Staging Review - AFS (was Booz Allen) - GI Bill Comparison Tool

[amyknox]

Steps to complete Staging Review:

• [x] VFS Product Manager: Create this issue and fill in your team and feature name in the title.
• [x] VFS: Using the Slack Workflow (User guide), notify Collaboration Cycle team of this Github ticket in #vfs-platform-support.
• [x] Platform: Schedule meeting with Platform reviewers and requesting team attendees (as listed below)
• [x] VFS: At least 4 days before scheduled meeting, you must complete list of artifacts below
• [x] VFS: Verify that access information has been provided for the tool or feature in staging. Do not put staging credentials in your va.gov-team ticket; store or reference them in a .md file in the va.gov-team-sensitive repository.
• [x] Platform: Create feedback tickets and link to the Staging Review ticket (if no feedback, please comment stating that).
• [ ] VFS: Respond to Platform feedback tickets.
• [ ] VFS: Update this ticket with the product’s launch date after it has gone live.
• [x] Platform: Update Platform Collaboration Point Tracker.
• [ ] VFS: Close this ticket when the review is complete.

Artifacts

• Link to product outline
• Link to the tool or feature in staging
  • NA: Staging credentials or test user information required
  • NA: Staging test-user information
• NA: Link to content brief
• Link to project's content source of truth
• NA: Link to the Github ticket that shows the work for creating and/or updating any relevant static content pages and entry points for this project
• Link to release plan with the "Planning" sections completed (in each section: Phase I, Phase II, Go Live) Baseline satisfaction metrics in-progress
• Link to your product test cases/test plan in TestRail with test execution logs for QA practice area review
• Link to your Coverage for References and Summary Defects reports in TestRail for QA practice area review
• Verification that accessibility checks are complete: Link to your TestRail Platform accessibility test plan template. (preferred)
• List of known issues: see the list below in this ticket, which includes completed, in progress and outstanding issues.
• (OLD: was _List of ~known issues~ dev stories in flight_

Meeting attendees from requesting team

• Product Manager (required): Gina Ronat, eugenia.gina.ronat@accenturefederal.com (_was Darrell Neel, neeldarrell@bah.com)

• OCTO-DE Product lead (recommended): Matt Self

• OCTO-DE Design lead (required): Ryan Thurlwell

• Anyone else from your team who significantly contributed to the artifacts provided (required):

  • Abe Blanco, abelardo.blanco@accenturefederal.com (_was Will McCormack, mccormackwill@bah.com)
  • Manish Shah, m.c.shah@accenturefederal.com (_was Dan Shawkey, ShawkeyDaniel@bah.com)

  Following names are NA - from BAH that are no longer on project _-Amy Knox, knoxamy@bah.com _- Jen Jones, jonesjennifer2@bah.com _- Emma Waters, watersemma@bah.com

• VFS Content, IA, accessibility, and QA specialists (if applicable): name(s)

  • QA Specialists
  • Hocine Halli, hocine.halli@accenturefederal.com (_was Michael Delli-Gatti, delli-gattimichael@bah.com)
  • Jake Finnern, jacob.finnern@accenturefederal.com (_was Adam Sonntag, sonntagadam@bah.com)
  • Daniel Barnes, d.a.barnes@accenturefederal.com

Scheduling

Staging Reviews can only be scheduled on Thursday.

Please select your preferred time slot per the Platform Collaboration Meetings Calendar.

Date/time - New Date request December 2, 2:00 PM

Date/time - (Previous review with BAH) August 26, 1:30 PM

Please note:

• All times are shown in ET.
• Available time slots are indicated with [STAGING BLOCK].
• When you reserve a time slot, the reserved meeting will show up alongside the [STAGING BLOCK].
• Please select a time slot at least 4 business days from request date.

Additional information

Please refer to Platform Collaboration Cycle on Platform website for more information about the Collaboration Cycle.

[mnorthuis]

@amyknox Below is IA feedback from today's review:

Launch blocking:

• The H1 and intro content do not accurately reflect the actual functionality of the tool - which is comparing benefits by school. The H1 and intro content must include accurate keywords and descriptors for users and SEO.
• The "Update results" buttons only update the results based on selections within their corresponding filter set - if these are meant to update independently, the labels of those buttons should be distinct in what they are updating. For example, the top button is "Update tuition and housing estimates" (it doesn't seem to impact search results at all) versus the bottom button would be "Update results"
• When on search by location, the "Showing 46 search results for 'minnesota'" info should be displayed above the filters and results list the same as it is in the search by name experience - this info should be in a consistent and prominent place as it is the primary feedback on what is being displayed.
• On the search by location, the "Update tuition and housing estimates" impacts data in the search results, not the map - users have no indication that changes are happening in the data. Users must have an indicator of how changes are impacting their search results.
• Breadcrumb for detail page should use a term other than "School detail" since not all facilities shown are schools - i.e. "Facility detail". Consider using the facility name in the breadcrumb for the detail page in place of "School detail" or "Facility detail" for the best experience.
• URL for detail page - use a term other than "/school-detail" since not all facilities shown are schools (i.e. gi-bill-comparison-tool/facility-detail/).

Non-LB

• The search entry box occupies quite a bit of vertical space, it is barely noticeable that results are on the page when you are scrolled all the way to the top of the page
• URL for detail page - I would encourage replacing the ID used in the URL string with the actual facility name.
• Consider using a different character as a delimiter for the URL parameters on the compare page rather than a space which must be encoded.
• What is the sub-option under VET TEC providers for? For schools, the additional options are labeled for the user to exclude school types. For this option, are they including or excluding?
• The "Highlight differences" option label should be a bit more descriptive and the use of the asterisk in the label of the input is confusing. Consider a more descriptive label for the selection, then show the asterisk with text next to the content "An indicates the information is different between the schools shown."

[amyknox]

@mnorthuis Thank you for the feedback!

Couple questions for the following breadcrumb and URL launch blockers:

• Breadcrumb for detail page should use a term other than "School detail" since not all facilities shown are schools - i.e. "Facility detail". Consider using the facility name in the breadcrumb for the detail page in place of "School detail" or "Facility detail" for the best experience.
• URL for detail page - use a term other than "/school-detail" since not all facilities shown are schools (i.e. gi-bill-comparison-tool/facility-detail/).

We're updating the terminal breadcrumb from "School details" to "Institution details." Since we're using "Institution" as the general term for schools, employers & VET TEC providers, the breadcrumb will echo & reinforce that nomenclature.

For the URL, unfortunately, we can't use the institution name and have to use the facility number due to technical constraints. The current syntax is .../profile/[facilitynumber] Given that, would the following syntax be an acceptable approach: .../institution-detail/[facilitynumber]?

[amyknox]

@mnorthuis

Regarding the button inside the "Update tuition and housing estimates" accordion, that button label is intended to be "Update estimates". We caught that incorrect "Update results" label in in a late-cycle design review but the update hasn't made it to staging yet.

When that label is updated to "Update estimates", does it sufficiently address both of these issues you reported?

• The "Update results" buttons only update the results based on selections within their corresponding filter set - if these are meant to update independently, the labels of those buttons should be distinct in what they are updating. For example, the top button is "Update tuition and housing estimates" (it doesn't seem to impact search results at all) versus the bottom button would be "Update results"
• On the search by location, the "Update tuition and housing estimates" impacts data in the search results, not the map - users have no indication that changes are happening in the data. Users must have an indicator of how changes are impacting their search results.

[mnorthuis]

Hi @amyknox, responses to the above questions

Regarding the breadcrumb and URL feedback

• if "institution" is the word that you have landed on to be more inclusive of the different types of education/on the job providers, then using that in the breadcrumb will work.
• for the URL, I figured there might be technical constraints for using the name, so thank you for confirming that. In that case I'm fine with using "institution" in the URL as well, followed by the facility ID.

Regarding the "update" buttons

• clarifying the language on the button to "update estimates" does help distinguish the two buttons. Thank you for that!
• For the second bullet, the change to the language doesn't really help the fact that users may not be aware that the changes are impacting the results list at the bottom of that column. This is a separate issue from the button label. Both visual users and users with assisted tech need an indication that something changed on the page.

[shiragoodman]

Hi BAH/Education Application team - for the 2nd Staging Review, we will just be validating the launch-blocking issue. If you'd like us to take a look at anything else, please feel free to comment on the ticket and tag the POC/reviewer. You are also welcome to attend Design office hours on Tuesday or Collab Cycle office Hours on Wednesday.

If any links or access information has changed since the first staging review, please let us know and update the main body of the ticket above (do not post in the comments). Thank you!

CC: @WillMcCormack @amyknox

[ERRonat0609]

@shiragoodman - RE-submitting the original ticket as discussed, with updates to reflect the additional AFS team info.

The following tickets have been closed since AFS took over this project: #29346, #29373, #29370, and #29484. All other defect tickets were closed by BAH prior to their departure.

[ERRonat0609]

@shiragoodman Per your request, here is the mockup from Ryan for the Notification modal that we are adding, which has pushed our staging review out a week so that we can implement it. Users will see this the first time they access the new CT.

12/3; NOTE: this info has changed, please see the comment at the bottom of this ticket!

[peggygannon]

Hi, @ERRonat0609 Please see below for content recommendation for this modal text. Let me know if you have any questions!

We’ve launched a new version of the GI Bill Comparison Tool With this new version you can:

• Search by location with a new map view
• Compare up to 3 schools side-by-side
• View your benefits with more streamlined displays

{button} Go to the GI Bill Comparison Tool

[ERRonat0609]

Update regarding the modal notification mentioned on 11/30 above: due to issues that we have encountered and after discussion with Ryan T, the team has decided to release without this notification, so the modal and text mentioned above will not be included, nor will any other type of notification.

[allison0034]

@ERRonat0609 I just want to confirm that Link to the tool or feature in staging in the original ticket is still correct

[ERRonat0609]

@allison0034 Yes, that is the correct link

[mnorthuis]

@ERRonat0609 What is your plan for launch of this tool in regards to it's URL and the production tool? Will you be moving it to the existing production URL and eliminating "sandbox" from the URL?

[ERRonat0609]

@mnorthuis > What is your plan for launch of this tool in regards to it's URL and the production tool? Will you be moving it to the existing production URL and eliminating "sandbox" from the URL?

Yes, we will be using the same production URL, and once it is live, we will use the same staging URL, minus the "sandbox"

[mnorthuis]

@ERRonat0609 Thank you for that info. This tool was migrated over from vets.gov with the same URL structure, but it is technically incorrect since it doesn't represent the accurate structure. If you are changing the URL of the tools from staging to production (removing the "sandbox" portion), it would be an ideal time to correct the URL issue which will help improve findability/SEO and ensure the navigation system is accurate (breadcrumb doesn't match URL). Is this something that can be done as part of this launch?

Correct URL would be www.va.gov/education/gi-bill-comparison-tool/

It is inserting the accurate sub-directory (/education) where the tool should live.

[ERRonat0609]

@mnorthuis - I get where you're coming from and I agree that the URL should be fixed, but I have a question: if we changed this URL now, would that affect the information being captured in Google Analytics? cc: @dan-brooking @bsmartin-ep please see Mikki's question above

Also including Manish, our tech lead for this question -- @af-manish would there be any reason to NOT correct the URL when we go live with the new version?

[jimuhh]

Here's the screenshot of the mixed filtering behavior noted in staging review IA feedback

[ERRonat0609]

@jimuhh - fyi, we have a defect ticket from the previous staging review to fix that - as part of #29369

[jimuhh]

@ERRonat0609 -- thanks for letting me know! I saw a closed ticket that referred to a slightly different filter issue but not that one specifically. I'm keeping the issue in the feedback but removing "launch blocker" label by way of acknowledging that it's on your radar.

[shiragoodman]

hey @mrblanco1 and @ERRonat0609 . Per our discussion at the Staging Review today, all issues we found will have the label 2ndStaging so that we can distinguish them from the issues identified at the August BAH Staging Review. You can use this query to see them all. Please let us know if you have questions/concerns about any of the tickets/issues identified. I'll post the recording here as soon as it's available.

[shiragoodman]

Recording of 12/9 Staging Review Passcode: ^$r#WQt6

[bsmartin-ep]

@ERRonat0609 -

if we changed this URL now, would that affect the information being captured in Google Analytics?

No - all of our tagging is based on pushing events to GTM, so we shouldn't see any changes (other than the URL attached to the event the GA). The old tagging is very very dependent on page URL, but the new tagging is much less rigid.