Audit
A look under the hood
Key decision makers for the audit.
High-rate of drop off from initial sign ups despite the apps advantages.
Poor reviews across the iOS and Google Play store due to a often highlighted poor overall experience and a dated UI with poor use of space and lack of information density.
No bland personas here - focused on finding real people and every day people to share their needs, wants and what they’d expect to see. This is behaviour based UX, not characteristic based UX.
Completing the audit
I undertook a month’s long review of Herddle’s current design infrastructure from their Figma files, to their component management and underlying UI framework. This also included looking at the current user mapping and data collection around users progress through the platform. The data was found to be incomplete and largely useless.
Along with this I sat down with users representing each of the distinct user categories for interviews, feedback sessions and product walkthroughs.
Tools used: Miro, Notion and Figma
Interviews
Focused on extracting the core dislikes, feedback and frustrations of the products usability
Feedback sessions
A wider look both internally and externally on the issues covering both usability, the design process and development comms.
Walkthroughs
Guided walkthroughs of the product by each of the stakeholders to get into the nitty gritty detail of the issues
Completing the audit
The onboarding experience lacked clear calls to action. As well as a sense of a lack of progress due to it’s length (10+ steps) and missing step counter.
Poor data representation with incompatible graph layouts and wasted space when no data was present.
No clear calls to action for managing maintenance requests, with features hidden 2-3 levels deep in burger menus.
Poor internal messaging UI and lack of notifications between tenants and agents, leading to long lead times to find easy resolutions.
Inconsistent use of button styles, font sizes, iconography and viewport widths.
No in-app or app based notifications.
Lack of accessibility features and poor accessibility (e.g poor contrast, incomplete headers and no text to speech support).
