OVERVIEW
wag.io is an Australian based, B2B Affiliate Marketing Compliance system used within the online gaming space, it also helps companies reach their marketing goals via affiliate marketing. Due to the highly competitive nature of the industry, I can only show some of the functions from the system; and also due to the scale of each module, I will be discussing specific function per case study. For this one, I will be going into detail on how we managed some of the functions in WATCH module.
I was brought on board to help improve v2.0.0.0 of the system. As the only UX Designer in a team of Developers and Graphic Designer, I was tasked to ensure usability and effectivity of current functions. I was also expected to introduce new features or functions to address newly discovered problems.
Because of time constraints, limited budget, and somewhat Agile nature of the Development, I approached the Design challenge with a Lean UX mindset making sure that I am in constant coordination with the Engineers and other stakeholders. I was fortunate enough to team-up with Developers that understands the value of a good UX Design and are willing to work and closely coordinate with me every step of the way; as the UX Designer, I did my best to provide comprehensive direction and identified critical and crucial blockers that need immediate attention.
‘I was also expected to introduce new features or functions to address newly discovered problems.’
USER GOAL
Before wag.io’s WATCH module, the Affiliate Managers manually checks each Affiliate website to review if their partners are complying with their brand guidelines and are within Government regulations; to avoid large fines when an Affiliate partner committed an infraction, Affiliate Managers must provide proof that they have made efforts in making sure that all Affiliate partners are compliant. But checking thousands of pages would usually last weeks or months to complete, this would sometimes result in delayed response by the Affiliate Manager to an infraction.
WATCH module is the compliance section of wag.io that automatically searches and scans websites that mentions the User’s brand, it checks if the brand-related content of a website conforms to brand guidelines, and more importantly, Government regulations. WATCH module v1.0 was very effective at searching and scanning Affiliate sites and reduced the checking time from multiple weeks to just a couple of days; however, we discovered that there is disparity between what the system knows and what the system tells the User. This is where I came in and collaborated with the team to make the module even more effective and a more complete solution to our Users’ problem.
‘we discovered that there is disparity between what the system knows and what the system tells the User.’
THE PROBLEM
WATCH Scan Results presents a two-level table, Domain and URL levels; aside from the obvious reason of being the most intuitive structure to have the URL information under the Domain, it is also important to our Users to view the Domain first as they already have perceived ranking on each Domain based on their previous experience with the partners. Following are some of the problems that we identified based on User interviews and Design Audit:
Domain level
The Domain level only shows basic information like number of URLs and Brand assets found, it does not indicate if there is an issue and the extent of the issue, the User would need to drill down to URL level to see that information in order for them to decide on the next step to take.
‘…checking thousands of pages would usually last weeks or months to complete, this would sometimes result in delayed response…’
URL level
After drilling down from Domain level to check further information, the URL level have multiple possible translation and overlapping possible succeeding steps. Specific instance is when the magenta visual cue could mean Scan is not complete or Scan is complete but there are possible issues, the cues can have different meanings depending on the combination of the Status and Results of the Scan, this is the outcome of trying to minimize the information the User needs to process but ended with an information that needs further translation and investigation, which ultimately wasted more of the User’s time.
Further Findings
During the exploration of the problem and possible solutions, I have also discovered that after getting the Scan Results, there is no automated option to relay the actionable items to the Affiliate partners; the Affiliate Managers will still need to spend a great amount of time reviewing and collating the information before sending it to their partners.
As I went further down the rabbit hole, I found that the logic on the Scan Result itself adhere to conflicting parameters; the logic is trying to address the possibility of a neutral result but has caused inconsistent out instead.
THE SOLUTION
I put forward the possible solution of making Scan Status and Scan Results to two distinct information that is straightforward and with a simple UI. After further exploration and User and stakeholder interviews, I suggested putting progressive visual cues in the Domain level and URL level, this will give the Users a chance to decide to skip a certain domain or drill down to URL Level to check the result instead of checking all scanned Domains.
Domain level
Scan Results Overview - a circular gauge showing the range of correct and incorrect Brand mentions.
Color Teal = Correct use of Brand Assets.
Color Yellow = Incorrect use of Brand Assets.
Scan Status Overview - when the Scan is still ongoing, the same circular gauge for the Results Overview will just be Grey with tooltip for additional information.
‘…the logic on the Scan Result itself adhere to conflicting parameters; the logic is trying to address the possibility of a neutral result but has caused inconsistent output instead.’
URL level
Scan Results Overview - rectangular visual identifier that shows the status of the scan.
Color Teal = Scan Complete.
Color Yellow = Scan On-hold, this happens when scan credit is insufficient.
Color Grey = Validating, this happens when the system is checking if the URL found contains Brand Assets.
Color Magenta = Scan Not Complete, this happens when the scan was interrupted due to different causes like time-out, disconnection, etc.
Scan Results - updated logic for visual identifier that shows the results of the scan.
Tick Mark= Correct use of Brand Assets.
Exclamation Mark = Incorrect use of Brand Assets.
Question Mark = Possible incorrect use of Brand Assets but may need verification.
Cross Mark = No Information found.
Further Findings: A need for Report Generation
The previous iteration of the Scan Report is just a list of how many URLs was found and the type of Brand assets it contains. I collaborated with a Senior Developer to create a concise document that includes the following information:
-Domain
-Domain owner
-Domain and/or partner email
-Active link to the page with incorrect Brand content
-Sample of correct Brand content
-Domain owner
-Domain and/or partner email
-Active link to the page with incorrect Brand content
-Sample of correct Brand content
This document can then be sent through CRM from the WATCH Module without leaving the Scan Results page, or downloading the document and sending it via third party email if the User does not have the CRM Module.
Further Findings: Improved Scan Results Logic
I have pushed to improve the logic behind the Results icons to reflect a more consistent result, unfortunately, I cannot enumerate the steps that we took on improving the logic to avoid divulging too much information about the system.
APPROACH
Due to incomplete data on industry specific processes and working without previous User patterns, executing a possible solution is uncertain and may prove a huge waste of time. So I set out to do an expedited research by conducting interviews with the v1.0 Users, our Engineers, and our CEO to check and validate my hypothesis to some extent. I mainly investigated if the perceived problem is an actual User problem and to see if we can discover possible solutions by talking to the stakeholders, as these things often go, the solution can be found in or around the problem itself.
After confirming the problem, the next step we took is thoroughly review the proposed solution. I requested regular meetings with the Business Development Manager and the Tech Lead to constantly realign our efforts to our current goals and to re-evaluate the goal itself.
I have also conducted workshops and regular catch-up with our Client Support Team and the Tech Lead to further evaluate the current function, and to see if the proposed solution is adequate in solving the Users’ problems and if it truly adds value to the Users’ workflow.
A couple of deliberation later, and with the support of the Tech Lead, Client Support Team, and the Business Development Manager, I was able to convince the Module Lead Developer that Status and Results should not be merged to avoid making the Users translate, and have them remember the formula of each result before they can decide on a possible action.
The Development Team simultaneously worked on the improvements on Scan Status, Scan Results, and Scan Report. We were only able to include some information in the Scan Report due to time limitations, so I put the remaining Scan Report information in our Future Enhancement List.
CONCLUSIONS
A few weeks after deployment of the improvements, I requested a meeting with some of our Clients and Users to validate the implemented changes. The Clients and Users are very happy with the improved Status and Results which has become straightforward; however, they have requested an additional status for ‘Currently Scanning’ to help them identify which URL is still being scanned.
The Clients are also very happy with the greatly improved Scan Report which simplified and accelerated their process. The definitive Scan Results has also given the Users confidence on utilizing the Scan Report, in fact, the Scan Report has become one of the major selling points of the module according to our Business Development Manager and the Sales Team.
While working on the Scan Results, I also discovered some disconnect between the Client Support and Development Teams; the Client Support Team is primarily the first to receive User feedback, but due to the teams’ different schedules and some technical communication gap, there are misunderstandings and missed opportunities.
In light of this discovery, we arranged regular catch-up and workshop with our Client Support Team and the Tech Lead to formulate a process that ensures timely relay of information and prioritization of User requests. This also gave us the chance to create a First-contact Troubleshooting Steps for the Client Support Team to provide a better Customer Experience that is both timely and effective.
