Case Study: Designing For Business and User Needs
Background
FamilySearch is a non-profit run by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The genealogy service is free for everyone. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints use FamilySearch to research their family and take names of family members to a temple to perform sacred ordinances for them in proxy, such as baptism. The Church has specific policies in place regarding for whom members can perform proxy ordinance work. One of these policies is called the 110 Year Policy. This policy states that members cannot perform work for a family member who was born within the last 110 years without permission from the spouse or a close, living family member.
During my time at FamilySearch, I worked on a project concerning the 110 Year Policy. When members attempt to request a name of someone who was born within the past 110 years, a modal appears that says “permission required.” If they choose to click “show details” the box will expand and two things become visible: an explanation of the policy and a call to action that says “request permission.” Once a member clicks that call to action they are asked to fill out a form explaining that they have permission from the spouse or a close, living relative. This form is sent to a service missionary who reviews the request and, if everything is in order, releases the name to the member. However, right now there are so many requests being sent to missionaries that they are six months behind in reviews. The missionaries also report that they are receiving many requests that claim they actually did not receive permission or that they are not related to this person (the policy also states you must be related to a person to perform proxy ordinances). So, we have two problems: more requests than the review process can handle and requests that do not have sufficient information to release the name to the member.
Problems and Solutions
We looked at when a missionary actually needs to review a case and when an automated system could grant the release of a name. If a member claims they have permission (whether verbal or written) from a family member and are related the person whose name they are requesting, then the name can be released to them (this is omitting a certain edge case that I won’t go into here). The system can identify that easily. This means most requests can be processed by the system and the names can be released immediately to the member.
As we analyzed the situation more, we found that there are some inconsistencies with wording on the site. When you find a name of a family member, you click a button that says “request permission.” This means you request FamilySearch to reserve the name to you and not allow others to request it. This does not mean the same thing as the call to action that takes you to the form. “Request permission” means you certify that you have permission before you request FamilySearch to reserve the name to your account. As we talked with users, we found that they thought they were requesting permission from FamilySearch. They also said that the policy itself was confusing and they generally didn’t know what they could and could not do.
We realized we needed to clarify that you must request permission form a family member before you submit the form and request the name from FamilySearch and we needed to clarify the policy itself. Clarifying the policy presented another problem. How do we provide needed information to a beginner without unnecessarily reminding an experienced genealogist?
First we decided to change the call to action to “I have permission.” We felt that made it clear that you needed to have permission before filling out the form. We also felt that it was a more assertive, letting the patron know getting permission from family was the only way to move forward at this point.
User Testing
We brought this call to action to users to test:
User Testing
110 Year Test
· Are you a member of the Church?
· Are you familiar with FamilySearch?
· Have you ever reserved an ordinance?
Introduction:
· Testing the product, not you
· Try to think out loud as best you can, let me know what you’re thinking as you go through the process
Major Questions:
· Does the call to action work? Does it make sense?
· Is the disabled button enough or do we need red warnings to tell them what to fill out?
· Does the radio button and text field combo work? Is it confusing? Disrupting?
· From what you understand, what did you just do?
· What do you expect to happen next?
Test 1:
Woman, about 60
Went through all the steps easily. Understood “I have permission” to mean she’d already talked to a close family member.
Test 2:
Man, about 60
Didn’t see the call to action. Said he would wait to do the ordinances.
Test 3:
Woman, about 22
It’s not clear what you should do on the first screen.
I have permission means you asked someone if you could do the ordinances and they said yes.
I wish there was a watch me button.
Went through the form easily and filled it out.
Test 4:
Woman, about mid-50s
She has reserved ordinances but hasn’t encountered a 110 year issue. When she first got to the screen, she said over and over that she wants permission to do the ordinances. “Because you want permission.” It was unclear what to do next or how to get permission. She wasn’t sure if it was permission from the family or FamilySearch. She didn’t click the CTA. She said it would be clearer if the CTA said “I have permission from their spouse or family member.” She also wanted another option for when you can’t get permission from a family member (they’re all deceased).
Test 5:
Man, about 60
“I’d give up first.” Then when prompted he went to show details. “I have permission is not where I would look first, it’s not where my eyes go.” The words themselves make sense. He’d expect to find the ordinances in his reservations list, ready to print. He went through the form okay. He saw the pop-up box and filled it out. He asked about a patron who came in today and asked if she could do the work for her ex-husband’s parents since she was now not related to them. He wanted to know the policy and if she would have to go through this same process.
Test 6:
Woman, about 26
“I have permission” is assertive, so that makes me really think about “do I actually have permission?” The “I got permission from” in the form is also assertive. To her, “I have permission” means she has permission from the spouse, child, or other close family member. The form was easy to fill out. The CTA is not where she would look. She thought “back” on the last screen would take her back to the first screen instead of the form. She expects to see the ordinances in her reservations list right away.
After these tests we found that “I have permission” communicated effectively that you must have permission before moving on to the form. However, we also found that some people didn’t see the call to action because many didn’t click the first call to action “Show details.” Most were confused by the policy and didn’t have enough information to know what to do next. They didn’t think show details would help them understand the policy as well.
Our next hypothesis was that the call to action “I have permission” and a short summary of the policy should be visible without having to expand the box. This way, patrons have a little bit of background about why permission is needed, but those who know the policy don’t have to dig to find the call to action. We also decided to put another link, “Learn more,” for those who aren’t familiar with the policy. This would expand the box with the full explanation of the policy.
We took this hypotheses and tested a prototype with patrons:
Testing Day 1 Notes
Richard
We showed Richard the version with the warning “Permission Required” and the CTA “I have permission”
Richard: “Use it all the time, familiar with reserving ordinances,”
Richard: “Oh, wait permission is required. Usually I don’t have enough time but I would hunt down whoever I need permission from.”
Interviewer: “Let’s say you have permission from the spouse what would you do next. How do you prove that permission?”
Richard: Checked warning box for 110 year. “Oh there is an I have permission. that’s never seemed very reliable to me.”
Richard: Went through the form. “Yeah that’s easy but I’ve never done that. It still concerns me because any one can do it even without permission.”
Richard: “The last screen didn’t say if it was reserved or not. The name disappeared and now I have to go to the temple tab to reserve.”
Evonne
We showed Evonne the version with the warning “Permission Required” and the CTA “Learn more”
Evonne: “Wanted to click request for reservations but didn’t realize you had to click learn more to find the “I have permission” button.”
Evonne: Wanted to click request at the end.
Evonne: Familiar with 110 year policy
Boss
We showed Boss the version with the warning “Permission Required” and the CTA “learn more”
Check mark means I can do the work
These aren’t going to be added until I learn more
Opened the ford and Read the policy
If I had permission I would click I have permission
Fills in form
Clicks request
Bella
We showed Bella the version with the warning “Permission Required” and the CTA “I have permission”
I don’t have permission for these
If I did I would click I have permission
And then click request
Familiar with 110 year policy
Woman, about 20
We showed her both versions. First we showed here “Permission Required” and the CTA “I have permission”, but she liked the “Learn more” better.
Knew a little about the 110 year policy. Didn’t know much about who needed to give permission and the wording was very helpful for her.
Testing Day 2 Notes
We wanted to make sure we had the correct UI for the two call to actions “I have permission” and “Learn more”
1. Young man, about 20. Fairly familiar with family history, has reserved ordinances before. Just looking at it, he said he knows he needs to have permission but there’s not enough information to know who to ask. He realizes he can’t do the ordinances without permission. He would click “Learn more” to find out more.
2. Young man, about 20. New to FamilySearch. He’s set up an account and seen the Family Tree. He understood that he needs permission from a close relative. He would click “Learn more” if he didn’t have permission.
3. Young woman, about 20. She was a consultant before so she’s familiar with the 110-year policy. She said she would click “I have permission” if she had permission.
4. Young man, about 20. Beginner to FamilySearch. He hasn’t used it before. He would click “Learn more” to find out more about the policy. He understood he couldn’t do those ordinances without having permission.
We determined after our tests that our hypotheses were correct. Those who were new to the 110 Year Policy clicked “learn more” and moved through the process from there. Those who were familiar with the policy clicked “I have permission,” filled out the form, and received the names they requested right away.
Next Steps
Now as we implement our changes, we’ll watch to see if the number of requests missionaries review goes down. We hope this number will be significantly reduced so more patrons can reserve names quickly. We will also watch to see if the number of incomplete or false requests goes down. We think the new call to action “I have permission” will deter incomplete and false requests.
