This article covers iterations we made to the results page. You can also read the design history about the initial designs for the results page.
What we already knew
Previous research showed that the results page was one of the most challenging parts of the service. Users could generally complete the checker and reach their results, but many struggled to understand how the childcare support applied to their circumstances.
This was partly because the service was bringing together several different childcare support schemes, often for multiple children. Which increases the amount of potential information provided to users.
We also knew that many parents had limited awareness of childcare support beyond child benefits. This meant we could not assume users would arrive with a clear understanding of the support, terminology or how schemes can be used together.
For more context you can read about how we approached the initial design and testing of the results page.
The design problem
One challenge with our previous user testing was that the prototype was not responsive to the answers a user was providing. Participants went through the checker and answered questions but were then shown example results rather than results that related to their answers.
Even when researchers explained this, some users focused on differences between their circumstances and the example outcome instead of the information being presented.
We also faced the design challenge of needing the results page to provide enough information to address the user stories we had developed from previous user research. These included providing users with details of:
- what support was available
- how different schemes worked together
- when they could apply
- what they needed to do next
Many participants told us they would be most likely to use the service on their phone and often in the evening, fitting it around other responsibilities. This meant we needed to present detailed eligibility information in a way that worked well on smaller screens and remained consistent with GOV.UK design patterns.
The challenge was understanding whether the issues seen in previous research was the relevance of the results, the way information was presented, or a combination of both.
To try and answer this, we decided to test more realistic results scenarios to better understand how users interpreted the information being presented.
What we considered
Building a fully working prototype
One option was to build a prototype that generated results directly from participants' answers.
This would have produced the most realistic experience and removed concerns about users seeing generic example results.
However, creating a fully functioning rules engine was beyond the scope of this round of research. It would also have required significant effort that could instead be invested in testing concepts.
We therefore looked for a simpler way to make results feel more relevant without recreating the full service logic.
Continuing to use a single example results page
We considered continuing to use a single set of example results.
This would have reduced design and development effort.
However, previous research suggested that participants often became distracted when example results clearly did not reflect their circumstances.
This made it difficult to understand whether issues related to the content and structure of the page or to the artificial nature of the prototype.
Testing multiple realistic results scenarios
Instead, we decided to create a series of results pages representing different combinations of support, eligibility outcomes and family circumstances.
This allowed researchers to show participants results that more closely reflected their situation without requiring the prototype to generate personalised outcomes.
We believed this would help us focus research on how users understood the information rather than whether the results looked realistic.
What we designed
Ahead of research, we created 6 versions of the results page based on common combinations of childcare support and user circumstances.
Each version represented different combinations of:
- childcare schemes
- children within a household
- start and apply dates
The intention was not to test different visual designs. Instead, we wanted to understand how users interpreted results that felt more relevant to their own circumstances.
We continued with a single results page that brought together all of a family's childcare support information.
The page grouped results by child. Within each child's section, support was organised based on when it would become available. This allowed users to see:
- support they could access now
- support they could access in the future
- how support changed as a child got older
For each childcare scheme, we used entitlement cards that included:
- when users could apply
- what support they could receive
- when support starts
- when support ends
- whether the support could be combined with other schemes
The page also included:
- links to apply or find out more
- options to change answers
- guidance and support information
- routes to additional help through local authorities and Family Hubs
Testing realistic outcomes rather than perfect journeys
Researchers selected the results page that most closely matched each participant's circumstances and likely eligibility. This allowed participants to engage with more realistic outcomes during research.
We wanted to understand whether users could make sense of childcare support when the information presented felt realistic and personally relevant.
Explaining when users are not eligible and what to do next
You can read our design history about designing for users who are not eligible for any support.
What we learned and how we iterated
The round of research we conducted took place in-person at 2 libraries in Essex and involved 16 participants.
Participants included:
- 7 parents on maternity leave
- 3 self-employed participants
- 4 participants who were not currently working
- 5 participants with access needs
- 2 participants with lower digital confidence
Many were first-time parents and were engaging with childcare support for the first time.
Because the focus of this round was understanding results, researchers showed participants one of 6 results-page scenarios that most closely matched their circumstances. This allowed people to engage with more realistic outcomes without requiring a fully functioning eligibility engine.
Research was conducted in busy real-world environments. Many participants were caring for babies during sessions and described experiencing "baby brain", reduced concentration and limited time. This allowed us to understand more about how people may respond to the service under the circumstances where they were likely to use it.
The more realistic scenarios did not solve issues with comprehension
Showing participants more realistic results helped reduce some of the distraction caused by generic example outcomes.
However, many users still found the results difficult to process.
Participants appreciated the card-based layout and often highlighted the funding dates as particularly useful because they helped them plan ahead.
Despite this, many participants struggled to process the volume of information available on the page. This became particularly difficult when users needed to compare multiple schemes or understand results for more than one child.
Several participants described needing to scroll through large amounts of information before understanding what support was available. Others suggested that the page was difficult to scan because multiple funding types appeared together in a similar visual format.
One participant explained:
"It's just a lot of information at once."
Another suggested that a summary or expandable sections could make the page easier to digest.
This suggested that realism alone was not the main problem. Information architecture and content comprehension remained significant challenges.
Users wanted an overview before detailed information
Several participants suggested they would prefer to see a summary before exploring detailed scheme information.
Rather than immediately comparing eligibility rules, combinations and dates, participants often wanted answers to simpler questions:
- what support can I get?
- which child does it apply to?
- what should I do next?
Participants suggested concepts such as summary views, accordions and expandable sections that would allow them to understand their situation before exploring more detailed explanations.
These suggestions emerged naturally during sessions rather than in response to designs we had already produced.
This indicated a broader need for clearer information hierarchy.
Understanding scheme combinations and relevancy remained difficult
Participants continued to struggle with understanding how different forms of childcare support worked together.
Many could identify individual schemes but found it difficult to understand whether schemes could be combined or whether they represented alternative options.
This was particularly evident when:
- multiple schemes were shown
- childcare cost support and funded hours appeared together
- multiple children received different results
There is a maximum of 30 funded childcare hours a week. However, some participants thought they would receive 45 hours when they were shown both 15-hour and 30-hour schemes. Others struggled to understand the phrase "childcare hours" or how Universal Credit childcare support could be combined with working parent entitlements.
Tax-Free Childcare remained one of the most difficult schemes for users to understand. Participants questioned who it was for, how the scheme worked in practice and how it related to funded childcare hours.
This reflected a broader challenge we had seen elsewhere. The names of childcare support schemes do not always help users understand what support they provide or how they differ from one another. This reinforced the need to make sure supporting content helps users understand what each scheme offers and who it is for.
Users thought about children rather than schemes
One theme that emerged repeatedly during research was that participants often framed their understanding around their children rather than around childcare schemes.
Users wanted to understand:
- what support this child gets
- what support another child gets
- when support changes for each child
They were less likely to begin with a specific entitlement and then work out which child it applied to.
This became particularly noticeable in households with multiple children.
This reinforced our decision to continue organising results primarily around children rather than around schemes.
The findings shaped our next iteration
Findings led us to explore a different approach to presenting results.
For our next iteration we will explore designing:
- a summary-first results page
- child-specific result groupings
- child-specific detail pages
- clearer explanation of support combinations
The summary page was designed to help users answer key questions quickly before exploring more detailed information.
We also started exploring ways of separating funded childcare hours from childcare cost support so that users could more easily understand the different types of support available.
We will document the changes made in a future design history.
What we still need to learn
Research highlighted several areas that require further investigation.
We still need to understand whether:
- a summary first approach improves comprehension
- introducing a summary page reduces cognitive load by breaking up information, despite adding an extra page to the journey
- users notice and use links to more detailed information
- organising results around children is more intuitive than organising them around schemes
- we are clearly explaining which childcare schemes can be combined
- users have enough information to feel confident to take action
We also need to understand how much explanation users need about individual schemes without creating additional cognitive load.
Participants frequently asked for more examples, guidance and supporting information. However, adding more content to the results page may increase complexity rather than reduce it. We also need to understand how much explanation users need on the results page and how this should work alongside existing GOV.UK guidance about individual schemes.
Future research will need to explore the balance between providing enough information about support and keeping the results page simple enough to use.