CFS FirstNet Redesign Findings & Recommendations AUGUST 2003

CFS FirstNet Redesign Findings & RecommendationsAUGUST 2003

CFS FirstNet Redesign Findings & Recommendations

Agenda

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


Objectives

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.


Our Approach

Human-centred design Iterative Neutral viewpoint Paper-based concepts Reflect new functionality from concurrent projects

e.g. the Entire X project Tested:

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 Competitive analysis Review of future enhancements project

documentation Workshops with business stakeholders

Concepts: Initial concept with subtly [company name]

navigation metaphor Iterative testing and refinement of concepts


Assumptions Prior research had already highlighted the core

interface issues. Prior research had been conducted with end-users

on the 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.

Investor Round 1 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. Investor Round 2

Participants given ‘booklets’ of paper-based concepts and asked to circle 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 ConceptsDesign 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 WrapDesign 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 WrapDesign 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.



- 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 RecommendationsFNA 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 - OutcomeFinal 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 - OutcomeFinal 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 ConceptsDesign 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.



- 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:

Portfolio Fund Option Product Account Distribution method Applications Switch Investment selection Tax history

They think Colonial First State is a bank.



- 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.



- 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 - OutcomesDesign 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 - OutcomeDesign 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 - OutcomeDesign 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.


- 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 - OutcomeDesign 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.


- 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

FNA: Advisers are happy with the current design, significant

changes are not required. However, they have not used transactions yet and some testing may be necessary when this functionality is available.

FNE: 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.


Next Steps

FNI: A user-centred approach to re-labelling will enhance

site intuitiveness. Visual re-design (ie visual emphasis) is recommended,

this may help address some of the confusion

FNA/Wrap: Testing of Adviser transaction screens Wrap - Further validation with end-users is a cost-

effective method to ensure that the integration meets user needs.

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 ?

Documents

CFS FirstNet Redesign Findings & Recommendations AUGUST 2003