Gautrain team 2

782 views
706 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
782
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
355
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Gautrain team 2

  1. 1. Rewriting a disclaimer Team 2 Lisbon | 2010
  2. 2. User testing How do I tell her the document is awful? ... Just keep smiling... So what are you thinking?
  3. 3. The participants
  4. 4. The current disclaimer
  5. 5. The current disclaimer
  6. 6. Heading for an info slide Body text
  7. 7. The new disclaimer
  8. 8. 1. The lack of clarity on the ‘before’ version gives users a poor image of the company. “I was so discouraged after reading the first paragraph that I just gave up.”
  9. 9. 2. Users engaged more with the ‘after’ version than the ‘before’ version. Before: “I don’t want to read it, but it probably says things like, don’t step on the wrong side of the train…” After: “Now I might read it.” “I understand what the sign says now, but I believe that Gautrain is responsible.... If my insurance will not pay, the Gautrain must pay.”
  10. 10. 3. Users disagreed with the disclaimer, even more so when they understood the disclaimer. The current disclaimer: ”The disclaimer is purposely not very clear, because if the passengers understood what it actually said, they would not be happy and would complain about it.” The new disclaimer: “I understand what the sign says, but I believe that Gautrain is responsible in some situations. They are just saying this in case.”
  11. 11. 4. Even if the content is understood people cannot apply it to specific situations. The current disclaimer: “They definitely cover themselves against ‘loss, damage or injury’, but I cannot figure out if this includes a loss of money due to a missed flight.” “I had to read it over and over and still have NO idea what they’re on about. Only thing I got is that we are screwed. You get on that train regardless.”
  12. 12. 5. An understandable heading made the document more inviting. Before: “I would rather ask someone what it means – but no, I have never asked anyone what a disclaimer means.” After: “I can understand what it’s about now.”
  13. 13. 6. Shorter sentences and paragraphs made the document easier to read. Respondents could read the sentences without getting lost. 7. Replacing jargon and legalese made the document easier to read. “I understand this part - released from duty of care. Whatever happens, they don’t care.”
  14. 14. 8. A clear division between content and definitions, and improved design, made the document easier to read. “All those Government names, executors, blah blah... It confuses me SO much!” Bombela WHO??
  15. 15. Points to explore... • Consumers engaged with the rewrite more. • A document that is clear and understandable could lead to more – not fewer – queries. • Regardless of whether the passengers understood the disclaimer better or not, they will still use the Gautrain’s services.

×