0 item
SHOPPING CART

Your shopping cart is empty

Continue Shopping
SUBTOTAL $0

Case study

Rescue Trial warning screen re-phrasing /  redesign

Unfortunately some Rescue Trial users used the product to abuse with Rescue and gain access to computers. It's a difficult problem, since not all Trial users are harmful. 

So we have to provide useful information:

- if the end user (the supported one) believe the person who want to support him (the user behind a Trial account ) is OK and in this case he could go through these screen quickly

- if the end user (the supported one) think the person who want to support him (the user behind a Trial account ) is a scammer and he should stop continue this process, exit, and report the activity.


Basic versions

V1 version

V2 version:

Checking V1 and V2

I've chosen a special type of test: showing these dialogues for 5 secs (both version for 20 - 20 users) then asking them what information they remembered from the screens. 

Results: 

V1:  From 20 people only 2 people could memorize the terms "credit card" and the "don't pay".

V2:  From 20 people 10 people could memorize the terms "credit card" and the "don't pay".

Consequence:

- it seems the list style much more usable (= users realize important information with higher chance)


V3

- A new version ( V3 ) was created: mixing the 1st and the 2nd sentence from V1 and using the list style from V2


Checking V3

I've checked the V3 in the same way like before. Since from 20 people only 2 people could memorize the terms "credit card" and the "don't pay" we had to skip this version and at this phase V2 was the most successful version.


Next version - V2.3

But in the meantime we created a new version for V2.

To check this version I used different method: created a quick test case in usertest.com:

  • Showing three screens for users: 1. the previous screen the Pin Entering screen , 2. this Trial warning screen 3. the next step screen in connection establishing to provide context for users
  • at the 3rd screen I've asked:
    • "what can you remember from the 2nd screen?" , "why did you click / choose a button ?" 
    • After seeing this page, which statement do you agree with most? 
      • "A bad person may be trying to use a tool called Rescue to trick me - 
      • "Rescue is a dangerous tool – similar to a virus or spyware"
  • finally asking about: "What do you think about the second screen? Was it enough information to understand it? what do you think of the whole situation?"


Expectations

Three important keyword which should be memorized: "trust",  "credit card",  "allow access"

Action should be done by the user:

  • If user know who are the person who provides to him the link via email, he should trust and allow the access 
  • If user don't know the person who sent him this PIN link via email or other way user should NO WAY to allow he should exit.


Results

I've tested it with 10+ users here are the findings:


1. The three main keyword is recalled for almost all test users: "trust", "credit card", "allow access" 

2. We reached our goal: 
  • If user know who are the person who provides to him the link via email, he would trust and allow the access 
  • If user don't know the person who sent him this PIN link via email or other way user NO WAY to allow and he is going to exit.

3. Answering our question: "After seeing this page, which statement do you agree with most?" 
  • ALL Users who asked chose the "A bad person may be trying to use a tool called LogMeIn Rescue to trick me" so the consequence is that users think Rescue is NOT a DANGEROUS TOOL!


Final version

Our fellow Boston colleagues updated the phrasing and finally we came in with the following version:

< Back to Portfolio


< Prev: Case Study 4