Filters are not up to par

• Scrolling through spreadsheets is cluttered and confusing

• Loading time (slow)

• The navigation isn't always clear

  • [sometimes, they even have to ask a link to a specific thing from someone else, because they are unable to find it themselves]

Usertest

We have identified several things that hinder the user experience.

You can find the prioritised list here:

Requires analysis

• Maatschappelijke zetel vs. correspondentie adres

• Definition "Hoofdgebouw" [not blocking]

Implemented in Vestigingen.

Blocking

• Add "Gemeente" filter for Persons

This needs to be discussed with the dev team

Not-blocking

• Add "Provincie" filter for administrative units

• "Soort eredienst" is a filter, but not visible in the table

• Adding a filter for status [both for persons and administrative units]

  • Most users only need Active data, and adding a filter would make everything less cluttered

• Show contact details on the personal information page [Person]

• "Status datum" label meaning is unclear

  • YB: I think during a meeting a proposal is already done to rename this to: "Gewijzigd op" and make this a smaller subtext under Status

These need to be discussed with the dev team

Nice to have*

• "Verbonden juridische structuren" - meaning unclear

• Status of a person - meaning unclear

*For the items in the Nice To Have column, we discussed organising sessions with the users to explain how the product works and introduce them to new terminology, similar to the gebruikerssessies done for Gelinkt Notuleren.

Copy suggestions

• "Niet-Actief" instead of "Gestopt" in the administrative unit status

This has been brought to the attention of Heidi and Katrien. We know that different ideas exist here, because we want to be correct from a legal standpoint, but also want to use term that end-users understand. Currently Gestopt can be implemented, but we are aware that the Status Codelist will be reviewed in the future again.

• "Strekking" is enough, there is no need to add "Denominatie" [Kerngegevens administrative units]

  • Strekking is a term that endusers understand (and they have used in their SP list for worship services). Denominatie is the legally correct name.

Still needs to be implemented

• "Bestuursleden" instead of "Verkozen bestuursleden" in the Mandates table

  • This is because members aren't always elected (verkozen means elected)

This has already been implemented in the designs and on gitbook.

Closing remarks

• “If the application loads as fast as the prototype, then that would definitely be an improvement”

• Most users asked whether the administrative units could fill in the information themselves

• Overall: Good feeling about future possibilities, all of them wanted a working environment to mess around with in their own time