Summary of user research – component lifecycle status tags

[lamiece-gds]

We've been exploring whether the GOV.UK Design System should introduce lifecycle status tags to help users understand the maturity and future direction of components, and to indicate where further evidence is needed.

The aim of this research was to find out:

• How would users interpret the meaning of different lifecycle tags?
• Would introducing lifecycle status tags be acceptable and useful to users?
• How would use affect trust in the GOV.UK Design System overall?

We tested three proposed status tags with Design System users: "Trial" (including some alternative names), "Needs review" and "Stable".

What we learned – overall summary

We found that:

• Participants were broadly positive about introducing lifecycle status tags.
• Participants broadly understood what "Trial” meant.
• There was no clear preference between “Trial” and the other two alternatives tested - “Early access” and “Pilot - although there were subtle differences in how each term was understood.
• "Needs review" created more uncertainty about onward use.
• "Stable" made sense without an explicit description to accompany the tag.

Outcome: Yes, we can move forward with lifecycle status tags, starting with “Trial”.

Most participants felt lifecycle statuses would make the Design System more transparent and help them make informed decisions about whether to adopt a component. They also felt the system demonstrated that components continue to evolve over time and that the Design System is actively maintained. Seven out of nine participants said the proposed system would increase their trust in the Design System; one said their trust would not change and one said it would decrease.

As participants said:

“I think it signifies that there is work going on [with] the existing components, on new components.“

“I think it's giving me, as a designer, more tools to communicate accurately with my team about what the actual status of these things are.”

The prototypes we tested

We presented status tags to users as part of prototyped webpages. We had two webpages for existing components (breadcrumbs and details) and one for a planned component (language navigation).

Trial

Participants interpreted "Trial” status to mean a component was relatively new, still gathering evidence and likely to evolve. Most participants noticed the status during testing and reacted positively to its presence (e.g. “I like this”.)

Although some participants said they would be more cautious about adopting a “Trial” component, we found little evidence that the status reduced perceived ease of use, quality or willingness to use the component. Users did, however, want additional information about what research and testing had already been completed, particularly around accessibility, and whether there was any risk that a component could be significantly changed or removed in future.

We tested three possible names for this status. While "Trial" ranked highest overall, the differences between the three options were small and participants generally considered all three acceptable. Each term carried slightly different expectations; for example, “Early access” suggested something new and not yet complete, but sometimes implied restricted use among an ‘exclusive’ group of users.

Needs review

Participants understood that a "Needs review" component had some form of issue or evidence gap, but they were often unsure what actions they should take as a result. This provoked anxiety among some participants:

“This really throws me.”

“Worries me a bit, this one, because I used the details component yesterday.”

The “Needs review” status prompted questions about:

• why the component required review and who would do it.
• whether there were known accessibility or usability concerns.
• whether it was still safe to use in live services.
• whether it might be deprecated in future.

Participants wanted more context than they did for the "Trial" status. Some said they would be reluctant to use a component carrying a "Needs review" label unless they could understand the reason for it. Survey responses showed lower ratings for quality, ease of use and intention to use than the equivalent “stable” component.

What this means

The findings suggest we can move forward with introducing lifecycle statuses, starting with “Trial”. However, users need clear guidance about what each status means in practice and what actions, if any, they should take as a result.

If we adopt the "Needs review" status, this may require additional explanation and supporting information to avoid unnecessary concern and help users make informed decisions.

Further details about methods

We conducted moderated remote research sessions with nine GOV.UK Design System users from across government (content designers, interaction designers and UX designers). Participants reviewed prototype component pages, answered interview questions and completed quantitative short surveys rating component pages on ease of use, confidence, intention to use and trust.  To reduce bias, participants initially saw different alternatives for the “Trial” status tag, although they got to comment on all name options at some point. We also ran a ranking exercise comparing the terms "Early access", "Pilot" and "Trial".