Purpose

To test changes made to the temporary outfitter's from round 1 of usability testing.

Test session details

• 3 testers scheduled
• 3 total testing sessions performed

Session overview

• Each tester was asked to fill out a temp outfitter application.

Results and insights

Applicant info

Results: somewhat successful

• Most users didn’t think they should have to enter the website twice, once in applicant info and once in the advertising section.

Recommendations:

• SUAs use the website to monitor advertising info so it makes more sense to collect that info under the advertising section. Remove website from applicant info.

Description of proposed activity

Results: somewhat successful

• Start/end date

  • All user felt that this was clear and represented the time period they were hoping to plan trips, not number of service days.

• Description of trips (number of trips, party size, locations, party size, services)

  • Several users felt that due to planning multiple types of trips and activities that they might need a set of fields for each trip type within the time period requested. The expectation was that each field was for a particular trip.
  • Two users, as well as several in past tests, suggested allowing for an upload of a PDF from CalTopo to communicate location, rather than a written description.

Recommendations

• Option 1: The current requirement is to enter activity, location and activity description for all types of trips the applicant plans to include. The current UI includes a solution to the concerns which may not have been clear enough (possibly due to being in a testing environment and not reading the descriptions as carefully). We should review wording for each form and make sure we are making it clear that each field is intended to collect the info for all types of trips.

• Option 2: After entering a start and end date allow users to add individual trips, collecting specific data for each description field for each trip type.

Option one works and is the simplest solution. Starting with this solution makes the most sense and can be used to evaluate wether option 2 is needed.

Guide information

Results: somewhat successful

• Most users thought the template was asking for more detailed info than the Forest Service requires. Two users mentioned that in the past they have only provided names, certifications and certification expiration dates, with notes if applicable, in the past.
• One user only provided the general requirements for guide training and certification in the past, not specific guides and qualifications.
• One organization only uses volunteers, not professional guides. They provided no guide info when applying for a permit.
• Two users explained that some of the guide info was required or included in the operating plan so wondered why they needed to add it to guide info.

Recommendations:

• Option 1: For the current version of the application the template seems like the best initial solution. Making it optional when initially submitting the application was an improvement according to all users.

• Options 2: Allow users to add guide name and qualifications into a form field. Then SUAs can request the additional details if required. They could also supply the template at that time.

Operating plan

Results: somewhat successful

• All users realized they needed an operating plan and that it was the source of most of the details needed to approve an application. They all created one as part of their process and used it for several internal requirements in trip planning. All users liked the idea of a having access to a template. Most used past operating plans as templates currently.

Recommendations:

• Add edited and branded Operating Plan template.

Additional notes

• Review solutions with Special Use Admins during research interviews with them on 8/24 and 8/25 to confirm that the resulting submission will meet requirement on their end.