<aside> đź‘‹
This, and all of the desk research blogs, give an overview of the process and steps taken for each part. I’ve included images taken from the FigJam boards where the majority of the work lives to illustrate the process.
If you would still like to see further details on each part, please view the FigJam board in full.
It can be found at the end of this page, or on this master page.
</aside>
The next step of this project is an initial UX audit.
Although I’m still in the early stages of the project, I wanted to do an initial UX audit to get a “state of the nation” as it were. I’ve been currently running off the assumption that the Translink apps are bad and the TFLGo app is the best practice example, but I think I need to look a bit deeper and assess that properly.
In the step, I want to analyse both of these benchmark examples and expose any issues or areas I hadn’t considered yet.
To do this, I took screenshots of core user flows and created diagrams for each app. I then went through adding green and red post it notes for positives and negatives. This was an initial sweep to pick out core strengths and weakness of each, so exact specifics of what was wrong wasn’t totally needed at this time.
Although my findings from this did largely align with my initial assumptions, there were some suprises. For example, I actually found the Translinks planning flow to have a clearer starting point than the TFLGo one.
Additionally, it exposed to me that TFLGo had no ticketing or purchasing flows, as it utilises tap on tap off throughout it’s network. I think purchasing and ticketing will be an interesting challenge throughout this project to cover all networks needs.
Again, I formed what I had learnt into key findings. While somewhat broad, I think these will help me form some initial design principles to consider when moving into the design side of the project. This has also been useful as it’s shown me there are strengths, weakness, and surprisingly, complete blindspots within each app.
