Form design is hard, here’s how to get it right

What’s in a word? 

A recent court case, involving one of South Africa’s major insurers, shows what can happen when even one line on a form is unclear.  

The case in question arose when a client of the insurer sued them for not paying out an insurance policy all because of a misunderstanding about a specific section of an application form.  

According to the insurer, the woman’s mother misrepresented her income on an application form. She had declared that her income was R35 000 per month. She also declared on the form that her nominated occupation was as a supervisor at Shoprite Checkers.  

After her death, it came to light that the income she received from her job at Shoprite Checkers was R5 455.89 per month, but that she had additional income streams from other jobs which together amounted to R35 000 per month.  

The insurer rejected the claim on the grounds that the woman’s mother falsely declared and overstated the monthly income she received from her nominated occupation. To complicate matters, the woman’s insurance broker, who completed the form on her behalf, said that she was unaware that the company only considered income received from someone’s primary nominated occupation, and that the application form did not make it clear, since it asks for “total gross monthly income”. This made it sound like they required a cumulative income from all sources and not just the salary from the nominated occupation. 

The cost of being vague 

Cases like this underscore the importance of clear and precise communication, especially when it comes to creating forms. If one question in a form is misunderstood by one party (as happened in this case), it can have profound consequences.  

Although we couldn’t find this specific form, we did locate another version from the same company. In this version, possibly in response to the court case, the question has been changed to “total gross monthly income for nominated occupation”.  

That would solve the problem, right? Well, we’re not sure.  

Why form design is hard, and how we handle it 

Form design takes a lot of thought and skill. Luckily, other smart people have thought about this a great deal and have developed tools to help create effective forms. Here are some of the tools that we use to help us design clear forms for large corporates, including other insurance companies, banks and retailers: Jarrett’s three layer model and Jansen, Steehouder, Edens, Mulder, Pander Maat and Slot’s Formulierenwijzer. We draw from best practices in UX design, and work with our clients to understand their legal and operational needs, and then we get our hands dirty.  

So, how would we change the application form? Let’s look at how the form approaches employment information. 

In the new application form, employment information is split over three sections, namely socio-economic details, employment details, and occupation details. Could you accurately predict from those headings what questions you might be expected to answer? Probably not, but that is a blog for another day.  

We always start with analyses. We read the form and its supporting documents and make a list of all the questions we have. If we’re wondering about these things, chances are the reader will too. But, just to be safe, we suggest also asking actual customers.  

Here are some of the questions that occurred to us while reading these sections:  

• Why are there three different sections that have to do with employment and income instead of one? 

• What is a nominated occupation? Who nominates it? 

• What is the difference between source of funds and source of wealth? 

• Why are some of these questions mandatory, but others not? For example, the question on nominated occupation is compulsory, but the question on the gross monthly income is not. What would happen if the applicant didn’t give their gross monthly income?  

• What does “professional” mean under “highest educational qualification”? Why are the different options not ordered systematically? 

• Why are smoking and hazardous pursuits under “socio-economic details”? 

 

What we’d do differently 

Next, we’d thoroughly interrogate every form field with our clients. Clients help us understand the context of the questions, and the conversations also help our clients consider the legal and operational requirements around the forms. Not having the benefit of this session with this particular client – we’re going to go ahead and assume some things. 

Group related questions 

In this case, we think there are some issues with the structure of the questions. All questions relating to employment and income could be placed into one heading; something like “Income”. Why do we say that? In their formulierenwijzen, Jansen et al. indicate that all questions that have to do with the same theme should be placed together. The reader will think that questions that are in the same section are related, and questions in different sections are not related to each other. Jarrett’s three-layer model agrees, stating that it helps to keep to one topic at a time, and that jumping between topics can seem discourteous. For example, if you create a section called “Income” and place all questions that have to do with income, including employment status and other sources of income, in one section, the reader will understand that they have to give all the information relating to income there – that there won’t be a space later on where they can expand on their income. On that note, we would also rephrase the question to ask about all sources of income, not just the “nominated employment”.  

Clarify fuzzy terms 

According to Jarrett’s three-layer model, a form is like a conversation, and “[a]s with an ordinary conversation, it helps if both parties share common vocabulary and use it when talking to each other”.  

Which takes us to our next point. What does “nominated employment” mean? Would the reader understand it the way the author intended? These kinds of confusing fields can be avoided, according to Jansen et al., by not using difficult or obscure terms and by defining the ones that are necessary upfront. By defining “nominated employment”, both parties will understand what it means and give the right information. The same is true of “source of income” and “source of wealth”, or “professional” as an option at “highest qualification level”.  

Make answer options logical 

Lastly, we think there is some work to do with the way some of the fields are formulated. While we like the use of tick box options at “highest qualification level”, which aligns with Jarrett’s three-layer model, the order of options is not logical. We would rank the options from lowest to highest qualification level, one below the other, in a single column. According to Jansen, et al., the order of options should be logical to the reader – in this case, in order from lowest to highest.  

So, what’s the bottom line? 

Even just the small changes we’ve suggested (grouping related questions, clarifying confusing terms, and improving structure) can make a big difference to how accurately people complete a form. That leads to better data collection and fewer disputes.  

The next step is user testing, and with forms, this is especially important. Testing helps you spot hidden ambiguities, unclear terms, and layout issues before they become expensive mistakes. If you’re not testing, you’re guessing. 

Need help making your documents more precise? Send us a message!