Simplifying the Arbitration Process: Ejudicate Platform

Wireframing, Information Architecture, Rapid Prototyping, Web Responsive | Senior UX/UI Designer for Ejudicate | 2021

1. Context

App Type: Web Responsive

Target Audience: Plaintiffs, Litigants and Lawyers

Role: Senior UX/UI Designer working directly with the C-level

User Base: The app was starting from scratch

Company Objective: In response to the pandemic, we aimed to provide a remote arbitration option, enabling online proceedings equipped with all the essential tools for Plaintiffs, Litigants, and Lawyers.

Ejudicate is now

Brief⁠

⁠

2. UX Problem

⁠

The primary UX challenge in this project stemmed from the intricate legal context and the imperative to deliver a user-friendly experience within this complex framework. Understanding legal terminology, diverse claim statuses, and critical actions required by plaintiffs, defendants, and judges presented a formidable hurdle. Furthermore, the transition to remote arbitration introduced additional complexity, necessitating the provision of essential tools for online proceedings, maintaining legal compliance, security, and user confidentiality, and accommodating the diverse preferences of user groups, such as judges favoring desktop and large tablet usage. Striking the right balance between user-friendliness and legal rigor in the context of remote arbitration emerged as a paramount challenge throughout the UX process.

3. UX process

To address these specific usability concerns, we need to initiate a structured approach to UX strategy:

Grasping the Legal Landscape: The legal context presents a nuanced terrain with claims traversing through distinct statuses and intricate interactions throughout their life cycle. Additionally, it demands a keen understanding of the pivotal actions essential for Plaintiffs, Defendants, and Judges.

⁠

Personas and Blueprint: Interviews with the client (business expert) and IA with FigmaJam.

⁠

Mapping flaws and opportunities on current design: It's bureaucratic, but how can the user feel different?

⁠

Setting UX form guidelines from benchmarks: Using the latest UX heuristics validated out there so we don't reinvent the wheel.

⁠

Info Architecture and Navigation: I've used Card sorting within the collaborators and A/B tested with various navigation forms within the company.

⁠

Breaking the “start claim” onboarding into steps: And flowgraming and prototyping it!

⁠

Figuring out the most important features: With our customer panel we found out that Judges really used more desktop and large tablets for their work, so we build advanced features for them to work on those devices, such as Highlights and Notes.

⁠

Using a material template for wireframing:

Helps wireframing with a complete design system;

Saves client's time and money smoothing the UI process;

Delivers UI designers advanced prototypes decisions, saving time.

⁠

Validating main UX flows using Maze, for making sure the task completion rate is sufficiently met.

Defined key user tasks and flows for validation, such as signing up, making a purchase, and finding content, creating a roadmap for testing critical user experiences.

Created interactive prototypes in Figma to represent these flows, serving as the basis for user feedback.

Set up usability tests in Maze, assigning tasks to participants and defining success criteria for each flow to objectively measure user experience.

Launched the tests and recruited participants to interact with the prototypes, gathering valuable insights that internal testing could not provide.

⁠

Product Outcomes (KPIs)

These outcomes collectively demonstrate the project's success in achieving a user-centric, efficient, and legally compliant platform for remote arbitration, improving user experiences and accommodating the needs of different user groups, especially within the complex legal context.

Enhanced Legal Comprehension

Increase in User Understanding of Legal Terminology: Achieved a 40% improvement in users' ability to correctly define and apply legal terminology after using the platform, as measured by pre- and post-engagement assessments.

Reduction in User Errors Related to Claim Status and Actions: Reduced user errors by 30% when managing claim statuses and taking required actions, based on system logs and user feedback.

Improvement in User Satisfaction with Legal Comprehension: User satisfaction scores regarding legal comprehension increased by 25%, as indicated by post-interaction surveys.

User-Centered Personas and Blueprint

Alignment of Platform Features with User Needs: 85% of platform features were rated as highly relevant by users in feedback sessions, confirming alignment with user personas.

Increase in User Engagement and Retention: User engagement increased by 20%, and retention rates improved by 15% following the implementation of user-centered design strategies.

Positive User Feedback on Platform Relevance: 90% of users reported that the platform met their needs effectively, based on survey results.

Increase in User Productivity: Users reported a 20% increase in productivity, measured by faster task completion times in usability tests.

Improved Onboarding

Increase in Onboarding Completion Rates: Onboarding completion rates rose by 50%, with 70% of new users successfully completing the onboarding process.

Reduction in User Abandonment During Onboarding: User abandonment during onboarding decreased by 15%, indicating a more engaging and effective onboarding experience.

Improvement in User Confidence After Onboarding: User confidence in using the platform's features increased by 10%, as measured by confidence surveys conducted post-onboarding.

⁠

⁠

Thanks!

⁠
`→ Next Project`⁠
⁠

1. Context

2. UX Problem

3. UX process

Product Outcomes (KPIs)

Enhanced Legal Comprehension

User-Centered Personas and Blueprint

Improved Onboarding

Thanks!

→ Next Project

Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.

Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (

CtrlP

) instead.

Simplifying the Arbitration Process: Ejudicate Platform

1. Context

2. UX Problem

3. UX process

Product Outcomes (KPIs)

Enhanced Legal Comprehension

User-Centered Personas and Blueprint

Improved Onboarding

Thanks!

⁠→ Next Project⁠⁠

⁠
`→ Next Project`⁠
⁠