Gather user feedback on UI prototype and mockup

[eloquence]

The interactive prototype and mockup for a messaging-like graphical client are at a stage where we can gather some initial user feedback on whether this approach resonates with journalists, and whether the specific interaction flows demonstrated in the wireframe are understandable.

Key areas of interest:

• Delete/archive workflow (see discussion in Design of securedrop-client UI #89)
• Interaction with files (what should the client do? what should the filesystem do?)
• Managing spam vs. ham

For the 7/25-8/8 sprint, we should set up at least two sessions with journalists from different organizations, at minimum including @redshiftzero and @eloquence and ideally also @ei8fdb. Confidential notes should be added to the UX wiki, with high-level findings summarized here.

[eloquence]

Reached out to two potential journalist interviewees today; will send out additional inquiries if those come back negative or no response within a couple of days.

[eloquence]

Completed two sessions today, focused on https://eloquence.github.io/workstation-messaging/ and Jen's mock-up. Sharing notes with @redshiftzero @ei8fdb and @huertanix privately for now. Will get sign-off and then post to internal UX wiki. The headline is positive, all main workflows were understandable to both testers and they really liked it conceptually. More details to come.

[eloquence]

Detailed notes from three UX sessions are in the internal UX wiki. Here are some of the high-level findings so far:

• Testers of differing technical proficiency understood the messaging-style workflow and were able to perform tasks in the user interface successfully. One user compared it with Slack.

• When messages show up / when you need to synchronize was not immediately clear. Even after users discovered the "Synchronize" button, they were unsure whether synchronization would be performed automatically.

• In the clickable wireframe, there's a per-submission context menu called "Edit copy with" that's intended to hint at functionality like document redaction. However, a user was confused as to why they'd ever want to edit a submission. If/when we integrate such tools, we need to be clearer about the wording to avoid confusion.

• The "cold storage / mark for archival" workflow certainly holds potential for confusion; one user pointed out potential problems if workstations are in inconsistent states with each other, another was confused by the language "your copy" in one of the dialogs. Since we're in broad agreement to handle this differently (e.g., via an export workflow), I don't think we need to test the current workflow with additional participants.

• While the integration of messaging features with other journalists by one participant was seen as a useful feature, it also holds potential for confusion. One tester initially suspected it would show communications between other journalists and "their" sources. @ei8fdb noted that he was also initially confused by it.

[eloquence]

Closing out this first round of tests; we may be able to do another iteration soon, which ideally should include more of the post-submission workflow and potentially a higher fidelity prototype.