Further Evaluation
For this step, we took the revised Paper Prototype and conducted a similar usability test on people outside of class. This allowed us to get additional feedback from users from different fields and levels of technological proficiency.
The tasks tested were very similar to that of the Paper Prototypes.
- Settings: Populate the insurance information fields
- Chat: Schedule an appointment to address a medical concern
- Preventative care: Hide/unhide benefits, schedule an appointment
Here are some of the main takeaways we got from the tests, and how they are reflected in the Wireframes.
Settings
Feedback about the layout of this task was fairly positive. Despite two of our participants voicing concerns about how the entered information would be used, none of the participants reviewed the privacy information provided. This demonstrates that the users saw the privacy issues as outweighed by the usefulness of the tools that can access by entering their information.
After much deliberation, it was at this point we decided to require users to enter their information in order to use the app. This would keep us from having to redesign each interaction based on the amount of information the user has entered and allow consistency throughout the app. This is reflected in the inclusion of an introduction on the High-Fidelity Mockups, which requires users to enter their information before entering the app. We also used this onboarding process to convince more users that the usefulness of the app is indeed worth trusting the app with their personal information.
Chat
Although all the users were able to successfully navigate this task, a few details were a bit confusing to our users. One user did not see the prompt to type their own response so they thought they were limited to the options on the response menus, though this might have had something to do with the fidelity of the prototype. Another user noticed an inconsistency in the scheduling process in chat and the preventative care screen, and preferred the preventative care scheduler because it has more options. We responded to these issues by making the prompt bigger on the mockups and ensuring that users had access to more options when scheduling an appointment from chat.
A difficult piece of feedback we received from two users was that they were not sure who they were chatting with. We considered creating a chat persona such as Siri or Cortana to represent the bot, but getting mixed feedback on that idea made it difficult to directly address this issue.
Care
This screen was a lot more successful than in the first round of testing. The participants were able to filter through the categories quickly and easily.
All 3 of the users still struggled to hide a benefit, indicating that the swiping interaction was not intuitive. Two of the users questioned why they would even need to hide a benefit at all. We explored other prioritization methods like “favoriting” a benefit to have it appear on top, but decided on the simplest one: no prioritization. We found that a preventative care list is often not long enough to justify a complicated sorting method.
Downloadable PDFs
PocketPlan 