Opolis UX Audit

--- title: Opolis UX Audit tags: opolis --- # Opolis UX Audit ## 0. Approach Given that the onboarding flows & Commons dashboard flows are quite large, I'll split them into 2 parts and work on Onboarding before Commons dashboard. On a high level, this is the approach I will take: 1. Collate background information & understand Opolis **(done)** 2. Run through Opolis site screens **(done)** * Collate flows * Analyse & suggest improvements 4. Run through Onboarding screens * Collate flows * Analyse & suggest improvements 6. Run through Commons dashboard screens * Collate flows * Analyse & suggest improvements  <br> --- <br> ## 1. Background Information ### 1.1 Users The users involved are: * **Employee Members (core)**: Independent contractors, freelancers, digital nomads, solopreneurs, sole-practitioners in USA only * **Coalition Members**: People / organisations who do not apply as Employee Members but want to contribute / be part of Opolis From the copy on Opolis, the simple & non-crypto terms suggest that it is for the general audience (not necessarily crypto). The heavy usage of US-specific terms (e.g. 401(k), IRA) suggests that the current target audience are US only. For the majority of the study, we will focus on Employee Members as they are the core users of Opolis. Also, Coalition Members' flows seem to be a subset of those for Employee Members. ### 1.2 Problem & Solution **Problems faced by independent workers:** * Independent working **lacks the security & benefits of conventional employment** (i.e. healthcare, insurance, etc.) * Independent working is **administratively troublesome because of back-office operations as well as regulatory compliance** **Solution (as a Product):** Opolis makes independent working as secure and seamless as conventional employment by: * providing insurance and healthcare benefits * automating other back-office, compliance & administrative functions > Another way to visualise it is that Opolis is the "operating system" give independent workers security & compliance with the "physical world", while they create value with their time in the "virtual world" **Solution (as a Community/Token):** Opolis gives independent workers an ownership in the governance of their operating system, as well as a share in profits if Opolis does well. > This gives them more control, as well as capital ownership and potential for upside from being part of independent workers ### 1.3 UX Audit Objectives | | Objective | Flows | Why? | Metrics | | --- | ----------------------------------------------------- | ------------------ | --- | --- | | 1 | **Better communicate what is Opolis** | Main Page | Top of funnel & first point of drop-off if not communicated clearly | Bounce rate? Clickthrough rates? | | 2 | **Better onboard members to Opolis** | Onboarding screens | Potential source of drop-offs | Form submission rates | | 3 | **Better help members complete respective tasks in Opolis** | Commons Dashboard | Core user experience | TBD | Rounding up the above background on users, problems & solution, the preliminary **user personas** I'll use are as follows: | | US independent workers | Non-US independent workers | Other | | ----------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------- | | **Nature** | Independent contractors, freelancers, digital nomads, solopreneurs, sole-practitioners | Independent contractors, freelancers, digital nomads, solopreneurs, sole-practitioners | Investors, DAOs, Contributors | | **Goals** | Secure my life & automate away my "physical world" compliance & admin tasks | Secure my life & automate away my "physical world" compliance & admin tasks | Depends. I find this interesting & I want to invest or contribute to $WORK | | **Priorities** | 1. Trust 2. Simplicity 3. Pricing value 4. Extent of compliance / coverage | 1. Trust 2. Simplicity 3. Pricing value 4. Extent of compliance / coverage | TBD | | **Can join as "Employee"?** | Yes :smile: | **Sadly no. Only as "Coalition" :cry:** | No. Only as "Coalition" :smile: | | **Crypto-savviness** | Depends on user acquisition. Likely to be savvy in short-term due to friends in DAOs, but should be less savvy in long run. | Depends on user acquisition. Likely to be savvy in short-term due to friends in DAOs, but should be less savvy in long run. | Savvy | As a general rule of thumb, I will use the 4 user priorities as **analysis criteria** when looking at the flows and product offering. All 4 would be helpful in shaping the general strategy for Opolis, but the first 3 would be more relevant to UX / screens: 1. **Trust** - Payroll, healthcare & compliance tasks are important things. Can I trust this service? 2. **Simplicity** - Can I start something quick & easy, so that I can quickly offload these work? 3. **Pricing value** - How does the pricing fare vs extent of coverage / compliance / automation? 4. **Extent of compliance / coverage** - How meaningful is the compliance automation or coverage? Do I still need to find other ways to supplement it, resulting in additional effort?  ## 2. Issues with Opolis Site ### **2.1 General site hierarchy & flow** There are too many flows and concepts for an independent worker visiting Opolis' site for the first time. It makes it difficult to grasp what Opolis is, potentially risking drop-offs from confused visitors. #### **2.1.1 Too many flows at once** From a site organisation POV, there are 3 flows (Employees, Coalition, Job board Opo(list)) to get started that serve very different purposes. Personally, after understanding what Opolis does, I know why there are 3 different flows and collated the flows in the Figjam diagram below: * **Employee members**: For independent workers that are applicable to join Opolis * **Coalition members**: For independent workers not applicable to join Opolis, as well as other people or organisations wanting to contribute * **Opo(list)**: Seems to me they are creating a portal of job opportunities for all these independent workers. <iframe style="border: 1px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1);" width="800" height="450" src="https://www.figma.com/embed?embed_host=share&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.figma.com%2Ffile%2Fdu2Br41tDYL0OxWPhITcg4%2FUntitled%3Fnode-id%3D0%253A1" allowfullscreen></iframe> > For clarity, I've segmented the navbar's actions into the following flows / colours: > * Blue: For all users > * Purple: For Employee members > * Orange: For Coalition members > * Yellow: For job board users Another way to visualise this would be to look at the actions available in the navbar here: ![](https://i.imgur.com/7vykPJl.png) **Placing all these flow side by side with equal importance** makes it really confusing for new visitors (which the "employee members" would be the most important). **Furthermore, the alternating purposes of each flow** makes it hard to form a coherent understanding of what Opolis is as users need to keep context-switching with each click. To that, I'll suggest **creating a main flow for "Employee Members" by reducing the importance of the Coalition & Opo(list) flows from the main navbar**. #### **2.1.2 Foreign words & jargon** The above also results in new foreign terms (e.g. Coalition, Opo(list)) which does not seem related to an employment commons on first sight. This might look irrelevant or like technical jargon, scaring first-time users away. Reducing the visbility of these side flows should make it better. #### **2.1.3 Generic terms that are confusing** Similarly, there are generic terms that seem to overlap & might confuse new users (e.g. Rewards, features). On a deeper look, this is because Rewards is meant for "Coalition members" whereas Features is meant for "Employee members". However when put side by side, a new visitor will be confused as to why there are these 2 similar-sounding concepts. Reducing the visbility of Coalition flows should make this better too. --- ### **2.2 Home Page** #### **2.2.1 Home Page Flow** Generally the home page's flow is **quite straightforward** (Header > What is Opolis? > We Love Opolis > Membership Perks > Made by Independents, For Independents, Join the Opolis Team) However, as a first-time user, I felt that the **sections could be re-ordered such that Membership Perks came before We Love Opolis**. This way, as a user, I can better understand what Opolis offered in detail, before understanding why other independent workers like myself loved Opolis. Without the context above, the reviews just was not as convincing as it could have been. ![](https://i.imgur.com/8Me5SyY.jpg) #### **2.2.2 Copywriting for Membership Perks** The copywriting for membership perks felt vague and unconvincing when I first read it. It was only when I dived deeper in the "Features" page that I could better understand the specifics and visualise why Opolis is good for independent workers. Hence, I'd suggest to **improve the copywriting by prioritising the perks that are important to independent workers, followed by increasing specific details that are relevant to these points**. The user interviews should give us valuable insight to the above. --- ### **2.3 Sign up Flow** After I have overcome the previous challenges & want to sign up, I'd have been through 2 different sign up flows and would be confused about what is the right way to sign up. | | A (Sign up via pop-up) | B (Sign up via "Join" in navbar) | | ---------- | ------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------- | | Image | ![](https://i.imgur.com/HSY6HFz.png) | ![](https://i.imgur.com/6kVhA1m.png) | | When does it appear? | Pops up regularly when you're on site | Click "Join in Navbar" | | Next Steps | Form Submission | Magic sign-in link OR Calendly link for Membership Stewards | From an information / value proposition POV, there are **2 different angles users would have seen** (to get the coverage and compliance benefits from Opolis OR earn $WORK rewards). These 2 are **quite different and may be confusing to users**, especially for flow A which pops up regularly for most users. If these users are not yet familiar with $WORK token, it will only introduce more confusion to the user. Furthermore, with 3 rather different sign up flows (form submission, magic sign-in link, Calendly link), it would be **operationally intensive for the Opolis team to track and onboard new members**. It is also confusing for users looking for a clear way to sign up with Opolis. --- ### 2.4 Conclusion for the Main Site 1. Re-organise Navbar * Group "Coalition" & "Rewards" into 1 called "Community" * Remove "Opo(list)" from Navbar * Add FAQ into Navbar 3. Re-organise main page * Move "Membership Perks" before "We Love Opolis" * Make "Membership Perks" content more important to independent workers * Make "Membership Perks" content more specific 5. Standardise sign up flows * Remove sign up flow A (Join the to Earn $WORK Rewards) The new site flow should look something like this, with greater emphasis for the Employee members looking to join. ![](https://i.imgur.com/8UInT23.png)