We have:
- tested the prototype with 6 teachers who’ve previously reported serious misconduct
- demo’d the designs to caseworkers and policy
Following research and demos we’ve made many small design changes. We made changes as we went, not all users saw the latest designs.
The overall form structure has tested very well.
Walkthrough of changes
Video: iteration of initial designs
Saving as you go
Before research we highlighted the need to complete the form gradually, to be able to save and return. While this is the case, we did not make it obvious enough.
We kept adding to the service, each step aiming to make it more obvious:
- added hint text about why we were asking for an email address
- added context to the start page, saying that sections are saved as you go
- added a page in the initial eligibility flow, pointing out that progress is saved as you go
- updated all buttons to say ‘Save and continue’ rather than just ‘Continue’
We still need to confirm this is enough to allay any fears.
Uploading evidence
We’ve completed the designs of the upload section. Previously we were testing with a minimal version. It was a good straw-person design for highlighting needs.
We found that:
- users wanted to see a list of files first, as a sort of checklist for what to upload
- users want to upload multiple files at once
- we needed to tweak wording when categorising files to make it clear you can select multiple categories
The new flow:
- gives a list of suggested files at the beginning
- allows users to upload multiples
- shows a screen for categorising each uploaded file
- lists files and their categories on the check your answers page
- adds actions for changing categories, deleting files and adding more evidence
Deleting a report
Some users will not want to continue. Perhaps they no longer wish to submit a report, someone else is reporting, or they are submitting using the Word document.
They might want to delete sensitive information they have given.
We have designed a feature to allow them to delete their draft report, and highlighted our data retention policy for draft reports (6 months, but this isn’t finalised).
Summaries of allegations
Case workers told us they found it difficult to quickly gauge what a case is about. The allegation and previous allegation sections contain a long and detailed account of what has happened, it is difficult to extract the essentials from this report.
We’ve added two new fields:
- allegation summary
- previous allegations summary
The hope is that users will give 2 or 3 sentences to explain what has happened, and case workers can easily get an idea of the case (what it relates to, severity, complexity) before continuing.
Research so far shows that some users would still put in too much information here. We need to make it clearer.
Asking if the person has QTS
We could determine QTS status from a TRN, if given. But there’s a chance that the TRN is incorrect – the wrong one is given or there is a typo.
Instead we will explicitly ask about QTS, and employers will know this.
Asking for the person’s email address
We made it explicit we wanted their personal email address. Users defaulted to giving us work email addresses, even if the person had left their job.
Users told us they would usually have a personal email address on a job application form.
Some were concerned about how we would use the email, they wanted assurances about when the person would be contacted.
Others questioned if they could share this information with us, they were concerned about GDPR.
Asking if they are still employed
Previously we asked:
This caused confusion – what does “leaving a job” mean – has a suspended teacher left their job? They are still employed but they are not teaching.
We added an option to help with suspended teachers, and changed the question to:
“Are they still employed?”
This still wasn’t quite right, someone that has left their job but has started teaching elsewhere is “employed”. We tweaked the question again to say:
“Are they still employed in that job?”
Asking about onward employment
If a user tells us the person has left that job, we now ask two further questions:
- do they know if they are still teaching
- if so, do they know where
We believe this information would be helpful to case workers that need to serve interim prohibition orders (IPOs). But we still need to determine how useful this information would be.
Giving main duties in a file
One user highlighted a problem with out design – we asked for a teacher’s main duties, and hinted that they could upload this in a file. The issue here was that the file upload was in another section. This led to confusion – at the end, when marking a section as complete – is this section complete? They haven’t uploaded the file yet.
To solve this we moved the job description file upload into the same section. The old design remains available as a choice, and a third option has been added, “I’ll do this later”, if they do not have the file to upload.
If they tell us they’ll do this later, then the section cannot be marked as completed until they’ve changed that answer.
We expect to reuse this pattern for allegations and previous allegations.
Jurisdiction in England
Technically it matters that they were a teacher in England during the allegation. We’ve made that clearer, and because of the increased complexity of the question we’ve added an “I don’t know” option, to encourage reports.
Previous allegations
A user misinterpreted our original design, they incorrectly determined that we did not want to know about complaints and disciplinary action at their school.
We’ve made it explicit that we do want to know this.
Returning to the service
We’ve begun experimenting with designs that allow users to:
- return to a draft report
- check updates on a completed report
- see multiple reports
- start a new report, to report something new
Screenshots
Updated start page
Jurisdiction: Were they teaching in England?
Save as you go
QTS: Do they have QTS?
QTS: Check answers with QTS
Asking for personal email address
Role iteration: Are they still employed?
Role iteration: Main duties
Role iteration: Main duties (expanded)
Role iteration: Are they teaching somewhere else?
Role iteration: Where are they teaching now?
Role iteration: Check answers
Summary: Allegation summary
Summary: Previous allegations summary
Any previous allegations iteration
Upload evidence: Evidence and supporting information
Upload evidence: Upload files
Upload evidence: Confirmation
Upload evidence: Categorise files
Upload evidence: Check your answers
Delete draft: I don’t want to continue
Delete draft: Are you sure you want to delete?
Delete draft: Report deleted
Full report review
Returning to service: To continue
Returning to service: With multiple reports
Returning to service: With a completed report
Returning to service: Expanded to add new report
