Purpose

To test the temp outfitters permit application.

Test session details

• 7 testers scheduled
• 6 testing sessions performed

Session overview

Each tester was asked to fill out the temp outfitter's form.

General outcomes

• Most users thought there was too much duplicative information gathered.
• All users thought it would be difficult (or unlikely) to complete the form in one sitting. They prefer saving the form and going back to complete it. All users liked the idea of a multi-stage process of application, where they would provide more details as the application moved closer to approval.

Results and insights

• Save application for completing over time

Applicant information

Result: somewhat successful

• Most users had minimal issues with this section. Several users thought the small entity questions would be confusing — not that the description or question was presented poorly, but that it might just be a confusing topic in general and users might not want to read the fine print carefully.

Recommendations:

• None

Description of activity

Results: unsuccessful

• Most users thought this entire section needed more clarification regarding what information was needed. It felt vague and too easy to submit too little information. Users were also concerned about the specifics required and didn’t feel like they would have that level of detail before the permit was approved. Users suggested giving more clarity about what details were needed, or breaking this section up into smaller questions that got at the details.
• Several users were concerned with the number of trips and party size. This is because they plan different trips with varying numbers of attendees and/or would not know the exact numbers at the time of application submission.
• All users were concerned with having to pick a start and end date and time. They typically plan several trips during the permit period and were unclear how to provide all that info in one set of fields. Users were also concerned they might not know the number of trips or party size because they are unable to plan or promote trips before having a permit. This makes it hard to give the level of detail about trips within the permit period that the application is requesting. One organization plans specific trips and details and promotes them, knowing they will have to cancel them if they do not receive the permit.
• Most users thought the location field was too vague and would allow for incomplete information to be entered. All users preferred a method that would allow them to identify a location or path on a map. Several suggested giving popular trails, routes and locations to choose from to help pinpoint the correct location.
• Most users were concerned with giving an accurate description of services and exact client base. Both might vary, once final trips are planned and many users felt like the variety of client base would make it difficult within one text field.

Recommendations:

• Create a UI for adding multiple trips and details.
• Review other permit info to see if it makes sense to apply to trip details (guides, operating plan, etc.).
• Review the reason for trip detail information collection. Is it possible to collect the types of trips and general overview of what the organization might be planning and still get enough info to approve the permit?
• Review options for adding a map to define location.
• Add popular trails and locations as choices.
• Create a map with clearly marked locations, reference points and popular locations.
• Allow users to draw areas or paths and mark locations.
• Save coordinates to re-display on a map within the admin section.

Advertising

Results: somewhat successful

• All users felt that the easiest and most accurate way to provide this information was via a website link. Most users didn’t think users filling out the application would be able to provide information about the specific marketing plans and think the field should be eliminated or made optional.
• Several users wondered what the purpose was for this section, and if there was a better way to get the information needed.

Results:

• Request a promotions website or webpage link and eliminate the marketing plan information.
• Review the purpose for requesting this information to make sure we are improving the user experience in a way that still obtains the required information.

Client charges

Results: somewhat successful

• Most users felt like this was clear, but might be hard to explain due to a variety of charges and payment requirements.
• Some users were curious about the purpose for this section, and wondered if it could be made more clear. Some organizations have scholarships and even though the cost may seem high, most participants would not be paying full price.
• Some users wondered if they would need to break out, gear rental, fees, guide fees etc.

Results:

• Review the purpose for collecting information about charges and fees and add description to field title.

Guide information

Results: unsuccessful

• Most users felt like they needed to collect more information and in more formats than would be realistic within one upload. One user already creates a spreadsheet based on this requirement, but still needs to collect guide certifications separately.
• Several users said they don’t hire or assign guides until they get the permit, so it’s hard to provide this information. They were curious what the Forest Service was looking for, and if they could make the guide requirements more clear to avoid over-documenting qualifications.

Recommendations:

• Could we allow organizations to upload their hiring requirements for guides showing they only hire guides who meet a particular set of skills, experience and certifications? Would this give the Forest Service enough info to approve a permit?
• Could there be several application stages that have additional information requested with each stage? For example, once a permit is about to be approved, the final step would be to provide guide information to finalize the approval. Users could get an alert when a new stage has been reached, triggering the new requirements to be added to the saved application.
• Could we verify guide certifications with certification IDs or links to certifications? This way, it could be added to a spreadsheet.
• Create a spreadsheet template for required guide info.
• Could we create a system of guide profiles that would be managed separately, possibly by the guides themselves? Then when applying for a permit, users could attach online profiles as identified guides for a permit application, instead of uploading all guide info for each permit. Guide profiles could be updated separately and may not need to be managed as often as permits are applied for.

Operating plan

Results: somewhat successful

• Most users thought most of the info in their operating plans was already covered in the application, but it didn’t seem like there was a common format between organizations.
• Most organizations did create an operating plan and would have it available for upload, but were not sure it would meet all the requirements.
• One tester had an operating plan template that was based on what was required for the application.
• None of the users preferred having all the info from the operating plan made part of the application instead of uploading. In most cases, this was due to the organization needing a hard copy of their operating plan to use for guide training and communication to participants.
• Some organizations didn’t create an operating plan at all and would not have one to upload. They did say they would use a template.

Recommendations:

• Considering the fact that most organizations already create an operating plan, this feature makes sense to leave as is.
• Seeing that there was a lack of consistency in operating plan formats and internal requirements, we should develop an improved operating plan template. Explore formats and file types (e.g., pdf form, spreadsheet, etc). Once the template has been developed, evaluate if the elements of the application form can be eliminated. Decide if this operating plan template is required as opposed to an organization’s format.

Acknowledgement of risk

Results: successful

• Most organizations had participants sign these and would have access to them.

Recommendations:

• No changes

Liability insurance

Results: successful

• All testers had this and would have access to the files for upload.

Recommendations:

• No changes

Experience

Results: unsuccessful

• Several users were concerned about who these questions referred to. The applicant? Each guide? The organization?
• Most users were concerned with the violation and citation question.
  • How far back did they have to go?
  • What if a guide had received a violation but was fired or no longer working for the organization?
  • Why would a guide’s behavior negatively affect our organization?
  • Could there be more information about the types of violations? (e.g., parking violation in National Forest parking lot vs. misuse of land).
  • What if we want to explain the circumstances?
• Most users were concerned about this section not giving them enough of a chance to sell themselves.

Recommendations:

• Change the wording and make it clear whose experience we are trying to verify.
• Decide on a time period for the violations/citations.
• Put fields for each question, allowing users to add additional information.