Heuristic Evaluation of System & Application

VCS

1. Compliance Heuristic Evaluation
A review of the current desktop compliance
experience.
Completed by: Jaime Brown
Completion Date: 04/29/2024

2. Content
* Heuristic Evaluation Overvie"
* Heuristic Evaluation Checklis'
* Vendor Compliance Application Page$
* Vendor Feedbac
* Vendor UX Recommendation$
* Stakeholder Feedbac
* Stakeholder Recommendation$
* Appendix
Heuristic Evaluation
Content List

3. What is a Heuristic Evaluation?
Heuristic Evaluation
Level Setting
^ A heuristic evaluation is a method using in user interface (UI) and user experience (UX) design to identify potential usability problems in a digital product or system
application. It is an examination of the interface and a judgement of its compliance against universally recognized usability principles, commonly known as heuristics. 5
^ Evaluators will typically inspect the product’s interface and compare it against a set of predefined heuristics and guidelines. These heuristics are often based on
principles established by the usability experts such as Jakob Nielsen or Bruce Tognazzini+
^ During the evaluation process, evaluators identify areas where the interface may deviate from the established heuristics, indicating potential usability issues. These
issues could include problems with navigation, layout, terminology, feedback, error prevention, and other aspects that impact the overall user experience. 4
^ These evaluations are often quickly and inexpensive compared to other usability testing methods, so they are a valuable tool for identifying usability problems, both
early in the design process and after product release+
^ Heuristic evaluations are not a substitute for user-testing. They can not full replicate the experience of real users interacting with the product. Heuristic evaluations are
not a one-time activity. These are most effective when conducted iteratively throughout the design process and after release. These are subjective assessments and
should be combined with other methods and considerations in the design process.

4. Vendor Compliance Application | Heuristic Review Checklist
Heuristic Evaluation
Complete Checklist
Severity RatingsEvaluator Details
Evaluator Name: Jaime Brown
Device / Browser / OS: MacBook Pro, Chrome, MacOS Monterey
Site URL: https://lxappvgatdev015.lowes.com:8443/vendorcompliance/
Date: 04.02.2024
0
1
2
3
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
Checklist
Checklist
Checklist
Checklist
Checklist
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Comments
Comments
Comments
Comments
Comments
Severity Rating
Severity Rating
Severity Rating
Severity Rating
Severity Rating
Visibility of system status
Match between system and the real world
User control and freedom
Consistency and Standards
Help Users Recognize, Diagnose, and Recover From Errors
2
1
1
1
1

5. Vendor Compliance Application | Heuristic Review Checklist
Heuristic Evaluation
Complete Checklist
Date: 04.02.2024
Checklist
Checklist
Checklist
Checklist
Checklist
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
N/A
No
N/A
Comments
N/A
N/A
Severity Rating
Comments
Comments
Comments
Severity Rating
Severity Rating
Severity Rating
Checklist Yes No N/A Comments Severity Rating
Error Prevention
Recognition Rather Than Recall
Flexibility and Minimalist Design
Aesthetic and Minimalist Design
Help and Documentation
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
2
1
1

6. Vendor Feedback

7. Vendor Feedback
Heuristic Evaluation
Vendor Feedback
UX scheduled 30-minute interview sessions with various vendor-users of Vendor Compliance. In addition to gaining insights about the process of managing fines,
rebuttals and exceptions, I also asked vendors to assign a number value for certain categories. Those ratings are on the subsequent slide, and below are the Top 3
vendor comments related to Vendor Compliance.
t “Whenever we have come to an agreement on fill rate fines, it happens too late and past the deadline. I have to follow up constantly to find out the
status of my inquiry.” - Jeff O’Bannon - Amazon
t “I normally have to send emails as responses do not always make sense; then we need to work with our US counterparts at Lowes for some specific
details and correspondence.” - Shaunta McCracken, Samsung
t “If Lowe's requests further information for a dispute, you can't reply to more than one at a time, so you have to go into each one and respond to it.” -
Sarah Florczyk - Energizer

8. Vendor Ratings
Heuristic Evaluation
Vendor Ratings
Baseline Content and Ease of Task Completion: out of 75.8
Along with interviews, we asked vendors to provide ratings on several key features, including Vendor Compliance Application specific ratings and the baseline rating for
content across Lowe’s Vendor Gateway. Each rating was from 1 to 7, with 1 being the most difficult or worse, and 7 being the easiest or best. The scores for each category
were than averaged:
Vendor Compliance - Ease of Completing Tasks: 4.8 out of 7
Vendor Compliance - System Messaging: 4.7 out of 7
Level of Customer Support: out of 73.9
Total Vendor Compliance Score - 68.5%

9. UX Recommendations - Vendors

10. UX Recommendations
Heuristic Evaluation
UX Recommendations
Insights
Vendor Communications
People Process Technology
Rebuttal Process
User Interface

11. UX Recommendations Continued
Heuristic Evaluation
UX Recommendations
Insights
Data Analytics
People Process Technology
Internal Associate Support
User Interface - Continued

12. Lowe’s Users (Internal)

13. Lowe’s Internal User’s Feedback
Heuristic Evaluation
Stakeholder Feedback
In connecting with the Vendor Compliance application team, UX was able to gather insights into the internal process. This was not a major part of the heuristic effort, so
further conversations may be required between the internal compliance users and UX. The conversation focused on the most pressing pain points, including needing the
ability to add more detail and comments in the Vendor Compliance System and the ability to edit rebuttal information at the PO level, instead of the SFVBU level.
~ “I have the capability to do it [change the fine amount], but not at the PO level as in the rebuttal level. We could do it at the ECF preview level, so one SFP
view might...require that I need to make changes for one rebuttal...but I have to do it at the SFVBU level, but not at the PO level.” - Tulsi Dewangan
~ “If there could be a capability in the tool to say we have closed the rebuttals, but based on discussions or based on additional information that we got for
this particular rebuttal, we are going to waive off the fine for the vendor and it should ideally maybe have a comments column with ‘Approval Details’...” -
Neha Chaudhary
~ “There’s so much human manipulation going on with these files to get them in a point where we can produce the number and that just leaves room for
errors, right?” - Amy Monroe

14. Lowe’s Internal User’s Feedback - Continued
Heuristic Evaluation
Stakeholder Feedback
In connecting with the Vendor Compliance application team, UX was able to gather insights into the internal process. This was not a major part of the heuristic effort, so
further conversations may be required between the internal compliance users and UX. The conversation focused on the most pressing pain points, including needing the
ability to add more detail and comments in the Vendor Compliance System and the ability to edit rebuttal information at the PO level, instead of the SFVBU level.
? “...lot of changes, like every quarter there is a process change...before we were approving merchants, we were agreeing for merchants but not now, now
we are not agreeing for merchants approval and we come across scenarios where when they're [vendors] asking ‘wait, why is there a lot of changes and
before you used to approve for the BOL for collect vendors no we are not allowed to’”. - S. Danush
? “I don't have any issues with the training, but as we have seen in the past one year, like so many process changes as we being the tenure in a team, it
becomes, for us, very difficult because one month we are having this, these are the instructions, now we have to work and then the other month it
changes.” - Ramanpreet Matharu

15. UX Recommendations - Internal Lowes

16. Wins
Heuristic Evaluation
Short Term/Long Term Wins
Low Hanging-Do FirstHeuristic Evaluation - Identified Areas for Improvement
Visibility of System Status
Fast Fixes Highly Important Nice to Have Suggestions
User Control and Freedom
Match Between System and Real World
Consistency and Standards
Error Prevention
Flexibility and Minimalist Design
Help and Documentation

17. Appendix

18. Heuristic Evaluation
Complete Checklist
1
Consistency and Standards
Tab hover underline should be
blue to match BDS and Lowe’s
Vendor Gateway design
standards.
2
Consistency and Standards
Call to actions should be limited
when used in tight spaces to
prevent wrapping, and
displacement of icon (X).

19. 4
Consistency and Standards
Best practice is to use
standardized date
presentations as <MM/DD/
YYYY>
3
Consistency and Standards
Button styles (sizing, version)

20. 6
Consistency and Standards
Font weight should match
Lowe’s Vendor Gateway design
standards. Inconsistent font
design.
7
Consistency and Standards
Capitalized text should be used
sparingly. We’re not yelling at
the users, consider making
case-sensitive statuses and
SFVBU names.
5
Visibility of System Status
Removing the required
Company Banner and VBU
switch has created lack of
consistency across the entire
Lowe’s Vendor Gateway
ecosystem. All applications are
required to have those
components, so it’s jarring
when users switch and see
nothing but the primary nav
and the application pages.

21. 8
Consistency and Standards
Success alert and font should
match Lowe’s Vendor Gateway
design standards.

22. 9
Consistency and Standards
Modal components should be
consistent across the
application. Match Lowe’s
Vendor Gateway and BDS
design standards.

24. 11
Consistency and Standards
Dropdowns should adhere to
consistent functionality and
standards following Lowe’s
Vendor Gateway and BDS V3.
12
Consistency and Standards
Comments font should be
consistent with all pages and
match Felix. Component is
missing character count limits.
10
Consistency and Standards
Too much green makes it
difficult to quickly scan and
view. Limit success green to
smaller cells or icons to indicate
success.
13
Consistency and Standards
Button should match V3 design
standards and be consistent in
placement and design.

25. 14
Flexibility and Minimalist
Design
Enhance to allow search of
entire data table.

26. 18
Visibility of System Status
When all available table
column headers are selected,
the user is forced to scroll
horizontally in the table. That’s
not intuitive or easy to see.
15
Help and Documentation
Column icons and headers are
smaller, while the table font is
large. Follow standards for
Lowe’s Vendor Gateway.
16
Consistency and Standards
Button styles (sizing, version)
17
Consistency and Standards
For table columns where users
may need to do math, the type
should be right aligned.

27. 19
Error Prevention
No color confirmation that
Status or Total Adjusted Fine is
updated, just checkmark and X
icon.

28. 20
Consistency and Standards
Button styles (sizing, color, version) and
table component styling should be
consistent across the application. Follow
Lowe’s Vendor Gateway standards.

29. 21
Consistency and Standards
Icon is inconsistent with current
size and placement standards.

30. 22
Error Prevention
Why is this red? Need
consistency in messaging and
guidance for usage.

31. 23
Consistency and Standards
Follow Lowe’s Vendor Gateway
design standards for design
and buttons. Missing a header.

32. 25
Consistency and Standards
Buttons should be disabled
when form is not complete.
Upload Documents should be
left centered to match Lowe’s
Vendor Gateway standards.
24
Consistency and Standards
Button hierarchy should follow
standards. One primary,
secondary and tertiary status
for these options.

33. 26
Consistency and Standards
Tabs should follow Backyard
Design System and Lowe’s
Vendor Gateway to match V3
standards.
28
Consistency and Standards
Button size and color needs to
be consistent across all pages
and follow Lowe’s Vendor
Gateway design standards.
27
Consistency and Standards
Toggle needs to be blue to
match Lowe’s Vendor Gateway
standards.

34. 29
Visibility and System Status
Need consistency with page
names across entire
application. Confusing that
some pages have page
headers and some don’t.
Page header names should
also follow Lowe’s Vendor
Gateway’s design standards.
This header is too small.
30
Consistency and Standards
Button size and color needs to
be consistent across all pages
and follow Lowe’s Vendor
Gateway design standards.
31
Flexibility and Minimalist
Design
Too much white space can
disrupt the visual hierarchy.
Consider using slimmer
columns when content requires
less space.

35. 32
Consistency and Standards
Red font is for errors, not instructional
messaging. Update to match Lowe’s
Vendor Gateway design standards.

36. 33
Consistency and Standards
Layout spacing is inconsistent.
Font and styling is inconsistent
with the rest of the application.
Follow BDS and Lowe’s Vendor
Gateway guidelines.

37. 34
Consistency and Standards
Blue font signifies interactive
states, so this font color could
change to black or any other
color that matches BDS and
Lowe’s Vendor Gateway
design standards.
35
Consistency and Standards
Best practice is to use
standardized date
presentations as <MM/DD/
YYYY>

38. 36
Consistency and Standards
If there is only one selection in a
dropdown, it should default to
that selection and not allow
expansion.

39. 37
Consistency and Standards
Icons for upload and download
are inconsistent. Need to match
BDS and Lowe’s Vendor
Gateway V3 standards.

40. UX Recommendations
Heuristic Evaluation
UX Recommendations
x Align the user interface (UI) with both Lowe’s Vendor Gateway’s Design Style Guide and the Backyard Design System (BDS), version 3.
Ensuring that icons and components are uniform in style throughout an interface can greatly enhance the overall user experience and
make the product feel more polished and professional.`
x Correct the 37 identified heuristic concerns2
x Along with enhancing the UI, add additional features such as search for the data table, or allow vendors to mass download PO Line
Items, instead of line-by-line downloadingT
x Enhance the communication process with vendors so that they are informed of any fine, rebuttal or exemption communications. This
improvement aims to ensure that vendors can stay up-to-date, which they highlighted as a major source of frustration in the current
experience. Either email communications or making use of the current Lowe’s Vendor Gateway global notification system, vendors want to
be notified of updatesT
x We received consistent feedback regarding confusion around the fine and rebuttal processes. Provide vendors with clear guidance on
what documentation is required when rebutting a fine. Provide clarity around the process from the Lowe’s side, so that vendors
understand why they’re being rejected and what precisely is required of them from the start.

41. UX Recommendations Cont’d
Heuristic Evaluation
UX Recommendations
s Vendors feel the current support process is inadequate, both in ticketing responses and in application-support documentation. k
s Provide vendors with more intuitive responses from Lowe’s support, with stronger guidance on where to locate resources in the
Knowledge Center and how to respond to Vendor Compliance in rebuttals. k
s Provide accurate and up-to-date documentation, as vendors feel the current resources are outdated;
s Ensure that vendors receive the assistance and information they need to easily and quickly rebut fines, as well as respond to rebuttal
requests or rejections;
s Enhance the Vendor Compliance System so vendors are able to mass select line items in the system. Vendors can only select one page of
Purchase Orders (POs) at a time, and paging through multiple pages of POs is heavy and cumbersome. Multiple vendors expressed this
frustration;
s Finally, the question of what success looks like for this effort. Initially, UX was told success centers around rebuttals, specifically how to
lower the number of vendor submitted rebuttals;
s Ultimately, there is no single method for lowering rebuttal numbers. The rebuttal process itself is murky to most vendors, and they need
clarity on what documentation or resources are required when rebutting fines.

42. UX Recommendations Cont’d
Heuristic Evaluation
UX Recommendations
k Otherwise, the best updates to make are`
n List the steps that are required for vendors to complete a rebuttal process. Provide updates so that they’re informed every step of the
way. Provide clear expectations on when vendors can expect a response from the Vendor Compliance team during rebuttals;
n Engaging with Lowe’s Support (Remedy) so that they are better trained to respond to vendor questions would be enormously helpful for
vendors;
n Ensure the documentation in the Knowledge Center is up-to-date;
n Enhance the rebuttal reason options. Add more dropdown options that account for reasoning scenarios when the vendor was “on
time” and can provide verifications, something that gives more reason options;
k This UX effort allowed for the integration of the Vendor Compliance System into FullStory. Now that a dashboard of metrics is established,
it’s recommended that the engineering team and UX continue to monitor those data analytics for trends and future enhancement
opportunities.

43. Insights
Heuristic Evaluation
Lowe’s Internal Users
t Process Changes - Recent adjustments to Vendor Compliance System (VCS) processes are creating confusion among some of our
associates, which is making it difficult to efficiently process rebuttals, and effectively onboard new staff8
5 We can improve onboarding effectiveness and reduce associate confusion by establishing a period of process stability alongside clear
communication channels for upcoming changes. [
5 Adding a tab for internal associates to record documentation related to VCS process updates and employee reference documentation
would be helpful8
t Rebuttal Statuses - Implementing a ‘in-progress’ status for rebuttals being investigated would improve transparency for associates and
vendors. This would allow associates to see when a rebuttal is being addressed, review those comments, and provide a clearer timeline to
completion8
t User Interface Updates - To improve process efficiency and address vendor frustrations around communications, the compliance team
should explore increasing file size limits or implementing alternative methods for sharing larger evidence files. [
5 Additionally, expanding character limits in comment sections or notation spaces could enhance information exchanges, cutting down
on confusion for both vendors and associates8
t Enhanced Search - By optimizing the the search feature for Ship From Vendor Business Unit (SFVBU) Numbers, we can streamline the
process of finding relevant information within the table. This eliminates the need for constant filtering and saves users valuable time8
t System Comments - Currently, reopening rebuttals for adding updated internal comments requires contacting IT, which can be time-
consuming. Implementing a functionality for senior associates to directly reopen and update rebuttal comments would improve efficiency8
5 Furthermore, vendors could track these comment updates within the system, providing a more transparent view of the investigation
process, particularly for decisions involving waivers.

44. Project Documentation
Heuristic Evaluation
Project Documentation
W EVET-3078 - UX Perform Heuristic Evaluation of Vendor Compliance System (VCSj
W EVEP-325 Compliance HeuristicD
W Research Space - Figml
W Internal Interview Recordings - ConfluencM
W Documentation Space - Confluence

45. Thank you
Heuristic Evaluation
Vendor Compliance