The User Experience Framework (UEF) team at Social Security Administration (SSA) conducted usability testing on October 3, 2013 at Enoch Pratt Library in Baltimore, MD. This research was conducted to learn more about the basic patterns intended for use in the User Experience Framework (UEF) version 2.0.
Patterns used in this round of testing included:
| Layout | Inputs | Links | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public Template | Address (International) | Radio List | Definition |
| Container (Basic) | Check List | Sex | |
| Container (Summary) | Country | Social Security Number (SSN) | Help |
| Form Controls | Date (of Event) | State | Print (Page) |
| Modal (Lightbox) | Date (Text Box) | Text Area | Print (Region) |
| Single Row Action Table | Drop List | Text Box | |
| Notice | Email Address | Yes/No | |
| Application Sections | Name | ZIP Code | |
| Phone (International) |
The prototype used was a fake application based on iAppeals. It guided the participant through a series of screens that allowed them to help their fictional neighbor (played by the facilitator) complete her disability application online.
Participants were then asked some post-test questions about their overall thoughts.
We tested 9 participants during this session with the following device breakdown:
- 3 iPad participants
- 2 Desktop participants
- 4 mobile phone participants (1 iPhone, 3 Samsung Galaxy)
There were no significant problems with any of the patterns tested; however, the ability to navigate within the application warrants further testing.
- Only 2 users clicked the inline link
Note for any future testing of this prototype: remove the bulleted content examples for a better way to test whether users realize they can click the inline link for more information on what they need.
- One user tried to type in drop down for month-date field
- No comments
- Participants knew they should do something with the number, it was important
- 1 participant commented he might save the # in notes on his phone
Future testing note: ability to print this page not useful for mobile; test other options, like emailing or saving using some sort of mobile phone/device utility in the future?
This kind of function deserves further thought during the content analysis/mobile content strategy of future apps*
- 1 participant missed entering the zip code (missed zip field)
- 2 of the 9 participants put the Apt # in the same Line 1 of the address field
- Only 1 participant clicked to see what the appointed representative was
- 1 participant stated they didn’t know but didn’t use the link to find out
Note for future testing: we may want to test the definition link using another term here or elsewhere in the app that the user clearly wouldn’t know and wouldn’t as easily be able to guess
- All participants knew that they were able to select more than one option in this checkbox pattern
- No comments
- When asked about the green status indicator, one iPad phone user thought it indicated a “truth” and one desktop user thought it indicated a valid medicine they were taking.
- One Android phone user stated he thought the screen required too much scrolling.
- One participant of 7 found the go to button from the review page when prompted to find a way other than the Previous button to go back
- One participant when looking at the “Go to” button links did not realized he could scroll within the modal
Future testing note: We may want to crop the Go to menu in such a way to imply there’s more if you scroll by just showing part of the bottommost option, etc.
- No comments
