v4 user flow

[alanjosephwilliams]

Initial wireframe for review. Tablet landscape layout.

1st Screen - Basic Info

2nd Screen - Contact Information

3rd Screen - Scheduling the Interview

4th Screen - Verify Income / Expenses

5th Screen - Upload ID for you + family probably missing a field regarding # of household members. Have we confirmed that is necessary? Or could we just upload 3 birth certificates? 6th Screen - Review, navigate back if necessary, opt for Medical, sign and submit

[daguar]

Looks great! I have a few comments/suggestions:

1 - I'd like to finalize & submit the CalFresh application before any verification docs stuff come up. From a technical perspective, this is so that we can keep both PDF creation/faxing and verif doc processing within the request/response cycle (i.e., not in a background job). We can work around this, but I'd want to hear a persuasive user case that for our target users — non-expert enrollment assistors — that this is somehow not good for them.

Also, from a user perspective being able to submit an application even without verification docs seems important.

2 - On the verification docs screens, I think we need to have a very clear submit without this document button/option/call to action. I know we're aiming for folks with all docs, but I really, really think this will help us instantly serve more folks (esp those missing 1 of our 4 required docs).

3 - If we're sticking with faxing (which based on quality of Mike's preprocessing images and the fact that it will save us from implementing email seems to be a decent approach) I'd like to have a "preview image" screen after every single document upload, so that people have the opportunity to retake. It could be framed as, "This is what this will look like when faxed to the agency. If the quality isn't good enough, please click 'Retake Picture'.")

4 - I'd like to limit verification document upload to single verification doc per page/screen. This is both for performance and clarity to the user.

5 - In this mock-up, signature is no longer drawn but typed — I think this is a distinct question and want to ask @lippytak his opinion on it. (I'm fairly agnostic. The only point I'd raise is that other counties might use this as a reason not to accept an application through our system.)

@alanjosephwilliams — What do you think about these suggestions? Any strong feelings about any of these suggestions, or mostly okay?

[alanjosephwilliams]

This is the exact sort of feedback I was looking for.

Your point (1) is well taken and a heartily agree. I was thinking we would do it under the hood, rather than surfacing it in the UI. But perhaps it is worth messaging this.

Your point (2) is one I agree with as well; "skip" or "submit without" should be something we make explicit on document uploads, and perhaps even some text fields.

(3) and (4) go well together. I'm not sure what "previews" will look like yet, and how people will react to seeing the photos they just uploaded in grayscale outlines, but I will explore it. @lippytak @daguar can you share some of the photos that I can use to represent the output?

I definitely made a call on (5). If typed signatures are acceptable to HSA/other counties, it seems like this approach should be privileged, despite some loss of tactile pleasure.

[alanjosephwilliams]

Design Review Raw Notes

• making sure we are remembering that our user in an assister
  • design consideration for clients / end users
  • are users or assister typing in the fields?
  • are users a "non-target"?
  • review your data - avatar
  • feature scope screep
  • pleasant trusted for assistor
  • clients aren't typing
• v4 features: regardless of family size up to 5
  • 4 clearing fields for each individual in the household
  • DOB, SSN, Name, Sex
• ZIP Code as dropdown doesn't make sense
• Copy considerations:
  • Nowhere in here are we doing any screening / eligibility
  • "Verify your eligibility"
  • "Verify your income" + "Verify your expense"
  • No need to use household ever
  • "Purchase and prepare food" "buy and cook"
• rights and responsibilities: needs a link
• Nice conformation screen with brief instruction screen
• Documents that doesn't fall int our four categories
  • "Someone covering your rent"
• As we grew from the very initial to v1 to v2
• Sending the application in before asking any verification docs
  • risk that you are done? let's mitigate it.
  • If you don't have them, talk to the interviewer.
  • No background job processes yet!
• UX of letting people who don't have docs/variable docs is important.
• Verification doc screens
  • I don't have this document / pass /
• punting on preview
  • visual feedback that you've uploaded is not v4
• One verification doc per screen
• Less confusing
• Document upoad could be generic
• How much guidance do they need that
  • on verification document
  • add another one of these, or move on
• simplicity of generic doc uploaded.
  • we can make it a separate page that people can come back to.
  • not sure we need to provide guidance on what to submit.
  • I want it to be totally totally ok to say I don't have this, because I don't have it
  • return to page is a feature creep
• a single document page upload flow
  • ID
  • Income
  • Expenses
• on ID page, submit your ID and those that you identified as part of your household.
  • to hammer it home: adding additional household members is part of the initial application.
• batch wait time on the fax. our app will wait five minutes or ten minutes. any additional fax calls (verify doc) that happens in that time.
• Should and can we, have a cover letter for each fax we send per application.
  • pair it with a cover letter?
  • not v4
  • loose fax is very bad
  • can't do shit with it.
  • Include case number case
• PII in a database / cookie / yikes!
• Are we creating any case number? No.
• Signature research is outstanding.
• Reiteration that feel, the feeling is the assister. So this is a comment about how we talk.
• Placeholder copy is field name, no longer dummy examples.
• Am I able to cleanly map the scheduling? Please put that logic in the notes.
• Development costs upfront, when they might be hidden.
  • scheduling is on a page we don't use right now.
  • more time to create the PDF
  • validation of address seems useful later, not v4
• We are asking for the social security number on the first page.
• Its very trust intensive.
• Last page with the signature.
• hidden field / encrypt entire cookie
• 1 hr pair to setting up our templating workflow. ASAP.

[lippytak]

@alanjosephwilliams small thought/request to add some CfA branding somewhere ('a service from Code for America'). This provides clarity and honesty about what is happening and the boundary of responsibilities (we get this app to HSA, no more). Let me know if you disagree or want to chat about it.

[alanjosephwilliams]

Sounds reasonable.

"A project from Code for America'a Health Studio"

[lippytak]

Yeaaaaa, let the studio live!!

@alanjosephwilliams for v4 let's retain the existing signature text ('I understand that...') AND also link out to the two referenced docs:

• Rights and Responsibilities (Program Rules Page 1) for the CalFresh Program
• CalFresh Program Rules and Penalties (Program Rules Pages 2 through 3)

We decided the review feature wasn't in v4, so that gives us more room on the sig page as you have it laid out here. I'll find or create electronic copies (see https://github.com/daguar/calfresh-and-so-clean/issues/122).

Let me know if you think this is scope creep and/or you think we should reconsider.

[alanjosephwilliams]

All good. It would actually be nice if we found some elegant way to pull this content out of a drawer or something, but for now, linking is sufficient, is not out of scope, and will satisfy requirement.

[daguar]

A request in the HTML mock-ups — for the fields that are the same as v3, please keep the "name" HTML attributes the same so I can implement the back-end in tandem.

[alanjosephwilliams]

@lippytak based on our notes from the weekend, the drawns vs. typed signature issue was still outstanding. Have we honed in on a decision as to whether it needs to stay?

[lippytak]

Need to look into this. I'll send a few info gathering emails today and then we can talk through tradeoffs. I also want to take a look at C4 and LA County's online application for some comparison data.

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 9:47 AM, alanjosephwilliams < notifications@github.com> wrote:

@lippytak https://github.com/lippytak based on our notes from the weekend, the signature was still outstanding. Have we honed in on a decision as to whether it needs to stay?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/codeforamerica/calfresh-and-so-clean/issues/119#issuecomment-52329541 .

[alanjosephwilliams]

Que es "C4" ?

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Jake Solomon notifications@github.com wrote:

Need to look into this. I'll send a few info gathering emails today and then we can talk through tradeoffs. I also want to take a look at C4 and LA County's online application for some comparison data.

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 9:47 AM, alanjosephwilliams < notifications@github.com> wrote:

@lippytak https://github.com/lippytak based on our notes from the weekend, the signature was still outstanding. Have we honed in on a decision as to whether it needs to stay?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub < https://github.com/codeforamerica/calfresh-and-so-clean/issues/119#issuecomment-52329541>

.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/codeforamerica/calfresh-and-so-clean/issues/119#issuecomment-52332778 .

t: @alanjosephwilli p: 817 713 6264

[lippytak]

https://www.c4yourself.com/c4yourself/index.jsp

There are 3 Statewide Automated Welfare Systems (SAWS) in CA: MBCW, C4, and LA County. They all support online apps for Food Stamps and other programs.

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 10:27 AM, alanjosephwilliams < notifications@github.com> wrote:

Que es "C4" >

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Jake Solomon notifications@github.com wrote:

Need to look into this. I'll send a few info gathering emails today and then we can talk through tradeoffs. I also want to take a look at C4 and LA County's online application for some comparison data.

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 9:47 AM, alanjosephwilliams < notifications@github.com> wrote:

@lippytak https://github.com/lippytak based on our notes from the weekend, the signature was still outstanding. Have we honed in on a decision as to whether it needs to stay?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub <

https://github.com/codeforamerica/calfresh-and-so-clean/issues/119#issuecomment-52329541>

.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub < https://github.com/codeforamerica/calfresh-and-so-clean/issues/119#issuecomment-52332778>

.

t: @alanjosephwilli p: 817 713 6264

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/codeforamerica/calfresh-and-so-clean/issues/119#issuecomment-52334208 .

[alanjosephwilliams]

The v4 look and feel and screen flow can now be reviewed by checking out the v4-dev-style-update branch.

[alanjosephwilliams]

The new flow has been merged into v4-dev via #137