Redesign and iterations


The last stage of our process was to test, iterate, redesign and over again in the loop. I personally loved it because in this phase you realise how funny is the way in which human brain works.  Just when you think you fixed everything and done the design in the proper way, there is still something more to do.

That’s why it’s proved one more time – user testing should be done continuously, regularly and we should listen to our users because sometimes things that make perfect sense to us – don’t make any sense to them. It’s not enough just to design something and develop it. And the product is never perfect. We should always improve and listen to our users.

 

User Testing Sessions

 

We did 11 user testing sessions:

  1. Existing PTSB process – 1 user
  2. Our Redesign – 6 users
  3. Iteration 1 – 2 users
  4. Iteration 2 – 2 users

 

User Testing Videos
Click on the image to view all the User Testing Videos

 

After testing our redesign with 6 users, it wasn’t so easy to meet up and discuss about the changes to be made because of the lack of the free time all 3 of us had. That’s why we decided to go with this approach and screenshot every UT session with included comments to improve.

 

 


1. Login process

Below I have outlined and contrasted this:

  • the existing PTSB current login process with a minimum of:
    • 3 screens
    • 7 clicks
    • 3 input fields
    • 20 second process
  • with our proposed flow improvements
    • with “Touch ID” option
      • 1 screen
      • 1 click
      • no input fields
      • 2 seconds process
    • with “Enter PAN” option
      • 2 screens
      • 1 click
      • 1 input field
      • 4 seconds process

 

Existing process

 

We tried to develop a product that is usable, easy to learn (that people in general don’t feel stupid when they use it), effective to use and that it provides to the users an enjoyable user experience. I think that the first step to get there is to identify the weaknesses of the bad products (like for example in the existing PTSB mobile app – long, painful login process) and try to improve it. With iteration, we should be able to get there.

 

iterations - login
Changes we did in the prototype after each round of user testing

 

After first iteration, we decided to change the order of the PAN reset options in an order that users would most likely use it. After the second one, we added the shadow under the Quick Balance button so it’s more prominent.

 

Redesigned, final process

 


2. Transfer funds to a new person

As I mentioned before, this flow never existed in PTSB mobile banking app so we had complete freedom in executing this task in the best possible way. We kept it simple and with as less steps as possible, asking only the essential information needed for transfer – IBAN, name and the amount.

 

Existing process

 

We kept it simple in this one, having in mind that one of the main design principles for the website and app design is simplicity. Nielsen proposes that designers go through all of their design elements and remove them one by one. If it works well, keep it that way.

We also thought about our personas when designing this – and came up with the easiest way to get the stuff done – asking but only things that are necessary.

 

new payee it

 

After the 1st iteration we removed the “Card Scan” option because none of our users actually used it. They even thought it wasn’t secure enough as an option – so after we compared the value that it brings and the actual cost of it, we decided to remove it.

We actually had a second iteration, after this slide, and it was related to removing the saved payees from the flow when the user selects “+Add New” and gets an input field for IBAN and Name.

 

Redesigned, final process

 


Conclusion


 

AE

Four weeks later our first project has come to a close.

I’m extremely pleased with how our project formed and evolved. We started by conducting research using multiple methods before settling on one problem area to work on. If our project was lacking in one area, I believe it would be not iterating enough before settling on one solution.

There are many aspects to this project I think we excelled at as a team, one of them has to be our strong process flow used from the start. We all participated in each step along the way, playing to our individual strengths and sharing our past experiences to advise of next steps to take.

Rob’s great background in psychology came in very useful, specially when creating the personas and scenarios, and conducting user testing. Peter’s attention to detail turned to be extremely helpful when doing research, comparing analytics and fixing the prototype after iterations. I did a lot of work on sketching, creating the wireframes and user testing – so I can say that each one of us had their own puzzle piece which we managed to put together and finish this project in the best possible way.

 


 

References

  1. Wroblewski, L. (2018, October 3). Luke Wroblewski on LinkedIn: “Creativity is people who care enough to keep thinking about something until they find the simplest way to do it.” -Tim… Retrieved October 3, 2018, from https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6452919668620476416
  2. Krug, Steve, Elisabeth Bayle, Aren Straiger, and Mark Matcho. Dont Make Me Think, Revisited: A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability. San Francisco, CA: New Riders, Peachpit, Pearson Education, 2014.
  3. Preece, J., Sharp, H., & Rogers, Y. (2017). Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction. Chichester (West Sussex, United Kingdom): Wiley.
3 - Developing a Paper Prototype
0 - User Research Methods