Work out how to solve the problems found in UR in asking schools for AB, LP and DP information

[claire-hughez]

Why?

In user research, school users were very confused when we asked them about ABs and DPs.

Several users thought 'provide training' meant their lead provider. However, they liked the autocomplete.

Some users also expected to be asked about their AB first, which they more readily relate to and which is more established terminology.

In particular, they were confused when their AB and DP was the same, and thought it must've been their lead provider they needed to give.

Users also did not use the toggles to understand the questions or terms used more.

What?

• Work out how we can solve the problems found in UR when asking schools for their AB, LP and DP
• Remove toggles

Out of scope

We have another ticket for trying to tackle the problems where DP and AB name differs, and working out acronyms used for them

Helpful links or other information

Some helpful ideas from the UR playback were:

• Russian doll model—starting with induction (AB) and then moving to what falls beneath that
• Consider an agnostic approach to solving this, perhaps users select their LP and then we show them eligible DPs
• Users most readily relate to their AB, which is also more established terminology. Consider asking for AB first and then ask if DP is the same entity
• Consider in-service guidance about the differences between LP, DP and AB or design the service in a way that does not rely on terminology
• Trying to incorporate using the phrase 'Teaching school hub' more
• Possible to just ask LP & AB and not DP?

[gracecbrennan]

Jas is going to start work on this one today

[gracecbrennan]

WIP

[JSJohal]

Good discussion with team today regarding the different options.

To take forward:

• design a version which asks for AB and then asks if the DP is the same - conscious of the language we use here regarding TSH's, and not to use language such as DP which can be confusing
• design a version where we ask AB and then LP - with this option, we'd be using the LP answer to notify the LP and leave the DP to be reported by the LP

Plan is to flesh these two out as part of the prototype for the next round of testing and figure out how we'd like to test both.

[gracecbrennan]

Most of this is into prototype - except the content.

Will review in session with Claire and Awo later and look to close.

[JSJohal]

Spoke about this today. Bits to do:

• keep language around DP
• look to show LP within the DP question (gathered from AB choice)
• create secondary version with just LP question after AB

[gracecbrennan]

This was also reviewed yday and points above will be worked on by Jas today.

[JSJohal]

Been working on this on the Lucid board

[gracecbrennan]

@JSJohal will try to get some time with team this afternoon to walk through changes

[JSJohal]

Walked through with @claire-hughez, @kerry-b-dfe, @Dom-Collins, Toby & Rosalie the couple of options as here: https://lucid.app/lucidspark/0fc74abe-118f-4cda-92fb-de87e4b8a36a/edit?view_items=LjVeo73YnG3C&invitationId=inv_e37a643a-8ad0-4321-9455-4e30f29ef89b

These are in the prototype here (password: review): Asking AB, LP & DP Asking AB & DP only

We're going to try to test both of these options. However a few things still outstanding:

• We're going to revisit content on the AB / DP / LP pages specifically, considering the guidance and how it's presented (CC @Dom-Collins)
• The list of ABs and DPs are inconsistent - there's lots of ABs that can also be DP but the names don't match. We need to think about what we can do for this - even in testing, it'll mean data won't be accurate as per the users expectations (which we can manage in the UR I guess)

[gracecbrennan]

Another catch up with Claire today and this might change slightly

[JSJohal]

Latest designs in prototype and on this GitHub branch. Screenshots on this Lucid board.

Flows are generally complete, but still to be reviewed as an overall incl content.

[gracecbrennan]

A few things to tweak on flow changes today

[JSJohal]

I've made some flow changes to the journey based on the review we did, these can be seen on this Lucid board and they're also in the prototype (password is review).

I think there's some content changes we've not put into the prototype yet - these can be made on the Lucid board for now by @Dom-Collins and I can pick them up and put them into the prototype when I'm back from leave.

Alternatively, if anyone wants to make any changes to the prototype while I'm on leave, feel free to make them on the v3 prototype branch and they'll automatically deploy to the Heroku prototype environment. Probably the easiest way would be to create a new branch off of the v3 prototype branch to make changes, and then do a PR back into the v3 branch.

I've added checkmarks to the post-its for where I've made changes on the Lucid board!

[claire-hughez]

A couple of extra tweaks brought up when we talked through this journey with devs:

• We should specify when they're giving a corrected name that it should be a full name
• Instead of saying 'Enter your ECT's email address', we could say 'Enter John Smith's email address'

It was asked if we should confirm the email at all, beyond the check details page. Any thoughts on that? We know mistakes in the email are common.

I've also created a new content ticket to define how we want to use acronyms, particularly ECTs, and terms like added/registered in the service. @peteryates @mason-emily

[mason-emily]

@claire-hughez & @aabdi18 might look at updating content in the prototype if Dom isn't back today