Problem Statement
"The existing filter chips are taking too much space and not organized by category."
Overview:
In most enterprise applications, when filtering is needed, it’s because the data is complex and oftentimes user-generated. We’re typically dealing with long email t titles, unpredictable custom fields, complex and additive variables, etc.
In most enterprise applications, when filtering is needed, it’s because the data is complex and oftentimes user-generated. We’re typically dealing with long email t titles, unpredictable custom fields, complex and additive variables, etc.
There are 7 system default “Quick filters” on top of the document table. However, both Factor and Broker customers increasingly added more than 50 filters and use filter chips daily to filter the documents needed for auditing purposes. The true potential of the filters has not been fully activated into a consumable feature set. This causes user frustration and slows down the audit process.
Possible Solution: New filter grouped by category.
The product designers partner with the product managers and relationship managers to conduct user interviews to validate our assumptions.
Discovery:
User interview questions (Quantitative Analysis)
User interview questions (Qualitative Analysis)
What categories are needed for you to accomplish your work?
Customer name
Sales Rep name
Auditor name
Load Status
Locations
Revenue code
How does the filter chips grouping issue impact your work? (The feedback is stated in the pain points section.)
Pain Points
The user told the Relationship manager they wanted to add customized filters. The sales engineers quickly added the new filter chips to the UI but the top section of the application is cluttered with unorganized chips.
We interviewed 16 users from different companies using the above survey and found a possible solution: Group by categories such as Customer names, auditor names, sales rep names, locations, and revenue codes.
We interviewed 16 users from different companies using the above survey and found a possible solution: Group by categories such as Customer names, auditor names, sales rep names, locations, and revenue codes.
Pain Points from Users' POV
Ideate: How Might We Brainstorming
Design
Wireframe
Hi-Fi for Development Team
Prototype
Testing and User Feedback
We turned on the new filters category on UAT testing environment and the users liked it the first few days. But during the second week, some users said they would like more the 1 favorite filter. They want to be able to save more than one filter so that they can save the client/company lists they are assigned to or save certain combo filters based on their needs.
Here’s how the new filter design enhanced the user experience:
Navigation efficiency: Users don’t waste time scrolling through irrelevant data. For example, instead of browsing through scattered filter chips, we separate the System filters like QuickPay, Large batch, Price mismatch from the customer added filter categories.
Personalized content delivery: Filters cater to individual preferences. Consider customized categories when on-boarding each customer; by selecting specific categories like ‘Locations’ or ‘Auditor names’ users review documents tailored to their auditing needs.
Decision-making support: Overwhelming users with options can paralyze decision-making. Filters limit choices, making it easier for users to decide. Only show limited date range and company-specific filters.
Reduction in cognitive load: Users don’t need to process excessive information. Allow the users to save frequently used filter and filter combos, ensuring users aren’t overwhelmed or fatigued.
Improved Satisfaction and Retention: When users find what they’re looking for quickly and efficiently, they’re more likely to continue using Audit platform.
Phase 2: Improvement: Save the frequently used filters
