Design histories update

app/views/design-histories/v0.html

@@ -20,9 +20,9 @@ <h1 class="nhsuk-heading-xl">Initial assumptions from discovery</h1>
     <p>The recommendations from the discovery were:</p>
     <ol>
         <li>Develop a product value information service to address unmet information needs</li>
-        <li>Improve sharing of data between Trusts, currently via informal information sharing networks</li>
+        <li>Improve sharing of data between trusts, currently via informal information sharing networks</li>
         <li>Improve standards of procurement commercial literacy and ensure teams have correct skills</li>
-        <li>Create standards for evidence provided by suppliers, and improve data collection from Trusts</li>
+        <li>Create standards for evidence provided by suppliers, and improve data collection from trusts</li>
     </ol>
 
     <p>This Alpha phase was kicked off to address recommendation 1. We pivoted to include 2 as well. 3 and 4 have been spun up into separate teams.</p>

app/views/design-histories/v1.html

@@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ <h2 class="nhsuk-heading-l">Things we changed</h2>
 
 
             <ul class="nhsuk-list nhsuk-list--bullet">
-                <li>Nearly all users want to know what other Trusts are procuring and using</li>
+                <li>Nearly all users want to know what other trusts are procuring and using</li>
                 <li>Current mechanisms are ad-hoc and based on informal personal networks</li>
             </ul>
 
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ <h2>Things we kept or tweaked</h2>
             <h3 class="nhsuk-heading-m">Users want context beyond product performance</h3>
             <ul class="nhsuk-list nhsuk-list--bullet">
                 <li>Users want to understand not just how well a product was evaluated, but how the evaluation was conducted</li>
-                <li>Interest in how other Trusts built business cases and what factors they considered important</li>
+                <li>Interest in how other trusts built business cases and what factors they considered important</li>
             </ul>
 
 
@@ -122,8 +122,12 @@ <h3>Embracing evaluation variety</h3>
 
     <h2>How it tested</h2>
 
-    <p>User research here</p>
-
+    <h3>Selected user research insights</h3>
+<ul class="nhsuk-list nhsuk-list--bullet">
+      <li>Users were especially interested in the prospect of learning lessons from and benchmarking against trusts of similar size or type, which supported our filters and evaluation details</li>
+      <li>They confirmed that they would reach out to someone who’s procured a product, showing that featured contact cards are useful</li>
+      <li>In general, there’s a lack of information about the practical application of products in trust environments, which makes this contact information even more essential</li>
+    </ul>
 
 
 

app/views/design-histories/v2.html

@@ -95,14 +95,15 @@ <h4>Multi-product evaluations supported</h4>
 
     <h2>How it tested</h2>
 
-    <p>Summary:</p>
+    <h3>Selected user research insights</h3>
 
     <ul class="nhsuk-list nhsuk-list--bullet">
-      <li>Key finding </li>
-       <li>Key finding </li>
-        <li>Key finding </li>
-        <li>Key finding</li>
-    </ul>
+      <li>Users recognised the need to share multiple products and the importance of providing context around their evaluations (for example, department and scale information).</li>
+       <li>At least one participant flagged a concern that breaches of confidentiality could occur when sharing evaluations</li>
+        <li>Users raised risks of misunderstandings around words like “evaluation”, “study” and “trial”, which have context-specific connotations.</li>
+        <li>Users had insights about friction they might experience when filling in the fields on this page, including that an evaluation lead may not always be a clinician; that the date of an evaluation may sometimes we difficult to pinpoint.</li>
+    <li>Users showed interest in understanding why a trust did NOT procure a product.</li>
+      </ul>
 
 
 

app/views/design-histories/v3.html

@@ -106,15 +106,20 @@ <h2>   Content design</h2>
   <li>clearer calls to action on some pages, to avoid confusion</li>
 <li>consistency and accuracy of language throughout</li>
 <li>colour coding of tags being limited to procurement decisions only (given confusion from users and potential for mixed meaning)</li>
-<li>reduced text in some places to simplify and avoid redundancy</li>
+<li>reduced text in some places to simplify, communicate key points more clearly and avoid redundancy</li>
 </ul>
 
     <!-- ============ USER RESEARCH FINDINGS ============ -->
-    <h2 class="nhsuk-heading-l">User research findings</h2>
-
-    <h3 class="nhsuk-heading-m">Key insights from procurement research</h3>
-
-    <p>Findings here</p>
+    <h2 class="nhsuk-heading-l">User research</h2>
+
+    <h3 class="nhsuk-heading-m">Selected user research insights</h3>
+    <ul>
+    <li>The section about the NHS 10-year plan confused some users as they weren’t sure of its relevance.</li>
+    <li>Users were generally positive about the benefits-related text on the homepage.</li>
+    <li>Evaluation uploading was mostly considered straightforward, but research highlighted the fact that it only covered “evaluations” and not other types of documents.</li>
+    <li>Users felt the filters would be useful, especially filtering based on trust type and product category.</li>
+    <li>Users liked the badges but were sometimes unclear on the colour system.</li>
+    </ul>