Page MenuHomePhabricator

Run user tests on 'Other' behavior for Event type selection
Closed, ResolvedPublic

Description

User story

As Campaigns' designer, I want to test multiple interaction behaviors for the event type selector—including how “Other” is handled when selected alone or alongside other options—so that we can identify which version provides the most intuitive and user-friendly experience, and implement the one that best supports clarity and ease of use.

Background

In T355253: [EPIC] Display data on event type, there has been discussion on how we can handle the 'Other' selection when selecting Event types in the Event Registration form, since:

→ If we allow Other, we don't want organizers to pick a second event type. If they do, it kind of defeats the purpose of Other.
→ We want that organizers can pick only 1 option for Other (i.e., Other) but a maximum of 2 options for event types.

We have suggestions for that behavior:

  • Having an 'Other' header with 'Other' as an option (may feel redundant, and unclear).
  • Separate the 'Other' option with a border, and have a description on the item that mentions the behavior (i.e permitting a single selection only if you select 'Other')
  • No headers at all + item description
  • No headers at all (items ordered alphabetically)
  • When the user selects an event, the 'Other' option is disabled and/or when the user selects 'Other', all of the other event types get disabled.
Intended audience

While organizers (who use Event Registration) are the intended audience for this selection process, we can test on general audiences (i.e., not organizers specifically) since we aim for general usability.

Acceptance criteria
  • User script is drafted
  • At least 5 user testing sessions are conducted using Userlytics as platform
  • Observations are collected
  • A summary of insights is documented
  • A final recommendation is made based on findings, outlining which option should move forward for implementation, and why.

Event Timeline

These were the options that were tested —

  • Option 1: If the organizer selects two event types, then ‘Other’ is not clickable. If the organizer selects ‘Other’, no other event types are clickable. There's a description on the 'Other' option that reads 'This option cannot be combined with others'.
  • Option 2: When the organizer selects an event, the 'Other' option is disabled and when the user selects 'Other', all of the other event types get disabled. There's no description on the 'Other' option.

Summary of insights

Across all participants, Option 2 (when the user selects an event, the 'Other' option is disabled and when the user selects 'Other', all of the other event types get disabled) was consistently described as more intuitive, visually clear, and easier to understand in terms of how selection logic works between "Other" and standard event types.

Some key themes that came up across the tests:

  1. Clarity of behavior: for option 1, users understood the exclusivity rule due to the supporting description on "Other", but the selection process required more conscious processing and reading to grasp the limitation. For option 2, users immediately grasped the exclusivity of "Other" when other options were visually disabled. The behavior felt more automatic and self-explanatory, requiring no additional reading or interpretation.
  1. Visual communication: option 2's visual disablement of options was perceived as an intuitive feedback mechanism. The descriptions in Option 1 was seen as helpful but ultimately less necessary if we have a better visual cue.
  1. Cognitive load: option 2 reduced user effort since users didn’t need to read or decode behavior. On the other side, option 1 required understanding a rule and remembering it during interaction.

Final recommendation

Move forward with option 2 — this option provides the clearest and most intuitive interaction based on user expectations and feedback.