✷intro✷
In the previous system, when image quality verification failed, it was necessary to rebuild the image, which would also generate a new image id, thus the customers were required to notify the company to manually update image id in the order, which added many errors during the process.
.png)
Clarify vague requirements while designing userflows that effectively accommodate diverse roles involved in the verification process:
#1 Unclear Requirement
Vague customer needs and requirements provided by the product manager, making it difficult to establish clear design objectives and design scope.
#2 Multi-role Involvement
There are various user roles involved in the image verification and rebuilding process—such as FAEs, Software PMs, and QAs—required thoughtful consideration to ensure usability and effectiveness across different operational contexts, beyond just customer needs.
Key drivers
→
Consider main user needs and the diverse users roles of the image rebuilding process, I based my designs on the following key areas:
#1 Retain original image id
Keep the oirgnial image number through versioning, eliminating the need for customers to manually update order information.
#2 Unify image rebuild logic
Integrate diverse rebuilding logic to be consistent to reduce the information and cognition load on customers.
✷process✷
Clarifying user needs and requirements
→
I collaborated with the PM to understand user needs and business objectives, also operational workflows for various user roles within the quality verification process. By synthesizing this information, I was able to guide the subsequent stages of the design process and possible scpoe of specification impact through systems thinking.
.png)
After clarifying the target and draft concept, I proceeded to design workflows that addressed these requirements－a new verification failure handling workflow, which allows users to keep the original image number and easily understand the rebuild logic. I illustrated each step of the new process through flowcharts and wireframes using tools Lucidchart.
.png)
Once the workflows were designed, I prepared user tests to validate the proposed solutions. This included organizing usability tests with internal coordinators to gather feedback on the design. Then determine the solution - version page based on the test results.
%20(1)%20(1).png)
Modifying all affected use cases
→
Based on the insights gained from user testing, I refined the design specifications to meet user needs and enhance the overall product experience. This involved adjusting essential functionalities to align with requirements and modifying all affected use cases to ensure consistency and completeness.
.png)
Handing off design to developers
→
In the final stage, I delivered the refined and detailed user flows to the development team. Also, I collaborated closely with UI designers to discuss and finalize the user interface, ensuring alignment with the overall user experience goals. And I worked closely with the development team, providing ongoing support to ensure the design was implemented accurately and effectively.
✷outcome✷
Immediate editing and rebuilding
→
Once the software project manager entered the error reasons in the background, FAEs and customers can view the cause of the error and immediately edit and rebuild the image instead of creating a new one, regardless of the cause of the failure. This streamlined process reduces cognitive load on the users and increases overall efficiency.
.png)
By quickly view different version information on a single page, customers could have comprehensive understanding of iterations or updates of an image and its id.
.png)
Details for each version
→
After entering a certain version, the content and failure reasons of that version will be displayed, and the differences from the previous version will be displayed in color, allowing customers to effectively track changes and make informed decisions.
.png)
