Bitcoin.org: Redesign wallet page interaction is awkward

[crwatkins]

Some of the interactions on the Choose Your Wallet page seem awkward.

• When going to the page for the first time, some wallets are displayed but none of the categories (e.g. Desktop) are selected so the user doesn't know which wallets are being displayed.

• If you select Hardware, and then to go Desktop (or Mobile, probably those with sub sections) the new category will be selected, but none of the wallets changes. What the user sees is Desktop selected, but the display is hardware wallets.

• If you choose Mobile, and then choose a subsection such as Android, I believe it filters and displays the wallets correctly, but the subsection (Android) goes away, so that

1. The user can't tell he has selected Android
2. There's no obvious way to change to another subjection (only way I found was selecting the section again which appears as already selected.

• Once a target wallet is selected, the selection UI changes to a new, different UI which is startling
  and confusing to the user. I'm not sure we need two different interfaces to learn.

[wbnns]

@crwatkins Thanks Craig, good feedback. Let's improve it.

cc: @marekkirejczyk @natiwa @alexcherman

[natiwa]

Hi Will, Hi Craig,

Thank you for your feedback. The whole team was thinking about the possible improvements for that case. Here are our solutions for this.

• Right now, when we come to the "Choose your wallet" page we can only see the random (not all) wallets. It's not clear why we do not see all of them and why none of the categories is selected.
  We suggest showing all wallets by adding "All wallets" category, like this: LINK.

• When we want to see the details of the particular wallet the navigation has changed. Which should be a shortcut to jump to another wallet without going again to the "Choose your wallet page". Previously on that screen design, we had an option to select another operating system (similar to that one is on the old website). I think it would be good to keep that element on that screen, maybe as a dropdown. This will make the navigation even easier.
  LINK

We also figured out that maybe better idea is to clear the wallet type, operating system and wallet selections itself, every time we have jumped to the new wallet preview and the page has loaded. This will reduce the concern about the last "wallet" selection and why it stayed empty after changing an operating system selection.

Let me know what you think about our idea?

[wbnns]

@natiwa Great idea, let's do it. cc: @alexcherman

[natiwa]

Perfect. Thank you.

[crwatkins]

A few thoughts on the wallet display: I think the redesign (as well as the current design) causes users to have to do an awful lot of clicking in order to get the information that I suspect they will want. For example, if I'm a new user looking for an Android wallet, I'll select that and have a display of eleven wallets with no more information other than the names. To find out anything about a wallet, I click on it. We list six scoring criteria with colored dots (I like those), but if I want to know what they mean, I have to click six more times to open each item. Now most likely, I'm going to want to do the same for each of the wallets listed, resulting in lot of clicking.

I'm not sure what the solution is. Pre-open all the sections? That separates the scores with too much vertical space on some platforms, perhaps. I'm looking for some good ideas here.

Perhaps a solution to a couple of the above problems is a chart for each sub category. If I select Mobile Android, I get a list of eleven wallets, each with six colored dots in titled columns (or maybe something a little more creative). From that, I choose the wallet and get to see the subsections pre-opened.

I do think some sort of chart to help the user select a wallet would be a great feature.

And, by the way, I like the colored dots so much I think we should also have them on the three privacy sub-scores.

[natiwa]

@crwatkins Thanks for your reply.

I'm not sure what the solution is. Pre-open all the sections? That separates the scores with too much vertical space on some platforms, perhaps. I'm looking for some good ideas here.

Yes, we can make them all enrolled. But that will make the screen (mostly on mobile and tablet) very long.

Perhaps a solution to a couple of the above problems is a chart for each sub category. If I select Mobile Android, I get a list of eleven wallets, each with six colored dots in titled columns (or maybe something a little more creative). From that, I choose the wallet and get to see the subsections pre-opened.

@wbnns Will, what do you think? We can suggest something like this, but earlier we were focused to not change the functionality of the current website too much.

[crwatkins]

@natiwa @wbnns I don't want to derail the scope, but this might be a good time to make this change, and solve a fairly long-standing problem as well as the immediate issues.

[wbnns]

@natiwa @alexcherman Great job on the additional changes the other day. @crwatkins Thanks again for sharing the thoughts.

Let's wait before making more changes until post-launch (e.g. making all of the sections opened by default, making a chart, etc.), so that we can get additional feedback from other users as well.

The current version looks good and is a big improvement over the current wallets page.

[crwatkins]

@natiwa I think the latest ideas are a step in the right direction, but right now it takes 66 clicks to view all 11 Android wallets. The current bitcoin.org interface takes 12. I think most users will want to view many wallets in their chosen category, so I think we should make that as easy as possible for them.

[Cobra-Bitcoin]

@crwatkins On the mobile wallet menu, it still takes 12 clicks.

On the desktop menu, I agree, we should try to reduce the number of clicks. Maybe a "Other Android wallets" button somewhere on the wallet page, which opens this as a modal: https://i.imgur.com/zmmoL8U.png?

The wallet page is looking much nicer though, really great stuff.

[wbnns]

We're working on some updates, to save some clicks and make it easier for visitors to navigate on the desktop version. Will let you all know once the preview is updated so that you all can check it out again.

[crwatkins]

@natiwa @alexcherman I like the model in the current preview, but some of the interaction seems to suffer from the same issues as above. For example if you (desktop Chrome) move from All Wallets to Desktop (or move from Hardware to Mobile) the selection of wallets does not change.

Also, when changing the filter criteria, the scroll position on the page changes making it a bit tedious requiring re-scrolling after changing a filter selection.

[wbnns]

@crwatkins Thanks, Craig.

@alexcherman Once "Desktop" is selected (even if "Linux", "Windows" or "Mac" haven't been selected yet), wallets that aren't available for Desktop should no longer be visible. For example, BRD should not be visible once the user has clicked "Desktop":

Only Wallets that are available for "Desktop" should be visible (Linux, Windows and Mac) wallets.

Lastly, each time filter criteria is selected, users are being scrolled back to the top of the page, which is a bit disorienting. Let's remove this behavior and ensure that the filter criteria just changes the wallets that appear, rather than scrolling the user up to the top of the page so that they then have to scroll back down to see what wallets are available.

I think that's it, though - the page looks much better which the additional changes we discussed.

So just to confirm:

1. Ensure that once "Desktop" or "Mobile" are selected, that only wallets that fit in those categories are visible.
2. Fix the the scroll-to-top-of-page issue when each filter is applied.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Thanks.

cc: @marekkirejczyk

[wbnns]

@alexcherman @marekkirejczyk

It also looks like there is an issue on handheld and tablet devices, where-in it's not possible to select a new wallet within the filtered category:

For example, if I select "Arcbit" and then try to select that filter to see what other wallets are available other than Arcbit in the "Android" category, no wallets appear. You have to reselect "Android" to see what wallets are available.

Here are the list of fixes with this issue added:

1. Ensure that once "Desktop" or "Mobile" are selected, that only wallets that fit in those categories are visible.
2. Fix the the scroll-to-top-of-page issue when each filter is applied.
3. Once a wallet has been selected in a category (e.g. Mobile > Android > Arcbit), it's not possible to view other wallets in the category without reselecting the operating system.

[crwatkins]

@natiwa @alexcherman I like the new selection on desktop, but it's pretty easy to get into a mode where clicking on a wallet icon doesn't do anything. This happens in the All, Desktop and Mobile categories with no subcategory selected. I don't have exact steps, but it is pretty easy to make happen. Select a few different wallets and read about them and then switch back to All and try to click on a wallet. Nothing happens; you stay on the same page of the last wallet you looked at.

[crwatkins]

@natiwa @alexcherman On iOS iPad, I still can't change my selection of wallet. I select a wallet, read about it, and then try to open the "Select Wallet" drawer to choose a different wallet. Nothing happens other then the v changing to a ^.

[crwatkins]

@natiwa @alexcherman There are no descriptions for hardware wallets on Chrome on desktop or iPad.
I'm referring to the narrative text describing the wallet that usually appear under the name of the wallet.

[crwatkins]

On the iPad, the layout is very strange. The "Select Wallet Type" separates the description of the wallet and the scoring/screenshot.

[alexcherman]

Hi @crwatkins, thanks for feedback.

I like the new selection on desktop, but it's pretty easy to get into a mode where clicking on a wallet icon doesn't do anything. This happens in the All, Desktop and Mobile categories with no subcategory selected.

This happens because in All, Desktop and Mobile categories you should click on the os icon instead of wallet icon.

There are no descriptions for hardware wallets on Chrome on desktop or iPad.

This happens because not every wallet has descriptions.

On iOS iPad, I still can't change my selection of wallet. I select a wallet, read about it, and then try to open the "Select Wallet" drawer to choose a different wallet. Nothing happens other then the v changing to a ^.

I already sent PR with improvements

[wbnns]

@alexcherman Thanks for working on this and thanks @crwatkins for the feedback.

@natiwa I think we need to improve the interaction when there are multiple icons under the wallet, indicating different operating systems:

Users are trying to click/touch the text (nothing will happen), and not the icons.

Please let me know what you think.

[natiwa]

Hi Will,

We know. The Name and logo were clickable previously but when we added operating icons that do not longer had sense. That's why on the wallet page we initially added easy navigation between a different operating system like:

or later like:

Let's assume we still can click on the logo and on the name. Which operating system should be displayed? How should we jump to another operating system form the wallet page then (if we got rid of that)?

All the best,
Natalia

[wbnns]

@natiwa

Hey, thanks for the quick reply. I think the main problem is here:

We need to change the behavior of this element when multiple operating systems are present. Bringing back the dropdown won't solve the problem, because people will still see this and try to click on the text (rather than the icons) - the problem isn't switching operating systems, it's not knowing where the link is to get to the wallet page itself, when the icons below the text are present.

[wbnns]

@natiwa Thinking more about this, maybe it would be helpful to use some form of hover/active selector so that when the user hovers over the box, he/she realizes that one of the icons below, then needs to be clicked. Let me know what you think or if you have another idea. Basically, using the above screenshot of Electrum as an example, we want:

1. The user to be able to click on the entire box
2. And also be able to select the relevant OS for the wallet, so that he/she ends up on the right page

[marekkirejczyk]

@wbnns @natiwa
We took a step back to understand what is the root cause of our challenges. We think it is worth to understand it to avoid running around in circles and see a broader spectrum of possible solutions.

We believe that root cause of our usability quirks is that we would like to have a new more dynamic user experience while preserving all navigation for SEO reasons.

Having said that we have three options:
1) Resign from old URL structure - that I guess is impossible for SEO reasons

2) Build something around the existing URL structure
In the old solution, there was a welcome page with 4 categories and random wallets displayed below. All random wallets would link to windows page.

Sticking to that approach, I would simply revert back to showing random wallets, but:

• Make categories bigger and add "call to action" (PICK YOUR DEVICE TYPE: Desktop, Hardware, ...)
• Make it more explicit those are random wallets (by adding a title): SOME OF THE AVAILABLE WALLETS:

3) Build a hybrid:
With current solution, it is not clear which icon should lead to which operating system.
After clicking on the box we could pick a random os, but that doesn't solve the problem yet.

We could smoothen navigation with a list of icons for all available os on the wallet screen.
That would allow switching operating system without adding extra steps.

[wbnns]

@marekkirejczyk @natiwa Thanks. What if when the user hovers over the box, an active state appears over the first available operating system, along with the text "Select OS", so that the user knows to click on one of the icons. Also, perhaps we could also make the OS icons themselves slightly bigger.

@natiwa Can you do a quick comp of what that would look like (just the Electrum box I mentioned before with these changes)?

[crwatkins]

@marekkirejczyk @natiwa Thanks for stepping back and reconsidering the problem.

I'm very opposed to displaying random subsets of wallets. The first reason is that in the past when we have had limits on the number of wallets displayed in a category, we have had user confusion and developer complaints (rightly so in my opinion) about the situation which resulted in extra support efforts on our part. The second reason is that other sites implement "play for placement" for wallet listings and I'm concerned that such a situation could lead users to incorrectly assuming that we do the same, which I would certainly want to avoid.

@wbnns I agree that we should lead users to select an OS (since we need that to maintain our URL structure).

[natiwa]

@wbnns Thanks for your feedback. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that will work only on Desktop screens as we don't have hover states on Tablet at all.

[crwatkins]

@natiwa Perhaps a popup for OS selection when a wallet is selected that requires such a selection?

[natiwa]

@crwatkins That will increase the number of clicks.

[crwatkins]

@natiwa But only on the "failover" path when someone clicks on the wallet name or icon and doesn't directly choose an OS icon, right? If they take the existing path, there are no more clicks, right?

[wbnns]

@natiwa Yes, the change I suggested would only apply to Desktop screens. On tablets and handhelds, we have the dropdown menus (which desktop users don't see).

[natiwa]

Hello everyone,

Please see our proposition below.

After hovering on the box.

After hovering on the icon

Let us know your thoughts.

[wbnns]

@natiwa Thanks! Yeah, I think this will help desktop users know that they need to select an OS.

[Cobra-Bitcoin]

No need to prompt the user to select an OS when there's only one possible selection, in this scenario just make the entire box clickable and don't show the OS selection prompt.

[natiwa]

Hi @Cobra-Bitcoin

Thanks for your feedback. We start working on that... but as far as we started making the changes we see here a lot of inconsistencies:

1. The user just learned how to use the page. He knows that he is not able to click on the box but he has to choose the OS first.
2. Suddenly, if we make the box clickable (in a case when we have only one OS) then he will be confused. The whole logic of the website would be inconsistent.

My suggestions are:

Solution 1. I mentioned that earlier. Every box is clickable. The first OS from the category is opened after a click on the name or logo. A user can change the OS selection by clicking on the other icons. Example below.
Step 1

1.a User can click on the box or just name or logo (without selecting OS). The first OS from the Mobile OS will be opened
1.b User can click and select the OS by clicking one of the OS mobile Icons- then that OS will be opened
Step 2

A user still has the option to change the OS directly from the wallet page.

Advantages of the solution:

• On the wallet page we will know which one OS is selected (we don't have that info now)
  
• We are consistent. All boxes are clickable.
• A User always has an option to change the OS

Solution 2. We make a step backward and rethink the whole flow of the selecting and filtering the wallets.

Shall we have a call and discuss all the details? What about tomorrow 3:00 PM CEST or 4:00 PM CEST?

@marekkirejczyk @wbnns @alexcherman

[wbnns]

@natiwa @Cobra-Bitcoin Hey, thanks. I don't think it is a big problem if the the user sees the "Select an Operating System" when there's only one. It only takes a second or so to mouseover and it also matches the behavior of the other wallets. With the exception of hardware wallets, most wallets are going to be available for more than one operating system.

Aside from the potential change, above, it seems now that the interaction issues that were previously mentioned have been addressed. Unless others disagree, I'd like to recommend that we close this issue so that we can move toward going live with the new site. Otherwise, sure, let's have a phone call.

[wbnns]

A quick update on this - we're going to schedule a meeting to talk about and plan additional improvements that can potentially be made to the wallet pages to continue to enhance the site experience for users. Aside from @marekkirejczyk and @natiwa who will be attending, if you'd like to join-in and be part of the effort, please comment so I can ensure that we nail down a time that is convenient for everyone.

[crwatkins]

@wbnns @natiwa @marekkirejczyk I would like to request the following additional improvements:

1. Display a method for users to compare wallets based on their scores (perhaps a matrix of selected wallets with colored dots)
2. Include colored dots for the three privacy sub-scores
3. Use different colors to distinguish between "good" and "pass" scores to be able to further differentiate wallets in the comparison listing (something like good=green, pass=yellow, fail=red, neutral=gray)

[crwatkins]

To expand on my above comment I would like to point out that our score of "good" really means "excellent" and our score of "pass" probably means closer to "good". So I'm a little conflicted now about suggesting green for excellent and yellow for good. I hope we can come up with some scheme to visually represent scoring that is appropriate, perhaps not entirely color based.

Also I would welcome ideas on doing comparisons. A full matrix of a selected wallets would likely create a chart that would invite counting the number of "good" dots and choosing the "highest rated" wallet in that manner, when that is really not the best way to choose a wallet. Perhaps a UI that allowed one to compare wallets on a single category, such as privacy or transparency or fees, would be a better way to present the comparisons.

[natiwa]

Hi all,

Thank you @crwatkins for your suggestions. @wbnns do we have a green light to make those changes? We could focus on that on Monday.

All the best,
Natalia

[wbnns]

@natiwa Thanks for the reply and also @crwatkins for the additional thoughts. @crwatkins, let's have a brief meeting first to ensure that your recommendations are being perceived as objectively as possible. Please let us know if that's okay with you and let's nail down a time where you, me and Natalie (and anyone else who wants to join-in) are all available.

[wbnns]

We'll (@crwatkins @natiwa @marekkirejczyk) be meeting at 14:00 UTC this Thursday (June 21), here. Anyone who is interested in contributing feedback to further improve the wallet pages, is welcome to join.

[crwatkins]

@harding suggests the use of Harvey Balls to augment color presentation; for example:

              | Control | Validation | Transparency | Environment | Privacy | Fees
   Foo Wallet |    ●    |      ◕     |       ◔      |     ◔       |  ● ◕ ◔  |   ◕

Here is the raw data from the bitcoin.org wallet scores to provide a visual feel for the data distribution and differentiation that we are trying to present for comparison. Note some data below was manually collected and accuracy is not guaranteed. This chart is intended to be used for UI/UX planning, and not for actual comparison of wallets:

(Note that the Disclosure column represents data after merging PR #2462.)

[natiwa]

Thank you @crwatkins.

[crwatkins]

Wallets are "scored" on six categories, one of which is privacy. Privacy has three subcategories which are similarly scored. The privacy score is manually (not in code) determined by the algorithm on the wallet criteria page based on the three privacy subcategory scores. Scores are not numbers, but rather are text labels which refer to two or more text descriptions of that category. Wallets are scored by choosing the text (and thus the label) that most accurately describes the wallet. All labels begin with the characters "check" followed by one of the four following sets of characters:
```
good
pass
fail
neutral
````
Currently on bitcoin.org, I believe we indicate "fail" with an orange ball beside the text explaining the score while the other three ("good", "pass", and "neutral") are indicated with a green ball. I'm proposing we further differentiate these groups.

The letters in the matrix in my previous comment are the first letters of "good", "pass", "fail", and "neutral". Some wallets are listed for multiple platforms and multiple operating systems. Sometimes the score is different for the different platforms. 'f/p' was just my note that the score was "fail" for some platform(s) and "pass" for others. I wouldn't expect to expose the combined fail/pass indication to end users.

[natiwa]

Hello,

We had a brainstorm at our company and we figured out two possible solutions.

1. 
   
2. 
   
   Tablet:
   
   Mobile:
   

Let us know your thoughts.
All the best,
Natalia

[crwatkins]

@natiwa I prefer the second desktop option that allows direct (visual) comparison of each category.

Note that the "neutral" scoring is really more of a "not applicable" so we shouldn't use an icon that implies any kind of ranking. For example, it could just be blank or it could be a square while the other three are circles. Should we add red/yellow/green/gray coloring?

[natiwa]

@crwatkins thanks for the feedback.

I think we should avoid adding colors at all. Like we discussed on the last call, colors might be too dominant.

[Cobra-Bitcoin]

I like how the wallets are organised on the existing design, is there a way we could have the scoring information displayed somehow in the boxes we're using now? Maybe at the top of the box with a mouse-over effect to really see the details?

I feel like we could have a "Sort by" thing on the existing page, but I think the proposed solutions just focus _too_ much on the comparisons of the wallets based on their score, it completely restructures the page. I think there's room to do something with colours, or be a bit more subtle about it. It's also annoying how windows is displayed first. There's just too much going on, with the scoring and the operating systems and the way the page is structured, it looks more like a comparison tool for a pro user, and not something a general user needs to be interacting with.

[wbnns]

@Cobra-Bitcoin Yeah, agreed. Here's a summary of our recent meeting. @natiwa @crwatkins @marekkirejczyk, please let me know if I missed anything.

Some of the UX issues we identified echo what you just mentioned. It seems we need to look at answering some of the following questions that surfaced as part of calibrating additional / potential changes:

1. Users ask, "Which wallet is the best?" - how should wallet information be presented to help them determine this? In other words, how do new, uneducated users best determine what wallet(s) work best for them?
2. How do scoring categories compare and how can new users determine which ones are more important to consider amongst others (e.g. Transparency vs. Validation).
3. Are the current scoring categories adequate? Should additional ones be added or can two or more of the existing ones potentially be combined?
4. Should there be an "overall" score?
5. Does the current scoring "make sense" to new users who are learning about Bitcoin for the first time and are getting their first bitcoin wallet?
6. How can we efficiently connect new users with a wallet in a way that they can be informed, without confusing them?
7. Are the current pass, neutral, fail criteria sufficient? How can they be extended/simplified or improved under a goal of having the same objective meaning across a spectrum of users?

Anyone else reading this who wants to add feedback, please feel free to comment.

[crwatkins]

In a fairly terse comment, which doesn't do all the good discussion from the meeting justice, here is a summary of where I'm currently settled after considering this over time.

A. We present a fairly good selection of wallets to choose from, but no guidance on choosing the wallet (other than randomly ordering them). I suspect most users play "whack-a-mole" on the wallet listings going from wallet to wallet trying to differentiate them.

B. We present a good number of fairly accurate words describing each attribute of a wallet which even I have to study each time I see them, to tell you which one is "better." We need to rank them for users (something we've already done, but we haven't exposed).

C. An overall score is only useful for a user with a precise ranking of criteria, and thus is not useful in this case because personal rankings would be so varied.

D. The current good/pass/fail rankings are far from perfect, but we already have them, and we have tacit agreement on them, and as time goes on, I become more impressed at how well they were chosen.

[natiwa]

Hello everyone,

Thanks for your feedback. Please find my answers below:

@Cobra-Bitcoin If we put scoring information in the box with a mouse-over effect, then we, unfortunately, will lose the ability to compare wallets. Which was one of your condition

It's also annoying how windows are displayed first.

We can easily detect a user’s operating system and show him a proper wallet for him.

@wbnns

1. Each user has his own criteria values. We can slightly suggest which one wallet is better than other by putting a tag like „Lowest Fee”, „Safest one” etc.
2. On the table view, you can click on category title and sort it from best to worst and reverse. We can put a description of scoring categories.
3. The same situation as in the 1st point. We don’t want to promote any wallet. Or do we?
4. In our opinion makes a lot of sense.
5. We think that the better wording for new users is: Good, Neutral, Bad

To sum:

• We do not suggest to add another level of filtration where the user could filter all wallets by category or score. The problem is SEO. We could totally rearrange the whole page layout, but this will, unfortunately, make an impact to the SEO.
• Mouse hover effect with the score wouldn't be more intuitive
• By adding tags we could easily and in a visible way suggest which one is better than other

Let me know what you think.
Natalia

[crwatkins]

To clarify my above comment B about ranking: I didn't mean to suggest we should filter or reorder based on the scores. I was trying to suggest that we simply expose the good/pass/fail attributes of the scores (and should have not used the term "ranking").

[natiwa]

Hi everyone,

At this moment there is a lot of comments and some of them are not moving us in the same direction. Let us know which one we should follow. The table looks like a good direction to me...maybe it should be just a little bit upgraded.

The small changes we can do straight away are:

• changing the wording to Good/ Neutral/Bad
• add tags to the wallet names example: "Lowest Fee", "Safest"...

All the best,
Natalia

[crwatkins]

I am opposed to "changing the wording". I believe that we should expose the scoring categories (good, pass, fail) via Harvey Balls or colors as my first choice or by using the exact words "good", "pass", "fail" as my far second choice. As I recently learned in PR #2462 that the scoring that has been done for these wallet over the past few years precisely reflects the terms (good, pass, fail) and using anything else would either be inaccurate or require a reevaluation of all the scoring for accuracy.

Similarly, I don't believe we can create any tags such as "Lowest" or "Safest" without a large amount of work and discussion.

To summarize, if we want to generate either new words or new scoring methods for wallets because we think we can do better than what we have, I'm all for supporting those efforts, but I do not believe that any of those efforts are within the scope of a UI/UX update. My recommendation is to simply expose our existing information.

[wbnns]

Adding a note here so it stays with this thread, @Cobra-Bitcoin mentioned it might be helpful to bring back the wallet selector at the top of the page (#2585).

[wbnns]

Hello, just wanted to resurrect the conversation, as this came up today in the course of conversation on #2788. We can further iterate the design but as @natiwa mentioned, there's a bit of conflicting feedback on what exactly should be changed/updated.

It seems that the suggested areas of improvement are falling into three areas:

• Scoring
• Filtering
• Usability

Maybe we can start with some specific, small and straightforward changes to begin to establish congruence among the areas and see if that might yield some positive results faster than trying to come up with a completely enhanced master design change.

[natiwa]

Hi @wbnns , Hi all

Good to talk to you again. We are open to new suggestions and we will be happy to improve anything that should be improved. Let us know where should we start at this point.

All the best,
Natalia

[crwatkins]

I'm all for moving forward with one of the above proposals for a direct visual comparison of wallets using our existing (but not well exposed) good/pass/fail/neutral scoring criteria. I also believe:

• We should not at this time provide a sorting feature as our criteria and our distribution of scores don't lend itself well to that

• I'm a fan of some version of colored Harvey Balls (that present the same information with and without color perception)

• I'm optimistic that the words (currently not exposed) good/pass/fail/neutral will not actually have to be used and can be represented visually

[maxwellmons]

Maybe instead of colors and Harvey Balls, each scoring section could have a number associated with it that's part of a behind-the-scenes accumulation comprising a total score.

Wallets could easily be filtered and sorted based on those scores.

It's risky to assume that a new user is going to know which colored dot or Harvey Ball combination is the most important a few hours (or even a few weeks) after they just heard about Bitcoin and want to set up a wallet. There are probably thousands these kinds of users coming to the site.

[wbnns]

@natiwa @crwatkins @Cobra-Bitcoin @maxwellmons

Let's escalate the priority on this, and have a meeting in the next week where we can discuss everything to get more synchronized, and start mocking-up and implementing the next round of changes for people to review and give feedback on.

Do you all have availability on Thursday (Feb 21) or Friday (Feb 22) at 2PM UTC?*

*Anyone else who is reading this, is welcome to attend, by the way - am just mentioning people who have been participating in this thread.

[crwatkins]

I'm not available those times, but I would highly encourage others to meet and make forward progress.

I opened this issue almost a year ago to address some specific bugs in the wallet page redesign and I'm afraid it has gotten too long and off topic to reasonably invite new fresh ideas. I'll close it as the original topic has long ago been resolved and open a new issue which summarizes some of the above and clarifies my position.

If I missed any topics still left open in this particular issue, I would highly encourage anyone to open a new issue focused on any topic that has gotten lost in this conversation.

[natiwa]

Hi all,

Friday (Feb 22) at 2PM UTC works for me.

Natalia

[wbnns]

@natiwa

Great, thanks. Let's meet here, then, this Friday the 22nd at 2PM UTC:
https://appear.in/bitcoin.org

Anyone else who is interested in participating is welcome to attend.

[wbnns]

Hello, last Friday we met to discuss previous feedback on this thread, as well as #2861, under the goal of beginning to mock-up and begin implementing the next round of changes to wallet pages for people to review and give feedback on, in order to provide the best overall user experience of the wallet pages for as many people as possible. The wallet pages receive a lot of traffic on the site, having received millions of visits in the past year.

Similarly to how the overall site design was updated last year with community feedback, we feel it is important to take the same approach as we continue to further improve the wallet pages. Therefore, based on the meeting, we would like to propose the following:

1. Make a new mock-up of the wallets pages based on @crwatkins recent comments, since he has served as the wallet maintainer for several years and has spent a lot of time working closely with those pages.
2. Make a new mock-up of the wallets pages in the spirit of what @Cobra-Bitcoin recently said, because the current selection of wallets are all lumped together, despite targeting several different niches.
3. Look into using the existing wallet links on the Homepage and Getting Started pages, to direct users to a new page to be mocked-up where they can identify themselves as a new user (where they could then be led to a selection of wallets that are good for beginners/people new to bitcoin, using existing filtering capabilities) or as an advanced user (where they can see a comparison of all wallets, perhaps with something like harvey balls, or our existing colored dots).
4. Let @natiwa and her team have creative control to come up with their own concept for a version of wallet pages, based on their UI/UX and design experience.
5. Once the different versions/flows have been created, let the community vote on which one they would like to see implemented. Also provide an option for people to vote on if they are dissatisfied with all of the choices, so we can continue further with iterations if need be.

Similarly to the redesign, this would all be done open and transparently on GitHub, with weekly progress meetings that all are welcome to attend and contribute to.

Please let me know what you all think. It would be nice if we could get started on this in the next week or so, if possible.

Cc: @Cobra-Bitcoin @crwatkins @natiwa @maxwellmons

[maxwellmons]

Thank you @wbnns. I like this plan and will be available to contribute.

[natiwa]

Thanks @wbnns . Let us, please focus on that for next couple of days. I will back to you as soon as possible with new ideas.

[Cobra-Bitcoin]

@wbnns Sounds like a great plan. I'll be available to attend the meetings as often as I can, and give feedback on the overall process. I really like @crwatkins idea about pointing out which wallets are good for new users and to expose the scoring.

No doubt @natiwa will come up with something great.

[natiwa]

Thanks @Cobra-Bitcoin :) I will do my best as always!

[natiwa]

Hi all. I just want you to know that we are working on new solutions and we will send you a new previous at the beginning of next week.

All the best,
Natalie

[natiwa]

Hi all,

Like I promised. We came up with 3 new ideas. Please take a look at them and let me know is that a good direction.

Version 1
-> after clicking on the "Choose your wallet" button on the main page we came to that view
-> by default we would have some options already selected (for example I'm an advanced user), we can show all wallets before filter selection
-> easy to compare
-> as an advanced user you have a possibility to select advanced options
-> for a newbie you don't see an advanced options
-> 4 clicks to filter wallets and see a chosen wallet

Version 2
-> harder to compare
-> filters as a sentence
-> by default we would have some options already selected (for example I'm an advanced user), we can show all wallets before filter selection
-> as an advanced user you have a possibility to select advanced options
-> for a newbie you don't see an advanced options

Version 3
-> filters in a more traditional way

Let me know what you think.
Natalia

[wbnns]

@natiwa Thanks! Could you please change the Google Drive sharing links to public permissions, so that everyone can view them?

[natiwa]

Yes, sorry my bad. Done.

[wbnns]

@natiwa No prob, thank you. Looking forward to checking everything out!

[natiwa]

@wbnns can't wait to hear your feedback.

[wbnns]

@natiwa We'll start reviewing today.

Now that we have initial sketches/wireframes, let's resume weekly progress meetings. Are you all available on Fridays at 2PM UTC (starting this week)?

[natiwa]

I'm available on Fridays at 3 pm UTC (but I'm not available next week).

[wbnns]

@natiwa Ok, let's do Fridays at 3PM UTC.

[wbnns]

@natiwa

Ok, we've had a chance to go through and take a first look at the three different wireframes. Thank you all very much for getting started on them quickly, last week, so we could get some initial drafts together to begin moving this forward. Attached are the 3 PDFs from earlier today with numbered annotations. Below are notes for each numbered annotation. In general, it seems the issues noted below are all mostly relatable to solving the underlying problem of how to effectively improve user friendliness across two very different types of users (new/experienced).

Version 1

1. What appears in the middle of the page when a user hasn't selected Newbie or Advanced, yet? Also, we may want to reconsider what terms to use here, and also how a user can best self-identify with whether or not they should choose one or the other.
2. A user may not be exactly sure at this point what type of wallet they need. If they are new, they may have questions about which type of wallet is better (e.g. web vs mobile vs desktop). Also, these icons underneath each category might be hard to touch for mobile/tablet users (which we receive a lot of), and they are a little bit hard to see on desktop.
3. The terms are going to mean different things to each user. We don't provide a clear explanation at this point. It could be confusing for people to determine what criteria are important to them when they don't have a clear understanding of what the terms mean. We need to explain these terms before we ask people to decide which ones are important to them.
4. In theory, it would be nice to be able to show results after using the previous filters, but in practice we're not sure what kind of algorithm is going to be handy-enough here to provide "good results" (or maybe "accurate" would be a better term) based on the filters. We would also need to determine how to order the results. Due to the nature of queries, people tend to think that the first result is the most relevant, with subsequent results being slightly less relevant. We're not sure the current scoring system is set up that way to be able to accommodate this. For example, if a user chooses Privacy as their preferred criteria, and several wallets receive a Good score for that category, we don't currently rank or have an order of precedence for determining which wallets should appear in what order that all have good scores for the privacy category but differentiating scores for other categories.
5. We know these are just draft questions, but if we include this section, we should talk to new users on r/BitcoinBeginners or something like that, as well as other members of the community, and make sure the questions are relevant to the page that is being viewed. Many questions might be along the lines of ("Which wallet is the best?", "What platform should I use?", "Which criteria are the most important?", "If a wallet has a failing scoring for a category, does that mean I shouldn't use it?", etc.).
6. It seems like the criteria filter after the platform selector might be missing on the left side, is that by omission or by design?
7. Not sure about including all of the scoring criteria and colors under each result. The contrasting colors (red, yellow and green) could be confusing. For example, if we think of a user as someone trying to follow a path that arrives at an optimal wallet selection, this result page with contrasting colors is kind of like arriving at a traffic intersection that has a light that is green, yellow and red, all at the same time. When we show more than one result, it might result in a lot of clicking back and forth, with no clear way to compare, and several wallets having different scoring/color combinations. We should probably also drop the "We recommend..." text at the top.
8. Please reference previous note for number 5.
9. We like how this section clearly explains the different criteria, but feel it should be presented much earlier in the wallet selection process to help the user in their decision-making, not at the end after they've made their selection. Also, we're not sure about how we should explain a failing score to a user. Many people associate the word "fail" with "bad" or something that "doesn't work correctly". We're not sure users are going to want to use any wallets that show red and say "fail" somewhere on it, especially when it's associated with keeping their money safe.
10. Please see note number 4, above.

Version 2

1. Similarly to previous concerns above (note numbers 1 and 2 in Version 1), this is a lot of information for a user to confidently provide at one time. We should educate the users on what the criteria mean before prompting them to select. Also, this section seems a bit cluttered with the large amount of filtering that's taking place.
2. Please see note number 4 under Version 1, above.
3. Please see note number 9 under Version 1, above.
4. Please see note number 4 under Version 1, above.

Version 3

1. Please see note number 1 under Version 2, above.
2. Please see note number 4 under Version 1, above.
3. Please see note number 5 under Version 1, above.
4. This section might be confusing because in other sections, users are touching/clicking in this section, to filter results. Would navigating through one of them take the user back to the previous filter page with some of the options preselected?
5. Please see note number 9 under Version 1, above.
6. Please see note number 4 under Version 1, above.

---

Before conducting any revisions, let's hold off for a few days to give others an opportunity to add their feedback, and we can reconvene during our next progress meeting on Friday to discuss everything, before recommencing.

Thank you again for the quick start on putting these initial drafts together!

[wbnns]

Note: I accidentally mislabeled the Versions for the wireframe previews in my previous reply, and have just gone back and edited it (FYI to please visit the thread and use the updated links in case anyone is watching the repository and clicking directly out of email notifications).

[maxwellmons]

Thank you @natiwa and thank you @wbnns. @wbnns I agree with your comments and I think the versions could be improved to be more helpful to new users. There are billions of people who haven't ever had a bitcoin wallet and we should make improvements with these people in mind.

I will try to make it to the meeting on Friday.

[crwatkins]

Just one more reminder that this issue is closed and the current discussion is off-topic as there is no relevance to over 3/4 of the fairly long discussion that was about fixing issues with last year's redesign. I won't lock this issue, so people can continue the conversation here if they deem it is necessary, but since it is closed, I won't be participating and I will again recommend continuing discussion in another issue.

[wbnns]

@natiwa @Cobra-Bitcoin @maxwellmons @crwatkins

Let's move the conversation going forward to #2861.