Redesigning the LATAM Airlines boarding pass
I had the opportunity to work on the redesign of this airline’s boarding pass and I want to share the process and my learnings of this collaborative process.
A small document with great impact
LATAM Airlines transports approximately 200 thousand people every day. And all of them need a boarding pass to board their flights. Passengers, along with airline agents at airports, are the primary users of this document.
The boarding process is essential for an airline: in a very short time, agents must board an average of 200 passengers on a plane so it can depart on time. A delay on a flight departure enormously affects the operation and also passengers’ satisfaction.
The boarding pass is key at this moment. It contains the information passengers need to be at their gate on time. And agents use it to allow or deny boarding.
We needed a change
LATAM had a dozen different versions of the boarding pass, which slowed down the boarding process for two reasons. Agents couldn’t locate the information quickly, and on the other hand, passengers who traveled frequently were confused by the multiple displays.
The main objective of the redesign was to create a single version, adaptable to different devices. The new boarding pass had to be easy to understand for both passengers and agents, with the necessary information to speed up the boarding process and improve the punctuality of departures.
The design process
Our design process was not so different from a digital product development process, starting for a research stage, going through a definition stage until reaching the product launch, but what I want to highlight is the importance of testing in our complete process.
Research stage
During this stage we analyzed other airlines solutions and we observed to passengers and agents at the airport. We applied interviews to identified their needs and the problems they faced. As a result of this research, we defined the essential information that the boarding pass should include.
Information architecture workshop
The next step was to define the information architecture of the new boarding pass. Thanks to a co-design session -in which UX designers, UX writers, product owners, developers, airport agents, and stakeholders participated- we came to two different proposals.
The first proposal focused on the type of user. The boarding pass had two areas of information: one useful to the agent and another one useful to the passenger. The second proposal showed the information in the same order as passengers would consume it during the trip.
Test first
We designed and conducted tests remotely. This way, we were able to reach a significant sample and to obtain results in a reduced amount of time. This exercise helped us determine which solution was better and to identify usability issues.
We based our decision on the results and created a new version, which included improvements that we previously detected.
Again, we tested it to make sure the understanding levels had improved.
6 designers, 6 solutions
To define the visual styles, we made an open invitation to the UXers at LATAM Airlines to take part in a design challenge.
Having different perspectives allowed us to broaden our possibilities in terms of graphic solutions. Collaboratively, we identified the weaknesses and strengths of each of the six proposals we had until we reached a unified version.
We tested this version and adapted it to the printed format.
Testing in a real context
To validate the final design of our new boarding pass (digital and printed versions), we conducted user testings in the airports of Chile and Brazil. We wanted the tests to take place within the context of real traveling.
We created specific questions for passengers, agents, and airport staff. Every role within the team (UX designers, UX Writer, Product Owner, engineers, and business representatives) participated.
We also did scan tests with different variants that could affect the reading of the code, such as size, brightness, or quality of the print.
Results of tests in context
We applied more than 120 test to passengers, agents and airport staff.
We iterated the boarding pass four times. Each version would improve the mistakes we had identified on our visits to the airport until we reached a version that satisfied our expectations about effectiveness and efficiency.
The launch day
We launched the new boarding pass gradually. First, it was available for one domestic route, which allowed us to observe and make final adjustments.
We noticed that agents had to move the phone to scan the boarding pass. in a way that didn’t seem natural, so we decided to change the position of the code.
Finally, our new boarding pass was here
The card groups the information in 3 areas:
- First area: passengers’ information
- Second area: boarding information
- Third area: flight information
The top section is useful to agents, whereas the bottom part is useful to passengers.
This is just the first version, we continuously work to improve our solutions. So don’t be surprised if you come across an iteration on your next flight!
Should you test remotely or in person?
Testing remotely
Pros:
- Your sample will be bigger
- You’ll offer users more flexibility (they can participate whenever and wherever they are available)
- Results will be immediate and easy to consume
- You’ll be able to validate or discard your solutions in a short time
Cons:
- You won’t be able to observe users in a real context
- If the outcome is negative, you won’t be sure if that is a result of the solution or because of the testing tool you chose
- You won’t be able to observe the expressions of users while interacting with your solution
Testing in person
Pros:
- You’ll be able to observe users in a real context
- You’ll be able to observe the expressions of users (and if they get distracted)
- If necessary, it will allow you to go deeper in the interview
Cons:
- Your sample will be smaller
- You’ll need more time to test and analyze the results
Conclusion: both!
As you can see, remote testing allows you to validate or discard solutions in a short time. I highly recommend it in the early stages of the design process.
However, in advanced stages, the ideal instrument is to test face-to-face. At this point, you’ll want to observe the use of your product in a real context.
A few lessons
- Identify the types of users and the relevant information for each one of them
- Involve different roles in the definition and test stage. The decision making is easy this way
- Test each iteration, either remotely or in context
- The design process is continuous
- Keep observing the real use of the product to identify opportunities for improvement
The original article was published in Spanish on Sep 13, 2019
