Field research: designing pre-paid plans with Funeralcare

This week, the design team held a show and tell to discuss 2 questions:

  1. What is design?
  2. Why should you care?

If you couldn’t make it, we’re writing up some of the examples from different areas of design that we talked about and we’re posting them on the blog this week. They’re aimed at Co-op colleagues whose expertise are in something other than a digital discipline.

Today we’re looking at how we used field research when we were designing a digital form with Funeralcare colleagues who arrange pre-paid funeral plans in our branches. (You can also make a pre-paid funeral plan online).

Buying a pre-paid funeral plan: how the paper forms process works

Here’s how the process tends to work:

  • a client rings a local branch to make an appointment
  • the client goes into a branch
  • a colleague and the client fill out a lengthy paper form together
  • the client pays at least a deposit to their local branch
  • 3 copies of the paper form are made – one for the client, one is kept in branch and the other is sent by post to head office which often takes 7 days
  • a colleague at head office manually copies the information from the paper form into a customer relationship management system
  • the form is dug out on the request of the client’s family after their loved one has died

The process is expensive, time-consuming and as with all human processes, there is room for error.

What we wanted to achieve

We wanted to create a more efficient, easy-to-use service. We wanted to connect the computer systems that are already being used in Co-op Funeralcare branches and integrate them directly with the customer relationship management system colleagues use in head office.

Where to start?

What we knew was limited. We had an idea what the start of the process was for clients and colleagues because we knew what the paper form looked like. We also had sales data from the very end of the process. But in order to improve efficiency and ease of use, we needed to know a lot more about how things are working in between these 2 points.

For both colleagues and clients we wanted to get a clearer picture of:

  • what a plan-making appointment was like (both practically and emotionally)
  • the paper form filling process
  • whether there were frustrations with the process and where they were

We arranged some site visits for our ‘field research’.

Learning from field research

We visited Co-op Funeralcare branches.

Green image with white copy that says: The approach. Get out of the office to learn and test

Why? Because when people feel at ease they’re more likely to open up and speak honestly. For this reason we spoke to our funeral arranger colleagues in a context they’re familiar with – in the rooms where they regularly create plans with clients. Talking to them here helped them relax, and because they weren’t in a place where their seniors might overhear, they were less guarded than they might be if we brought them into head office.

Seeing mistakes happen, figuring out why they happen

Talking to them was good but seeing colleagues fill out the paper plans was invaluable because we could observe:

  • the order they approached the questions
  • whether they made mistakes and where
  • if and where they used any common work-arounds where the form didn’t meet their needs

All of this helps us see where we can improve the design.

Feeding observations into the design

When we were talking through the paper forms with arrangers, they told us they often found there wasn’t enough space to capture a client’s personal requests. Because they’d come up with a reasonable work-around, it might not have been something they would have mentioned to us if we hadn’t been there, in their office, looking at the forms together. Being there helped us make sure we didn’t miss this. They showed us examples of when they had worked around a lack of space by attaching an extra sheet to the paper form they were submitting.

In the example below the client has requested to be dressed in ‘Everton blue gown with frill’ and they’ve been very particular about the music before, during and after the service.

Every funeral is different – just like every life they commemorate and the paper form didn’t accommodate for the level of detail needed. The work-around they’d come up with wasn’t hugely painful but good design is making processes pain free. We fed our observations back to the digital team and designed a form that allowed for individuality. It has bigger open text boxes to record more detail as well as including drop downs and free text boxes for music on the day.

Paper versus digital forms

The benefits of moving across to digital forms include:

  1. Having easier access to more data, for example, numbers on couples buying together and numbers on people buying for someone else. This is useful because we can direct our efforts into improving the experience where the most people need it. 
  2. Saving time for colleagues who manually copy paper plans to the head office system. Digital plans are sent directly to system and are instantly visible to colleagues in head office.
  3. Reducing the number of errors in paper plans. Common mistakes include allowing people over 80 to spread their payment over instalments and the client’s choice of cremation or burial not being recorded. The design of the digital form doesn’t allow arrangers to progress if there are mistakes like these.
  4. A significant yearly saving on stamps used to send paper forms from a branch to head office.

Field research helped get us to this point

We’re now testing the new digital forms in 15 branches. We’ll be rolling them out to more and more branches over time but we’re starting small so we can iron out any cracks.

So far, the feedback from colleagues is positive. But without observing colleagues in context, there’s a certain amount of assumption about the way they work on our part. Field research contributes to the fact the pre-paid funeral plan service is design-led.

If everyone shares an understanding of the benefits of being design-led, it’ll be easier for experts from around the business to work together to deliver value to Co-op customers, colleagues and the Co-op as a business. If you didn’t make the show and tell but would like to find out more, email Katherine Wastell, Head of Design.

Gillian MacDonald
User researcher

How we turn research into actionable insights

One of the main challenges for us as researchers is making our findings more actionable for the rest of the team, particularly during the discovery phases when we’re conducting exploratory research.

At least initially, early stage research can bring more ambiguity than clarity, throw up more questions than answers and we often end up with challenges and problems that are too broad to solve.

As researchers, it’s our responsibility to use research methods that will facilitate good design and product decisions. It’s not enough to just do the research, we need to help translate what we’ve learnt for the rest of the team so that it’s useful.  

How we did it

We’re working on a commercial service. Our team’s remit was to find out what would make our service different because, in theory, if we can solve unmet customer needs, we can compete in a saturated market. A successful product or service is one that is viable, feasible and desirable.

This post covers 3 techniques we’ve recently tried. Each one helped us reduce ambiguity, achieve a clearer product direction and get a better understanding of our users, their behaviours and motivations.

1.Learning from extremes

When we’re testing for usability or we’re seeing how well a functional journey works, we usually show users a single, high fidelity prototype. However, earlier on in the design process, we put very different ideas in front of users so we can elicit a stronger reaction from them. If we only showed one idea at that point, their reaction is likely to be lukewarm. It’s when we elicit joy, hatred, confusion for example that we learn a lot more about what they need from a product.

In this instance, we wanted to uncover insight that would help us define what might make a more compelling product.

We identified the following problem areas:

  1. Time – people don’t have much of it.
  2. Choice – there is so much.
  3. Inspiration – people struggle with it.

Instead of prototyping something that would attempt to improve all 3 of these problem areas as we would do when testing usability, we mocked up 3 very different prototypes – each one addressed just one of the problems.

The extreme prototypes helped users better articulate what meets their needs and what might work in different contexts. It wasn’t a case of figuring out which version was ‘best’. We used this technique to test each idea so we could find out which elements work and therefore include them in the next iteration. It also started informing the features that the experience would be comprised of.

Overall though, it helped us reach a clear product direction which gave us a steer in our next stage of research.

2.Doing a diary study

A diary study is a great way to understand motivations and uncover patterns of behaviour over a period of time. We recently invited a bunch of urban shoppers to keep a diary of how they were deciding what to eat at home.

We asked them to use Whatsapp, partly because it was something they already used regularly but also because its quick, instant messages reflect the relatively quick amount of time it takes for someone to make a decision about what to eat. The decision is not like choosing which house to buy where you might think about and record decisions carefully in spreadsheets, so it would be difficult for people to reflect on their ‘what to eat’ decisions retrospectively in interviews. Whatsapp was a way to get closer to how choices are made so we could better understand the context, behaviour and decision itself.

The engagement was much higher than we expected. We captured lots of rich data including diary entries in text, video and photo format. We didn’t ask for or expect the visuals but they were very useful in bringing the contexts to life for our stakeholders.

When we looked for patterns in the data, we found that nobody behaved in the same way every day, or over time. However, we were able to identify ways people make choices. We called them ‘decision making modes’. We looked at the context in which people made decisions and the behaviour we’ve observed. Each mode highlighted different pain points, for example, they may have leftovers to use up. This enables us to prioritise certain modes over others, get alignment as a team on who we’re solving problems for, and think about features to help address some of the pain points for users.

3.Using sacrificial concepts

‘Sacrificial concepts’, a method developed by design company IDEO, allow us to gain insight into users’ beliefs and behaviour. We start with reframing our research insights as ‘How might we…?’ questions that help us find opportunities for the next stage of the design process.

For example, we found that buying groceries online feels like a big effort and a chore for shoppers because of the number of decisions involved. So we asked: “How might we reduce the number of decisions that people need to make when they shop online?”

We did this as a team and we then create low fidelity sketches or ‘concepts’ that we’re willing to sacrifice that we can put in front of users.

Just like when we test extremes, the purpose of testing those ideas wasn’t to find a ‘winning version’ – it was to provoke conversation and have a less rigid interview.

Sacrificial concepts are a fast and cheap way to test ideas. No-one is too invested in them and they allow us to get users’ reaction to the gist of the idea as opposed to the interface. They give us a clearer direction on how to address a problem that users are facing and they are a good way to make research findings more usable in the design process.

What’s worked for you?

Those are the 3 main ways we’ve approached research in the early phase of one particular commercial Co-op service. We’d like to hear how other researcher and digital teams do it and their experiences with the techniques we’ve talked about.

Eva Petrova
Principal user researcher

We’ve added user research guides to the design system

We recently added 4 user research guides to our Co-op design system. The guides cover:

  • how to plan and prepare for research as a team
  • how to choose the most appropriate research method, and how to use it
  • how to analyse your findings, turn them into something actionable and how to share with the rest of the team
  • a list of useful research tools

We’re committed to user-centred design. We start small, we test for user value and we work iteratively – research and reacting to feedback is vitally important to us.

But it’s not easy to do good research and by ‘good’ we mean using the appropriate method and ensuring the way we do it is planned, thorough and unbiased.

You need skilled researchers.

Helping teams help themselves

We have a superb small team of researchers at Co-op Digital. We have varying background, skills and strengths which means asking for advice on how to tackle something is always interesting and useful. But we can’t cover all our projects, at all product phases, all the time. There aren’t enough of us.

So in a few cases, we set the direction and encourage teams to do their own research, with us there as support.

Sharing the knowledge

The idea came while I was writing a research strategy for a team working on a particular scope of work. I realised the strategy could be adapted into more of a ‘how to do research at the Co-op’ guide. For years, in an unofficial, internal-channels-only type way, several researchers had been writing guides on things like ‘how to recruit users / gather informed consent / write a survey’. It made sense to pull this useful work together and make it open and available in our design system.

Presenting guidance in this way means that instead of individual researchers writing a strategy for a team now and then, we can give more general advice.We want to make sure people are doing good, useful research in the right way and we can now add value to any digital team by giving them a ‘best practice’ resource.

We’re working on it

As always, the plan is to iterate and add more guidance as we go. We’ve been looking towards the GDS service manual as an excellent, detailed resource for planning research.

As we come across a method that we don’t have a guide for, we’ll write one up. For example, the next time one of our researchers needs to conduct a diary study they’ll write that up.

We know we need to improve how we help people choose the appropriate method so that people don’t just fall back on conducting usability testing in a lab or face-to-face interviews. As Vicki Riley says in her post, matching our research approach to the project is really important.

We’d like your feedback on it too so if you have any, leave a comment.

Simon Hurst
Lead user researcher

From digital design manual to design system

In January 2017 we released our digital design manual. Now, 18 months later, the design manual has evolved into a design system.

Although it’s been live for months, it’s still (and always will be) a work in progress. We’re sharing it now in line with one of our design principles: ‘we design in the open’.

You can see the Co-op Digital design system at coop.co.uk/designsystem

Evolution of the design manual

The aim of the design manual was to help teams release things faster so they could focus on user needs rather than on making basic design decisions. We iterated and added new pages as and when there was a need, for example, we added guidance on forms, guidance on tables and our secondary colour palette.

But a year after its release, we were at a point where more of our digital services were going live, so we revisited the design manual and asked if it could be more useful.

What we learnt from our users

We asked our design, content design and user research community how well they felt the guidance in the design manual was serving its purpose. Feedback was mixed but most people felt that it didn’t quite cover enough.

A workshop made it clear that users wanted:

  • example-driven patterns
  • guidance on when to use specific design and content patterns
  • examples of ‘experimental’ patterns
  • all guidance in one place

Afterwards, we dedicated time to making some major changes to the content as well as the navigation and layout.

Design system – nice for what?

We found lots of excellent examples of design systems in our research but good, solid design systems are good and solid because they’re unique to the organisation or business they belong to – they meet the needs of designers, content designers and researchers who work there.

The Co-op Digital design system includes our:

  • pattern library
  • content style guide
  • guidance on our design thinking
  • design, user research and content design principles
  • tools (front-end and prototyping kits)
  • resources (Sketch files and brand assets)

Most importantly it’s a living document. Like all good design systems, ours will never really be ‘finished’ but it’ll evolve as our teams and services do. Over the past 6 months we’ve established processes that allow our team members to contribute to the system.

We audited our existing design work and looked for similarities and opportunities to create familiarity. We’ve also spent a lot of time building the foundations for a stronger and more collaborative team through workshops, design crits and making sure we design in the open.

Familiarity over consistency

The Co-op is an organisation with very distinct businesses which all need to communicate with Co-op members, customers and users in an appropriate and relevant way. For example, the way we communicate with a customer in a food store is likely to be very different to how we speak to a customer in a funeral home.

So it’s likely that our services might feel different. And that’s ok, as long they feel familiar.

A design system lets us create this familiarity. It should lead to a much more unified experience when they interact with different Co-op services.

Pattern library

We’ve started creating a library of design patterns – this is the most significant addition to our previous guidance. It doesn’t replace our design guidelines, it just pulls out the useful stuff we learnt designers look for when they’re designing a service. 

Each pattern will have:

  • an example, ie, a visual example of the pattern
  • an associated user need
  • design guidance, ie, how you use it
  • accessibility guidance

Our colour palette pattern is a good example.

The library will be the de facto standard for how we display certain types of information.

Anyone at Co-op can contribute by submitting their pattern to the design community. They can do this by filling in a form justifying why users outside their service might benefit from this pattern or, why what they have created is an improvement on a current one.

Evolution of the design system

We want to continuously improve the guidance designers are looking for. To help us do this we’ll speak to more of the external teams that work with us and invite our colleagues in the Brand and Marketing teams to contribute their own guidance. We’ll also put the system to the test with teams as they build more Co-op services.

Watch this space.

Jack Sheppard
Matt Tyas

How 3 researchers used the ‘jobs to be done’ framework

Earlier this year, strategist and researcher Stephanie Troeth and Adam Warburton, Co-op’s Head of Product, gave some of the Co-op Digital team Jobs to be Done (JTBD) training. Since then, our digital teams have tried out this way of working.

A quick introduction

JTBD is a framework for understanding the outcomes users are trying to achieve – this could be a job, a task or more widely their goals in life.

It’s been particularly popular in commercial organisations because it helps us understand where users underserved needs are and, therefore, where the opportunity for the business is in the market. More traditional user needs frameworks don’t say much about the market, and as the Co-op is an organisation looking to make a surplus to put back into member initiatives and community work, we thought it could be useful.  

In this post, 3 of our user researchers talk about their experiences using JTBD.

Vicki Riley, Ventures team

Functional, social and emotional motivations

We’re working towards developing, testing and improving an online platform that connects customers with products from independent sellers, providing benefit to their local community. It’s my job to understand the needs of customers and sellers so we can provide mutual benefit to both.

We used the JTBD framework to find out customers’ underlying motivations and desired outcomes for buying from small independent businesses. We also wanted to understand the competitor landscape from a customer point of view, and identify areas of opportunity, where customers are underserved in an area that’s important to them.

We started with interviews to identify functional, social and emotional jobs, and then created a survey to validate or disprove, then prioritise in terms of importance.

We found that JTBD has worked well while we’ve been facing a new challenge and figuring out a value proposition. This might be because it allows for wider thinking and delving deeper into motivations or desired outcomes, and takes the insights out of the current solution and up to a broader level that could be applicable across different categories.

It’s also been really useful when we speak to stakeholders. Categorising what people are trying to get done into functional, social and emotional needs helped senior stakeholders understand what’s important to people and also identify our value proposition. It became clear our proposition – the area where we were able to leverage some competitive advantage – was going to be more emotional, than functional or social.

It was the unintended consequences that people talked passionately about, for example, the conversations that buying from small independents allowed them to have with friends and the way it made them feel when someone complimented the thing they’d bought. JTBD allowed us to put our focus on these emotional and social elements when developing the service.

Simon Hurst, Healthcare and wellbeing team

A survey to identify underserved needs in the market

We wanted to understand where there were potential underserved needs so we could potentially build a service around them. To try and identify a gap in the market, we ran a survey to assess which jobs around getting access to healthcare we’d identified in interviews were more significant, and which of those users were unhappy with the current way of doing it.

It looked like this:

Screen Shot 2018-07-12 at 16.03.14

Our product manager Derek Harvie wanted to do the survey so we could back up our qualitative insights with some quantitative data. Seeing the data gave both the team and the stakeholders more confidence – data is, of course, very important to new businesses which is what the Healthcare team is aiming to be.

The results of the survey allowed us to map jobs according to whether people were underserved or not – and from that helped to determine the product strategy. This abstract graph is what we worked from:

Screen Shot 2018-07-12 at 16.04.31
The survey worked well. It’s given us additional confidence in our qualitative research. Whilst I can write a decent survey, I sometimes struggle to analyse raw quantitative data, so having Michael Davies, a data scientist at Co-op who could help us with that, was invaluable.  

However, writing a survey for JTBD is challenging. It necessitates a substantial use of matrix style questions. This results in the survey having lots of very formulaic questions, and runs counter to good survey design (something we’ve learnt a lot about through Caroline Jarrett).  

Also, recruiting people for surveys is expensive. Current quotes to go out to non Co-op members is between £3 to £5 per participant. We need to find a way to get these surveys out more quickly and cheaply.

Naomi Turner, Communities team

The switch interview

I’ve been researching how and why people participate in communities. It quickly became apparent that there are lots of tasks involved even when community organisers wanted to do something relatively simple, for example, arranging a meet up. We were interested in:

  1. How people performed these tasks, eg, with a Trello board/ringing round/emailing community members.  
  2. What they were ultimately trying to achieve, eg, a community dog walking day.

Looking at these things together would help us see if there were underserved needs we could potentially build a service around.

I interviewed 3 types of community member:

  1. New volunteers.
  2. Volunteers who had stepped up to an organisational role.
  3. Volunteers who had recently stepped away from an organisational role.

We asked each of them to recall, in detail, when they have switched from using one solution, to using a different solution (for example, moving to Google Docs to record member details from Microsoft Excel). This technique is called a ‘switch’ interviews – it aims to help us understand more about what pushes someone to change their behaviour, and what the pulls of a proposition might be.

Screen Shot 2018-07-12 at 16.05.48
Image: Intercom

Once we had a broad idea of the kinds of generic ‘jobs’ that people were trying to do, for example, how they manage recruitment or finances, who opens up the hall they use – setting up a process routine which meant they as organiser could step back on some tasks), we could break these down further and see broad patterns of activity (the tasks they perform for example?) across people’s experiences, and why.

It was challenging to apply the functional framework to varied and emotive reasons for participating in groups to achieve an outcome. It was also hard to understand what outcome they wanted from their participation in the group.  Creating the most helpful level of abstraction is key to needs being useful to designers to work with, and something we got better at knowing. We went in too low level initially and had things like ‘handling cash’ when it was the higher level that was more useful to design solutions for, in this case ‘managing finances’.

Where we’ll go from here

Overall, we’ve found that JTBD is a useful way of working. However, we think teams would get most of of it if they look at it as part of a toolset rather than as a framework, and tweak their use of it depending on their specific situation.

Vicki Riley
Simon Hurst
Naomi Turner

Introducing our user research principles

UR_Principle_6-small

Our user research community of practice has been thinking about how we should approach our work. We decided to produce a set of principles that we believe underpin our purpose and our ways of working.

‘Principles’ are general to the practice of user research, yet specific to those creating them. We want them to work for us in our context, here at the Co-op. They’re specific to us: part of an organisation going through digital transformation, one with stakeholders; business needs; many digital products and services as well as a range of colleague, member and customer users. The principles may not be as applicable where you work if you have an established culture of agile and product thinking.

We want to hear what you think

Various versions have been stuck up on the wall for a while now and colleagues have given us their feedback. We’re now keen to get feedback from the wider community, too.

That includes you.

Leave a comment below, @CoopDigital on Twitter or email Head of User Research James Boardwell to let us know if you think:

  • we’ve missed anything out, or, included something that shouldn’t be there
  • something could be clearer
  • some of these principles aren’t strictly principles

We’d also like to know how valuable working with principles has been for you. Do share any examples you use.

We’re particularly interested in hearing from people who work with disadvantaged or vulnerable users, and / or with data and ethics.

Here’s the latest version.

Focus on what users do, not what they say they’d do

Observing users’ behaviour is the best indicator of what they will do in the future, and the gateway to understanding needs and motivations.

Do a little, often

Frequent research helps teams iterate on a product and validate product decisions more often, which helps promote a user-centred culture.

Give teams the evidence to make better decisions

We research and test the team’s assumptions so that decisions are based on evidence, not guess work.

Involve everyone in research

It promotes empathy and helps teams and stakeholders understand users needs.

Promote accessibility for all

We champion building products and services that are usable across all accessibility needs.

Represent users faithfully

We speak truth to power and if users’ needs are not being met, we say so. This keeps the product teams and the organisation honest.

Undertake the best research we can in any given situation

Sometimes we can’t do user research as we would like. In this instance doing some is better than not doing any.

Respect the privacy and integrity of the user

Our ability to perform our role depends on the trust we have with participants.

 

You can download our user research principles. But keep in mind they may change after feedback.

We hope our principles become ingrained our delivery teams as well as act as gentle reminders for user researchers.

User research community 
Co-op Digital

Designing the research studio at Federation House

In February, we announced that we’re building a user research lab in The Federation. We’ve now finished designing the space, confirmed our technical and furnishing suppliers, and we’re about to start building.

This post is about what we learnt about the needs of our users, and how our learnings informed the Federation Research Studio design.

Speaking to users

The studio will be available to Co-op teams including Digital, Brand and Marketing; Federation tenants and eventually, to external customers too. We spoke to a range of these people to find out about their current lab experiences and needs. We’ve also taken into account lessons learned from previous lab builds and we’ve asked for feedback from across industry too.

Two examples are:

Image of Kate's tweet that asks: Quick poll: in user research labs, what kind of sofa do you prefer? Results of the poll say 19% prefer regular 2-3 seat sofa, 56% prefer corner sofas, 25% say it doesn't make a difference

 

Identifying user needs

In the design, we considered the needs of participants, researchers and observers. Most of these needs weren’t out of the ordinary and match those documented in this post about how to build a great user research lab.

However, we also found a few needs not listed that are important to Co-op and other potential users too. These are:


1.Keeping data safe

User research labs have video and audio equipment to record users’ answers or interactions with what we’re testing. The recordings mean the responses can be shared with the rest of the team and viewed at a later date. In May, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – a regulation that’s designed to improve privacy around citizen’s data – comes into force, so making sure we keep recordings safe and secure will be a legal obligation.

We’re planning on integrating the lab’s audio visual (A/V) recorder with a media asset management solution. This will allow us to organise and securely store A/V content and, importantly, control and track who’s using it and how. Initially, the solution we choose may be simple, and we’ll iterate on it as we learn how the lab is used. We’ll share more about this in a future post.

2.A remote viewing capability

All good products and services are informed by research and making live user research easily accessible is important. Co-op is a national organisation and colleagues and stakeholders are scattered across the country, so there’s a real need for the lab to include equipment that allows for remote viewing. Having these capabilities will also help solve the ‘problem’ (a very good one to have) of an oversubscribed viewing room.

3.A flexible, multi-purpose space

Co-op teams, like Brand, often run sessions such as focus groups that are more space-needy than the one-on-one research sessions Co-op Digital researchers tend to do.

We need to use technology to make the most of the space we’ve got, so we’ll install cameras and microphones in both the viewing room and the user lounge. This way, the viewing room can be used for research activities that need more space (the tables can be folded way for even more space), and the research can either be viewed from the user lounge or from a remote meeting room. This also means that both rooms could simultaneously be used for research, with teams viewing from a meeting room, even in another building.

4.Suitable for tasks other than research

The Federation tenants expressed the need for a space to produce high-quality videos and podcasts. The lab will be a professionally soundproofed space with excellent A/V capabilities, so it’s not unimaginable that it could be used for this too.

Considering the interiors

Labs aren’t all about the technology. Getting the interior right is important too. Ideally, we want participants, user researchers and observers to feel relaxed and comfortable and the look and feel of the space is a big part of this.

The lab’s interiors will be plain and unbranded. This is to avoid distracting participants, and to ensure external brands can use the space without feeling defined by it. It’s also important that the space is neutral so that people taking part in internal research, ie, Co-op colleagues, don’t feel that they’re being tested by their employer, something that’s come up in previous research sessions.

A comfortable viewing room

Viewing rooms are often smaller and much less loved than user lounges. The more frequently team members and stakeholders watch research live, the better. Participants are generally in and out of the lab within 45 minutes, whereas observers can be in the lab for anything from 3-8 hours at a stretch. For this reason, we’re focusing on making the viewing room as comfortable as possible with dimmable warm-white lights, comfortable chairs, dark grey walls to reduce eye strain, and a large whiteboard wall for analysis and collaboration. It will be a working space.

We’ll use grey matt finishes on all flat surfaces to enhance contrast and avoid glare which will help make sure that the video image quality is the best it can be.

A lab made with users in mind

The building work will start soon and we’re confident we’ve designed the right thing for our various types of user. We’ll share more on the technology we’re using soon.

Kate Towsey
User research operations