UX Writing Case Study — inDrive
Hi!✨
My name is Abimanyu Dwi Prakoso. I’m a fresh graduated from Industrial Engineering at Universitas Jenderal Soedirman and becoming UI/UX Enthusiast who currently deeper my skill in UI/UX Design at Dibimbing.id Bootcamp.
Yesterday, my brother shared a story to me that he suddenly approached by old woman to ask for help finding a ride in inDrive to go home because she felt so hard to understand when using inDrive.
This inspired me to find out what is a problem inside an application especially, a copy.
Role: UX Writer
Timeline: 1 week
Tools: Figma, Figjam, YouTube (mockup references), Google Trend, and Google Play (reviews)
Disclaimer: This case study is based on assignment from Dibimbing.id Bootcamp UI/UX Design and not affiliated with inDrive.
Beginning
inDrive is a ridesharing app which the fare is not fixed like other transportation apps (ex: Gojek, Grab, etc.). Therefore, the user can set freely lower or higher fare. Obviously, the benefit from using inDrive is the fare can much lower than any transportation apps. The downside is because the fare is not fixed, driver can demand much higher price than other transportation apps.
Validating a Problem
To ensure that the user has a same problem as my brother’s story, the reviews from Google Play Store is collected with context that leads to “Hard to understand when using inDrive” problem.
From 3 reviews and agreed by hundreds of people, it concluded that inDrive user wants to improve the UI/UX because it is confusing for middle-aged or elders (in my assumption, parents are middle-aged or elders) and bad looking UI. As UX writing is a part of UI/UX, copy research is conducted for inDrive to create a copy recommendations.
Limitation
While doing a research, there is always any limited resources like timeline, energy, money, etc. Therefore, here are the lists of my research limitation:
- In-depth interview with inDrive user is not conducted to discover the reason behind UI/UX improvement request because the timeline is limited to create a question, make an appointment to meet the user, and reward budget. Therefore, inDrive app is audited by myself to find which copy does not meet 3 key principles UX writing (clear, concise, and useful), typo, or any copy problem.
- Some screens from transportation apps need a cost to request a ride that become my barrier when capturing, therefore the existing mockup is used from YouTube.
- The downside of using the existing mockup is not all captured screens are shown. Based on the collected mockup screens, only 1 flow that used for audit in-app is requesting a car ride flow both inDrive and competitor.
Copy Research
While doing in-app auditing, every screens both inDrive and competitor are checked. Gojek is used as a competitor to compare with inDrive for copy improvement references because based on Statista, the most popular transportation app by the number of downloads in 2022 is Gojek.
Flow
What is Wrong with inDrive’s Copy?
Here are the sticky notes that direct to copy problems.
Comparing with Competitior and Recommendations
A copy with different functions are divided into 5 groups, consist of: app language, placeholder, input text, buttons, and message. Then, here are the results of comparing with Gojek and the recommendations.
Solution
Based on recommendations, solutions are made into 9 in different flows.
Solution 1 (Before filling an order)
Starting from transportation option buttons, there is 1 text changed from “Perjalanan” into “Mobil” which is more understandable than before. Then from the order button, “Pesan” is used because is more direct than “Minta” also “kendaraan” is changed to “Mobil” because “kendaraan” means transportation not a car. Each words also capitalize from the first letter because making a title inside CTA (Call To Action) button probably more readable than sentence. Then from placeholder, mainstream words are used based on Google Trend for the last one year.
From Google Trend results, “titik jemput”, “tempat tujuan”, “ongkos perjalanan”, and “catatan” are more mainstream than default copy. Therefore, these copy are used for solution and added an action verb such as “pilih”.
Solution 2 (Filling a fare)
Thousand separator is used for screens consistency in app and also probably less effort to read how much to spend a fare for user.
Solution 3 (After filling an order)
An input text from offering a fare is seperated between fare and payment method. Payment method is also added an outline and an icon as signifier. This probably more ease to read and more understandable for user.
Solution 4 (Finding a driver)
The message text from upper map is changed to “Mencari driver” with more period as a part of process finding a driver. “Mencari driver” is used because it has 1 condition only, that is to find a driver.
Solution 5 (Wating for a driver)
The message text from upper map is changed which is less wordy and also explained with 1 condition only, namely an information of driver arrival with a timer. This probably more clear, concise, and useful for user.
Solution 6 (Driver arrived)
The message text below timer is changed to reduce a worriness, rushed, or fear when the driver is come. Also the confirmation button text is changed to accurately direct user if the user already in the car.
Solution 7 (Drive to destination)
The microcopy for contact support button is changed to “Hubungi Kami” because there is an action verb where directs user to contact support. Then, for a message text from upper map is changed to an estimation arrival time information because it helps user to estimate when the user arrive to destination.
Solution 8 (Rating a driver)
When rating a driver, the message to drives user for giving a reason is changed to a question words because it is more ease to read and more direct. Then, a placeholder “trip” is changed to “perjalanan” because based on Google Trend “perjalanan” is more mainstream than “trip”.
Solution 9 (After rating a driver)
After rating a driver, the message should giving thanks to user because user uses an effort to give a rating.
Takeaway and Lesson Learned
- My copy solutions are not yet validated to inDrive user with Usability Testing (UT). Hopefully, this would be the best solution for inDriver’s copy.
- Always use an action verb when writing a copy on applications.
- This is my first experience writing a copy research on Medium. Therefore, there still a long way to become a good copywriting skill as an UX writer.
