Standpoint is the mobile app that helps busy young professionals find and refine their own opinion on complex topics, 5 minutes at a time, so that they can feel confident talking about anything.
There's an identified user need for developing well-informed opinions without feeling overwhelmed and within the limited time they have. To do so, Standpoint requires a clearly defined feature to help its users navigate the process.
Visualise the topic exploration hierarchy through the tree branch visual. Plus,
My role: UX research, user testing
Collaborator(s): CEO/Founder
Figma (live link available)
Pen & Paper
Google Meet
Standpoint has done user interviews before with Wizard of Oz tests so my work started on a great footing. There were several identified user personas – mostly busy young professionals who want to form balanced informed opinions but who struggle/avoid getting into the discussion due to how unhinged and polarised the popular opinions are.
After studying Standpoint's identified pain points, I found that research should focus on the following question:
How do young professionals navigate an abundance of content to form their opinion on a complex topic?
Throughout the process, I appreciated how invested and active the founder, Dan was in the brainstorming and research process. Much of the information structure is borrowed from Kialo's argument map – a website for contributing and exploring opposing sides for a topic.
What caught my eye was how easily it structured the different pros (green) and cons, (red) which also had their own opposing child arguments. A binary system keeps it clean with a consistent visual to indicate where you are in the map.
However, it fails to translate well into a mobile view. Complex topics call for a wide variety in perspectives and arguments, which traditionally are represented horizontally (pictured above).
To test out Kialo's solution to argument navigation, with pros and cons side by side, I made a quick prototype to test for the 1st round. My hypothesis was that the users would (1) be able to recognise the pros and cons of the parent argument, and (2) prefer a levelling up system for each topic, so they only have to explore one larger argument in that topic per level, like Candy Crush and Cookie Cats (Burelli 2019).
I found debriefs very useful to the research process after each user test, as well as after each round of testing, as it allowed our independent notes to be cross-referenced, thus expediting the analysis and synthesis process. I have given transcription and analysis service Dovetail a try to identify the main themes, however, I find it quite time-consuming when the tests are exploratory and less structured.
Key findings from the 1st round include:
A clear hierarchy for diving deeper into the topic would reduce feeling lost or confused on what argument the pros and cons belong to.
Although each argument has its valid point, users want to see the humanising context behind it – who said it, why they might argue like that, the historical/societal context etc.. This would better inform their own opinion on the argument and the topic overall.
The imagery of building a rocket was missed/misunderstood and would require clearer analogies for argument evaluation and “growing” your opinion on the topic. The levelling up hypothesis needs to change accordingly.
Dan and I brainstormed a radically different approach as the data shows the original direction would not address the problem.
The first round of tests shows that the topic navigation requires a more intuitive layout. Due to the exploratory nature of this project, I focused on the following:
Instead of going "down" to delve into the topic like Kialo, I felt a tree with its splitting branches would be a better alternative as it demonstrates visible growth in one's progress.
A non-interactive slider at the top that summarises where the user is leaning on the topic as they input their opinions on each info card.
Remove the number of claims you've evaluated since it's not important during argument evaluation.
Though not addressed directly in the test, as I conducted both rounds, I felt the need to re-think the user personas. Instead of focusing on the smaller irrelevant details of each persona, I found it best to combine them into the 2 archetypes that represent Depth First (DFS) and Breadth First (BFS) Search through the "Researcher" and the "Runner" respectively. This would simplify future ideation, while fully encompassing Standpoint's targeted users. They each have different goals they want to achieve and this would be a critical feature to explore in a future sprint.
This project's focus was on Standpoint's key feature – argument evaluation.
The Researcher is interested in a health-related topic and wants to have a well-rounded understanding about presently critical health issues.
They see a sub-topic about treating diseases and disorders and decides to look into it after he finds out more. The Researcher doesn't have a lot of time but wants to find as much nuance on one major argument as they can, so they select the "Tip of the branch" goal that will remind them when they can stop at a more convenient part of evaluation. This allows them to explore with a temporal "safety net".
The Runner appreciates how conveniently laid out the main arguments are, whether they support or criticise the sub-topic. The Researcher, however, wants to know a bit more before committing to one of them, so they scroll down to see a quick summary and external link. However, both are curious to evaluate Argument 2.
After evaluating the reasons and evidence that support Argument 2, the Researcher and the Runner are interested in what could potentially contradict or undermine its validity. The video's very convincing, enough to strongly agree with what they say there.
The Runner might move on to other reasons in this section, however, the Researcher is now invested to dig deep into the whys until they've reached the "tip of the branch" with no more evidence to dissect, at least for now.
The users can always see their progress on the topic through the tree that they are growing. Each subtopic has a fruit with corresponding weight on the opinion scale. This allows flexibility for varying complexity of the topics in the app.
Although Kialo provides a solution to the same problem that Standpoint is attempting to tackle, data shows that their argument map as is does not apply well to Standpoint's users (especially on mobile).
I really appreciated the constraint given to the project's scope – not just time-wise, but in exploring the core feature of the app. I needed to ensure there was a robust experience that brings the most value to the app before investing resources into building the product. The founder was pleased with the results, as well as the design process of getting here.
