Internal research synthesis Handoff document

UserTesting · Balance verification letter

Where should users start?

Directional synthesis from 10 transcripts comparing three Figma patterns on a Balances-style screen: bottom CTA (V1), header-adjacent link (V2), and Actions menu (V3). Modeled presentation after Solvior Home 01 (Theme Junction) — typography and palette only; content is original research.

Qualitative · n=10 Figma prototype Decision support

Methodology

Limits and how to read this

Participants explored three variants in one session. Findings describe recurring themes, not population percentages. One participant reported non-functional hotspots in V1 — treat as a prototype fidelity risk when comparing variants.

Do not over-generalize. Preference counts are small; use them to inform a second iteration and a larger or counterbalanced study.

Stimulus

What participants saw

Participants received one Figma prototype showing all three versions side by side on the same Balances screen. On-screen instructions read: “Click into the body of each design to scroll through the content. Only blue hotspots are clickable.”

Three phone mockups of the Balances screen. Version 1 shows a Generate Balance Letter button at the bottom of a long balances list. Version 2 shows a Verification Letter link with a PDF icon in the header bar next to All Accounts. Version 3 shows an Actions dropdown in the header bar, opened to a single item: Create Balance Verification Letter.
V1 — Generate Balance Letter button after scrolling all balances. V2 — Verification Letter link in the header bar. V3 — Actions dropdown with one item, Create Balance Verification Letter. Select the image to view full size.

Headline results

Stated preference and tradeoffs

Stated preference leaned toward V2 (header-adjacent “verification letter”): about seven of ten participants when counting krax5’s overall pick of V2 (krax5 also suggested borrowing V1’s clearer final-step presentation).

Core patterns

Per-version strengths and risks

V1 — Bottom CTA

Generate after scrolling balances.

  • Strength: Straightforward once found (CountessFab).
  • Strength: Success state clarity called out (uxbeforeui).
  • Risk: Discoverability / scroll tax (BeneVixit, Swen, krax5, uxbeforeui).
  • Prototype: djsblister could not click V1 hotspots.

V2 — Top link

Task-named control near title / header.

  • Strength: “Gets straight to the point” (Swen).
  • Strength: No scroll hunt for the task (multiple).
  • Strength: Email attach affordance valued (uxbeforeui).
  • Risk: CountessFab took longer vs V1 (still completed).

V3 — Actions menu

Dropdown under header.

  • Strength: Natural hub if many self-services ship (fjkii2024, RIyer).
  • Strength: Richer OS-level share paths for some users (fjkii2024).
  • Risk: Extra tap with only one action (Swen, feedbucket, CountessFab).
  • Risk: Label + completion ambiguity (BeneVixit, sshapiro).

Moderator script themes

Per-topic notes

Where users expect this task to live

Strong pull toward Documents / statements / forms hubs; some participants expected account settings or privacy when framing was about “sharing” (Swen, krax5, feedbucket).

Naming the feature

Mixed support for proof of funds, balance verification letter, account verification letter, and account valuation report. Several participants negotiated nuance: securities vs cash, breadth beyond balance, and “verification” sounding like password flows to a minority.

Filename customization

Majority leaned yes — especially including date and recipient or purpose (BeneVixit, feedbucket, uxbeforeui, krax5, CountessFab). sshapiro noted context-dependence.

Previous letters

Split: valuable for history, resend, and trend storytelling (e.g., Swen, BeneVixit) vs low urgency if users always regenerate fresh letters (RIyer, uxbeforeui).

Voice of the participant

Pull quotes

I prefer version two the most simply because up here at the top, it literally just has verification letter… It gets straight to the damn point.

Swen — assets/Swen.txt

The third one is not good for me… Options can be confused with options as a derivative instrument.

BeneVixit — assets/BeneVixit.txt

I don't see why it needs to be a menu if there's only one option.

feedbucket — assets/feedbucket.txt

I would probably go with version one… the most self-explanatory, straightforward… workflow.

RIyer — assets/RIyer.txt

Next iteration

Prioritized recommendations

  1. Ship a header-adjacent, task-named entry (V2 pattern) as the default path for first-time discoverability; consider a sticky or duplicated entry if the balances list remains long.
  2. If using Actions, ensure two or more credible actions or replace the menu with a direct control until the roadmap catches up.
  3. Add inline education for non-obvious controls (minimum threshold) and audit balance header jargon (e.g., “LPL value” confusion in RIyer).
  4. Align terminal state and copy across variants so completion is as explicit as the clearest prototype frame (addresses sshapiro’s V3 uncertainty).
  5. Offer smart file naming with editable filename before download (date + recipient slug default).
  6. Position Previous letters as a dated archive with a prominent “generate new letter” path for users worried about stale proofs.
  7. For the next study: counterbalance order or monadic cells; verify hotspot parity across frames; clean moderator script wording.

Repository

Sources in this repo