Highlevel Findings Presentation

Round 1 Concepts Design rationale- Administration functions moved to the top of the page to reduce clutter.. Round 1 Wrap Design rationale- Tested four options for Wrap integration, assu

AUGUST 2003

 Project objectives

 Our approach

 What we did

 FirstNet Adviser/Wrap – the process and outcomes

 FirstNet Investor – the process and outcomes

 FirstNet Master, Employer, Dealer

 Recommended next steps

 Review and enhance the navigational structure of

the FirstNet secure sites.

 The new navigation and related transactional

processes should:

 Follow a human-centred approach, ensuring that the structure and labelling enhances the usability of the site and meets the needs of the target users

 Be robust enough to encompass new functionality and content as it is created

 Integrate FirstNet Adviser seamlessly with the Wrap navigational structure and transactional processes

 People’s general understanding of what the site did

 Their understanding of investment terminology

 The site’s navigational design

 Information layout (e.g Regular Investment Plan)

What We Did

Assessment:

 Review of previous research

 Assessment of current site

 Everyone recruited for testing would attend and

meet the recruitment criteria.

 Wrap platform and the level of integration was

understood by the business.

 The Wrap was not going to affect the FNI site.

 We had free reign to start the redesign from scratch Prior research had already highlighted the core

interface issues.

 The FNM, FND, and FNE sites’ users would have

similar needs, experience and issues to those using

the Investor and Adviser sites.

Focus Group Test Plans

 Adviser Rounds 1 & 2

 Participants shown paper-based concepts and asked for immediate feedback.

 The group was asked where on the screen they would go to complete common tasks.

 Group discussion on any issues encountered after individuals had completed the booklets.

FirstNet Adviser/Wrap -

Participants

 There were five participants across the two groups

 Mix of sole practitioner, IFA, Boutique, CBA

experience

 Age range: 26-52

 All male

Round 1 Concepts Design rationale

- Administration functions moved to the top of the page to reduce clutter

- Incorporated the proposed functionality/content

changes to the Adviser site

- Reduced the clutter on the menu by grouping ‘like’ functionality, collapsed under headings

- Tested proposed inclusion

of practice management reporting

- Tested the proposed silo redesign of Adviser/Client Tools

- Tested the ability to flick easily between the client’s accounts via a drop-down menu

Round 1 Wrap Design rationale

- Tested four options for Wrap integration, assuming:

- Separate log ins

- Single log on, split at the homepage

- Single client list

- Split client list and portfolio

Round 1 Wrap Design rationale

- Client repeated in the list if holding investment

products in both FirstNet and Wrap

- Also tested the worthiness

of including closed accounts in this list

Round 2 Concepts Design rationale

- Design based on feedback from the first rounds of Adviser and Investor concept testing

- Breaks out core enquiry tasks at the account level

- Toggle between accounts embedded in central body

- Client Tools combined within Adviser Tools

Outcomes and Recommendations

FNA

 Keep the separate log in page Advisers bookmark it.

 Keep the ‘View all clients’ link on the Adviser

homepage.

 Advisers want to be able to sort client lists by

product.

 OIN is redundant Advisers don’t use it.

 Advisers are keen to do transactions.

 They didn’t understand ‘Investment Selection’.

 Advisers expect client-level reports in the client level and practice management reporting in it’s own area.

 They do not understand the term ‘Ad hoc’ reports

they prefer ‘customised’.

Overall they really liked FNA

They asked that it not be changed significantly.

FirstNet Adviser - Outcome

Final Design

- Ability to switch between accounts only at the Account Balance Page

- Full list of all you can do on left hand navigation No headings used, since these were too context specific

- More static information relating to that account, repositioned in the body of the account balance page

- Information found on the public site removed unless relevant while completing tasks in the secure area

- Adviser Tools contains all information/tools advisers would use while with a client

- Reports section contains downloadable reports and customised reports Client reports are accessible at the account level

- Log out moved to right corner

Wrap - Recommendations

 Advisers prefer one log in.

 They want one client list.

 They would like one Portfolio.

 Excited about the reporting functionality.

 Expect the Wrap to look like FNA.

 Terminology used on the Wrap is ambiguous.

 We recommend a full usability review be conducted

on the Wrap and any changes implemented before launch.

Wrap - Outcome

Final Design

- Day One proposal for launch is to have one client list with client name repeated if the client has products on both platforms

- Homepage would clearly segregate available functionality

on both the Wrap and FNA

- Wrap terminology would

be reworded to be more intuitive

FirstNet Investor – Participants

 9 participants across the two groups

 Age range: 30s-70s

 6 men, 3 women

 2 used a broker, 5 were independent investors, 2 used a Financial Adviser

Initial Concepts Design rationale

- Administration functions moved to the top of the page to reduce clutter

- Investors check account balance and transaction history, dropdowns were a method to toggle between accounts easily

- View account details is the primary section Menu length reduced by collapsed areas

Round 1 Concepts Design rationale

- Design based on feedback from the first round of Adviser concept testing

- Break out core enquiry tasks once at the account level

- Toggle between accounts embedded in central body

- People want to see the full list of navigation options Categorisation is too open

to interpretation

- Testing of these concepts highlighted that people do not understand investing terminology

Round 1 Concepts – Outcome

People didn’t understand the following terms:

Round 2 Concepts Design rationale

- People didn’t care whether they were in First State, First Choice etc

- Wanted the page to be simple Didn’t understand the multiple account

totals

- They didn’t understand the

‘Account Designation’ they would rather see the full name of the CFS product rather than acronyms

Round 2 Concepts Design rationale

- Separating the enquiry from other tasks was too confusing

- Don’t often allow other people to access their accounts, so they don’t want this functionality promoted

- Further investigation needs to go in to labelling terminology Some first steps were made here

- Print this page is more intuitive than print this report

Outcomes and Recommendations

 Homepage login is quite confusing.

 People want the long list of options in the navigation.

 They like the trimmed down layout of the

portfolio/account list page.

 People still have problems navigating around the

transaction history section.

 Change investment allocation (investment

selection) /Bpay options / switch investments appear similar to users.

 They see administration as a secondary task.

 People say that having access to unit prices, fund profiles etc would be nice to have on the secure site, but no-one has used them there.

 Bank account details were confused with contact

details They assume ‘Bank’ means CFS.

FirstNet Investor - Outcomes Design rationale

- All primary information appears on left hand side

- Secondary information appears at the top of the page Generic fund and educational information could be removed

Contextually specific information is more relevant

- People were more likely to use the FAQ section than Help

- Alt tags could further enhance the intuitiveness

of the site

- Terminology should be revised further

FirstNet Master - Outcome Design rationale

- Administrative information (e.g change PIN, Order documents, assign access), is kept consistent with the other sites and is now contained within a single ‘Administration’ heading

- The core things people come to the site to do are located exclusively within the left-hand menu

- Global links on the top right of the page were grouped to represent more site specific tasks

- Log out moved to the top right, positioned next to the window close or ‘x’ button

FirstNet Employer - Outcome Design rationale

- The core things people come to the site to do are located exclusively within the left-hand menu People don’t mind long menus as long as everything is relevant

- Global links on the top right of the page were grouped to represent more site specific tasks

- Log out was moved to the top right, positioned next

to the window close or ‘x’ button

- The labels were changed

to be more intuitive (e.g

“Clearing Account”)

FirstNet Dealer - Outcome Design rationale

- Administrative information

is kept consistent with the other sites and is now contained within a single

‘Administration’ heading

- The core things people come to the site to do are located exclusively within the left-hand menu

- Global links on the top right of the page were grouped to represent more site specific tasks

- Log out was moved to the top right, positioned next

to the window close or ‘x’ button

Outstanding Issues - Critical

 Wrap:

 There could be a number of significant usability issues depending on the level of integration adopted.

 There are a number of existing usability issues related

to labelling and navigation

 FNI:

 Visual design does not comply with accessibility guidelines Excessive visual weight reduces readability and usability

 Investors do not understand investing terminology

Outstanding Issues – Minor

 Has not been tested with ed-users

 Unmatched records score box and table concept

interaction is confusing and disjointed

 FND/FNM:

 These sites have never been tested with end-users.

 FNM has a non-secure sign on.

 Testing of Adviser transaction screens

 Wrap - Further validation with end-users is a effective method to ensure that the integration meets user needs.

cost- Wrap re-labelling is important to ensure consistency with FNA and intuitive navigation.

Next Steps

 FNE:

 Unmatched records score box and table concept should

be reviewed with end-users BDMs should not have to teach people how to use it.

 FND/FNM/FNE:

 Testing similar to the testing used in this project may highlight changes which in turn may alleviate time consuming activities for the call centre and BDMs.

 Public site:

 Need to decide whether to go through similar exercise for public website – ie Content review, user experience review (could run in conjunction with content

management project)

Questions ?