Redesigning the IMF’s Annual Report
How we leveraged usability tests to design a more robust annual report
How would you redesign an annual report in order to appeal to a larger, broader audience? This is precisely what The International Monetary Fund (IMF) wanted to know. Ideally, any changes made would be backed by user data instead of hunches. So how would one proceed? Enter: UX Design Duo, Tori & Mario. Our goal was to provide the IMF with innovative yet practical recommendations that would increase usability, while decreasing potential frustrations, thus increasing value for its readers. Bonus points if we could figure out a way to determine who reads the IMF’s annual report.
SCOPE
- Team: 2 people (myself and Mario)
- Timeline: 5 days
- Outcomes: Research, analysis, and data-driven recommendations
A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND
The IMF is an organization of 189 countries working to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty around the world.
Every October, they release an annual report, a downloadable version of which has been provided since 1996 due to the growing advent of technology. The format of the IMF’s Annual Report has evolved from downloadable PDFs to a digital version supplemented by a downloadable PDF, a trend which began in 2015.
QUESTIONS WE SOUGHT TO ANSWER
- Who reads the IMF’s annual report?
- How do we appeal to an “aspirational audience” who aren’t currently reading the IMF’s annual report but maybe should?
- What kind of content do the IMF’s readers want to see?
- How do readers typically consume the IMF’s annual report (i.e. print, mobile, web)?
- How easy is it to find and navigate the IMF’s annual report?
- Realistically, how much of an annual report would someone read?
THE GAME PLAN
To start, we knew we had to do some secondary research and competitive analysis to understand best practices. Then, to gain a sense for the annual report’s current state, we would conduct usability tests with a number of the IMF’s typical readers, i.e. professionals in international finance and global affairs. We also added a number of not-so-typical readers of the IMF’s annual report in an attempt to address the task of expanding the IMF’s readerbase beyond its usual suspects. Once we had some data from the usability tests, we would finally synthesize to make user-influenced recommendations for the IMF.
SECONDARY RESEARCH
- For many companies, the primary version of their annual report is digital, much like its own website, supplemented by a downloadable PDF.
- Mario and I didn’t realize that the IMF’s landing page WAS the digital version, and instead clicked “English” to download the PDF version. Both of us totally missed the hamburger menu (see above).
- We noticed that navigation between pages of the digital version was inconsistent (continuous scroll vs. arrows vs. a single back button).
- To collect data about their customers, companies will oftentimes require personal information in order to download a whitepaper, eBook, etc.
- Every year, there is a new theme for the IMF annual report.
COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS
Before we kicked off our usability tests, we did a quick competitive analysis of some key features found in many annual reports of the IMF’s contemporaries in an effort to uncover key differences and similarities.
REFINING OUR QUESTIONS
After completing our preliminary research, we realized that we had to refine our questions in an effort to determine what kind of changes could be made to improve the reader’s experience.
- To download the report, would readers be willing to share demographic information if required?
- How many readers can find and use the digital version vs. the PDF version?
- What does the general population think the IMF does?
- What would readers say are the IMF’s primary activities?
- What would readers say is the purpose of the Spotlights section?
- What do readers think of the layout?
- If a reader was in search of X, how would they find it?
USABILITY TESTS
Overall, we conducted 2 user interviews and 7 usability tests using the questions listed above. We learned early on that if we send users a Google Forms survey with instructions to complete the usability test remotely, they are more likely to skip that section (resulting in what is essentially just a user interview). From then on, we used the survey as a guide for our questions during virtual and in-person usability tests. Of the 9 total participants, 5 were men and 4 were women. About 56% of participants were aged between 21 and 30, while the remainder of participants were 31 and over. The data from all 9 interviews was synthesized formally using Miro and Google Sheets.
WHAT WE LEARNED
WHAT THEY SAID…
78% of participants never read an entire annual report.
I just read the sections that are important to what I need to know.
All 9 participants would typically read an annual report via web browser; 1 participant reported both web and mobile in certain situations.
For mobile, it’s accessibility. If I’m on my way to a meeting, it’s a quick way to digest what it has to say without actually just sitting and reading it line by line. On the computer, it would be if I was trying to source the material, read it more in depth, or go to specific sections.
If asked to provide demographic information to download a report, 11% said they wouldn’t, 22% said they would, and 67% said they would under certain conditions.
I’d be hesitant to. If I needed it for a project, or to get a job done, then sure. If it was for fun or just interested, no.
WHAT WE SAW…
- Zero participants knew that there was a digital version of the IMF’s annual report separate from the PDF version.
- Only 2 out of the 9 participants hypothesized that the table of contents was clickable.
- On average, it took about 2 attempts to find the annual report from the IMF’s homepage.
- When asked what the IMF’s primary activities were, there were 3 places that users gleaned the answer from: the About section, the What We Do section, and the Spotlights section.
- About half of our participants wanted to see the IMF’s financials…but couldn’t find any financial statements in the annual report.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Apply Heuristics to User Experience
- Make the digital version more conspicuous — perhaps with a static navigation panel instead of hamburger menu (see Girls Who Code)
- Consistent site navigation in the digital version will increase learnability and efficiency, thus improving the user’s experience
- Make the table of contents more obviously clickable in PDF version
- Add a search feature in digital version to accommodate those who are on a mission to find a certain piece of information
Keep It (Text) Light
- To entice users to consume via mobile more frequently, use more visuals (graphs, infographics, etc.) and/or clickable sections
- However, be wary of adding too many visuals or interactive elements so as to stay on brand and not appear too “millennially” (see Green Chameleon)
- Have a condensed “Year in Review” versus lengthy “Overview” (see Tesla)
- Cut unnecessary text. Period.
Intuitive Organization & Navigation
- Include the financial statements in the main report
- Rename “Spotlights” section to “Major Trends”
- Make the organization’s primary activities crystal clear to accommodate those who are not entirely familiar with the IMF
- Reword navigation on homepage
- Improve native SEO so that the annual report comes up in search results for “annual report” or “annual report 2019”
FINAL THOUGHTS
Overall, the IMF is doing a lot of things right, but could use a few tweaks to improve the user experience and to appeal to a broader audience.
Originally, we had this idea to require demographic information (occupation, country of origin, email, etc.) in order to download the PDF version. This was a key consideration since one of the IMF’s pain points is that they don’t know who exactly their readers are. After conducting our usability tests, I don’t think I would recommend this as most respondents said they would “click away” or “provide fake information”. We also toyed with the idea of adding an AI bot that would take you to whatever you needed to read; however, we decided against it assuming we would have a clear, static navigation and a designated search bar.
Most importantly, I would have liked to conduct a second round of usability tests with a focus on the digital version. While still valid, every one of our participants’ answers were geared toward the PDF version since none of them noticed the digital version. Some comments, like incorporating more visuals, might have been negated had they taken the time to look through the digital version. Alternatively, perhaps users would be more inclined to read via mobile if they used the digital version.
Taking it one step further, we would have liked to build a high-fideilty prototype to bring some of our suggestions to life (specifically, the static navigation panel, the “Year in Review,” consistent navigation between pages, etc).
And, of course, we would conduct more usability tests using the prototype to test the efficacy of our recommendations!
