The legacy form was a marathon, taking customers an average of 103 minutes to complete. A major bottleneck was the requirement to manually re-enter basic data (name, address, phone) that the company already possessed. This redundancy felt disrespectful of the user's time; only 2 of 6 participants preferred the manual process of entering this information themselves.

We leveraged existing customer profiles to pre-fill these basic fields, allowing users to simply review the data rather than typing it from scratch. This automation removed the "grunt work" from the application. The efficiency won them over: 5 of 6 participants preferred the pre-filled approach over manual entry.

The legacy form obscured the "continuation of ownership" (the sequence of inheritance after death). With over 27 potential variations, the paper format was impossible to follow; 3 of 6 participants could track the inheritance order involving multiple family members, though 4 of 6 understood the isolated role definitions.

We paired every Role explicitly with the assigned Name (e.g., "Beneficiary: John Doe"). This association appeared dynamically whenever a new person was added and again on the final review page. This context was vital: 6 of 6 participants preferred seeing the Name and Role side-by-side.

Since the legacy form was paper-based, customers encountered a list of irrelevant questions, making it unclear which ones they needed to complete. I believed that a digital solution showing only the questions specific to their situation would greatly reduce this confusion. Research indicated that only 2 of 6 participants were entirely confident about which questions to answer.

As customers answered, only the relevant follow-up questions pertaining to their situation were shown. They wouldn’t see or know about other questions that didn’t apply to them. This clarity was decisive: 5 of 6 participants preferred the new approach of seeing only the questions relevant to them.

With the legacy form being paper-based, all questions were presented at once. In my experience, showing all the questions at once can feel overwhelming and stressful for the customer. I user tested three ways of presenting questions: all at once, one at a time, and grouped together. Additionally, I tested a solution with and without a progress bar. The legacy "all at once" format caused significant anxiety; only 1 of 6 participants understood the scope of questions presented this way.

User testing revealed that the best approach was to bundle similar questions into manageable groups. To achieve this, some questions needed to be rearranged from their original sections to improve the overall flow. The progress bar was eliminated because the number of questions varied across user flows. This structure provided the necessary clarity: 4 of 6 participants understood the presentation and preferred the "grouped" questions.

The legacy form was riddled with opaque financial terminology, often alienating customers. While typically defended as a "legal necessity," this jargon acted as a barrier to entry rather than a safeguard. Terms like "right of survivorship" and "tenants in common" were major stumbling blocks; only 1 of 6 participants could define these concepts during initial research.

I partnered with Business Analysts to translate this complexity into plain English, adding contextual tooltips where specific legal phrasing was mandatory. While the code changes were simple, securing approval required significant negotiation to balance strict compliance with user empathy. This "plain language" strategy paid off: 4 of 6 participants understood every question asked.

The legacy form was a marathon, taking customers an average of 103 minutes to complete. A major bottleneck was the requirement to manually re-enter basic data (name, address, phone) that the company already possessed. This redundancy felt disrespectful of the user's time; only 2 of 6 participants preferred the manual process of entering this information themselves.

We leveraged existing customer profiles to pre-fill these basic fields, allowing users to simply review the data rather than typing it from scratch. This automation removed the "grunt work" from the application. The efficiency won them over: 5 of 6 participants preferred the pre-filled approach over manual entry.

The legacy form obscured the "continuation of ownership" (the sequence of inheritance after death). With over 27 potential variations, the paper format was impossible to follow; 3 of 6 participants could track the inheritance order involving multiple family members, though 4 of 6 understood the isolated role definitions.

We paired every Role explicitly with the assigned Name (e.g., "Beneficiary: John Doe"). This association appeared dynamically whenever a new person was added and again on the final review page. This context was vital: 6 of 6 participants preferred seeing the Name and Role side-by-side.

Since the legacy form was paper-based, customers encountered a list of irrelevant questions, making it unclear which ones they needed to complete. I believed that a digital solution showing only the questions specific to their situation would greatly reduce this confusion. Research indicated that only 2 of 6 participants were entirely confident about which questions to answer.

As customers answered, only the relevant follow-up questions pertaining to their situation were shown. They wouldn’t see or know about other questions that didn’t apply to them. This clarity was decisive: 5 of 6 participants preferred the new approach of seeing only the questions relevant to them.

With the legacy form being paper-based, all questions were presented at once. In my experience, showing all the questions at once can feel overwhelming and stressful for the customer. I user tested three ways of presenting questions: all at once, one at a time, and grouped together. Additionally, I tested a solution with and without a progress bar. The legacy "all at once" format caused significant anxiety; only 1 of 6 participants understood the scope of questions presented this way.

User testing revealed that the best approach was to bundle similar questions into manageable groups. To achieve this, some questions needed to be rearranged from their original sections to improve the overall flow. The progress bar was eliminated because the number of questions varied across user flows. This structure provided the necessary clarity: 4 of 6 participants understood the presentation and preferred the "grouped" questions.

The legacy form was riddled with opaque financial terminology, often alienating customers. While typically defended as a "legal necessity," this jargon acted as a barrier to entry rather than a safeguard. Terms like "right of survivorship" and "tenants in common" were major stumbling blocks; only 1 of 6 participants could define these concepts during initial research.

I partnered with Business Analysts to translate this complexity into plain English, adding contextual tooltips where specific legal phrasing was mandatory. While the code changes were simple, securing approval required significant negotiation to balance strict compliance with user empathy. This "plain language" strategy paid off: 4 of 6 participants understood every question asked.