U.S Department of Veteran's Affairs
Accredited Representative Portal
Claimant page Usability Research
We tested an early version of the Claimant Page with accredited representatives to understand how they search for claimants, navigate information, and submit claims.
​
The goal: validate workflows and identify actionable improvements for a more intuitive, reliable experience.
Background
Representatives supporting Veterans rely on multiple fragmented tools to manage claim submissions. Our design team envisioned a single Claimant Page that would consolidate key tasks and information.
Before finalizing designs, we wanted to understand:
-
How representatives approach claimant search
-
What information they need upfront
-
How navigation and submission flows support efficiency
-
Opportunities to reduce friction and confusion
My Contribution
I collaborated closely with the research lead and design team to:
-
Prepare usability tasks and conversation guides
-
​Lead recruitment of participants
-
Moderate sessions with accredited representatives
-
Take comprehensive notes during interviews and maintain organized note documentation
-
Synthesize insights into actionable recommendations
-
​Present findings to stakeholders, design and engineering teams
-
Implement design changes to hand-off to engineering for implementation
What We Tested
We focused on the experiences that would impact representatives’ day-to-day work:
-
Claimant Search: Can reps quickly find the right claimant using the current interface?
-
Claimant Page Overview: Does the layout communicate the right information at a glance?
-
Submission Flow: Can representatives start and complete submissions confidently?
-
Navigation Structure: Are sections clear and intuitive? Can users move efficiently between them?
Participants & Methodology
Participants
We recruited 4–5 Accredited Representatives from Veteran Service Organizations (VSOs), representing a mix of large (“Big 6”) and county-level organizations, as well as single- and cross-accredited representatives.
All participants were at least familiar with QuickSubmit, ensuring they had experience with existing claim submission workflows. This mix helped capture a realistic variety of perspectives and workflows.
Methodology
-
1:1 usability sessions conducted remotely via Teams
-
Participants completed tasks covering Find Claimant, Claimant Page, and Claim Submission flows, including navigation exercises
-
Observers included the product team and engineers to capture context and technical considerations
-
Moderation, note-taking, and synthesis were collaborative: we documented participant feedback, identified patterns, and translated insights into actionable design recommendations
-
Sessions lasted ~1 hour with 30-minute buffers between each for debriefs
Key Insights
Each insight ties directly to representative behavior and design opportunities:
“If it’s kind of a one stop shop then you would want to know—do they have an ITF pending? Do they have a claim pending? … Flags for things like homelessness or financial hardship would be very beneficial. It changes my priority of their claim.”
​
-Participant 2
Claimant overview tab
Alerts and status visibility
What we learned
-
Participants quickly noticed and valued alerts for pending representation requests and expiring Intent to File (ITF).
-
Some representatives wanted alerts consolidated into a single, central location rather than distributed across the page.
Design direction
-
Post–first release, explore a more holistic alert system to surface critical scenarios, including:
-
Pending or failed POA requests
-
Claims submission errors
-
Time-sensitive ITF expirations
-
Representation & Power of Attorney understanding
What we learned
-
All participants interpreted “General POA” as full access to a Veteran’s files and “Limited POA” as restricted access.
-
Many representatives rely on another software to see which organization a Veteran is accredited with, even without Power of Attorney.
-
Because similar information is accessible elsewhere, representatives may not fully understand what they are or aren’t permitted to see within the portal.
Design direction
-
Before first release
-
Rename “General POA information” to “Current representation” and remove confusing internal terminology.
-
Reframe POA language based on representatives’ mental models.
-
Clarify that representation requests shown are limited (digital only, last 60 days).
-
-
Post–first release
-
Develop a longer-term content strategy to help representatives understand data scope differences across the portal.
-
Intent to File Section
What we learned
-
ITF visibility on the claimant overview page was consistently praised.
-
Representatives valued seeing expiration timing at a glance, allowing them to prioritize outreach and action.
-
More complex scenarios (e.g. non-Veteran claimants, substitution cases) raised open questions about how multiple ITFs may coexist.
Design direction
-
Post–first release, conduct desk research to better understand ITF scenarios for non-Veteran claimants and design accordingly.
Opportunities to improve the claimant overview
What we learned
-
Several participants wanted the claimant page to act more like a “one-stop shop”, reducing reliance on VBMS.
-
Representatives expressed interest in higher-level Veteran context, such as:
-
Whether a claim or ITF is pending
-
Disability rating or service-connection status
-
Flags for expedited handling (e.g. homelessness, financial hardship)
-
Design direction
-
Post–first release, evaluate which additional Veteran attributes could meaningfully improve prioritization and confidence without overwhelming the page.
Submit forms tab
Flexible options for different workflows
What we learned
-
Representatives preferred different submission options depending on context: some need to mail forms for housebound Veterans; others prefer reviewing complex PDFs before submission.
-
Digital options were generally understood, but wording impacted clarity (e.g., “Fill out ITF online” vs. “Submit ITF online”).
-
One participant relied on phone submissions due to past negative experiences with QuickSubmit.
Design direction
-
Offer both synchronous and form upload options when available; scenarios vary and can’t be assumed.
-
Update wording for clarity: use “Submit” or “Complete” ITF online instead of “Fill out.”
-
Rename “Start submission through form upload tool” to “Upload completed form.”
-
Adapt messaging for other forms beyond ITF (e.g., “Faster processing to VBMS”).
“If we're talking like a 526 (Disability benefits form), I think having both options would be beneficial. Sometimes claims are a little more involved and you need to go in and manually do things and make sure you're crossing the t's and dotting the i's… but if it's like, you know what are you filing for claim for increase for hearing loss... and it's one button... that would be awesome.”
​
-Participant 2
Design Impact
Research insights were directly applied to the Claimant Page:
-
Claimant Page prioritized current POA information in the overview, responding to confusion around representation status
-
Navigation labels were updated to use terminology representatives use in their day-to-day work, reducing misinterpretation of where to go to complete key tasks.
-
Submit Forms was moved into a dedicated workflow to support multiple submission paths identified in research
-
Critical alerts were elevated to ensure time-sensitive actions weren’t missed
Reflections / Learnings
Working closely on this research reinforced for me how critical listening to real users is for making design decisions that actually work in practice. Participating in sessions and synthesizing findings helped me see the direct impact of research on design, from prioritizing which information to surface first to shaping the submission workflow in ways that reduce errors and confusion.
​
It also reinforced how important research is to my design process because it challenges assumptions and biases we might make as designers. When we work closely with a product, it’s easy to unconsciously form conclusions based on many elements outside the actual user experience. For me, this is why I love research even more now: it’s a window into the actual purpose of the products we’re making.
​
This project also strengthened my collaboration skills, I worked closely with designers, engineers, and other researchers to translate insights into actionable changes. I learned how to balance what users want, what the system can realistically deliver, and what will have the biggest impact on efficiency and confidence in real workflows.
​
Observing how insights directly informed design decisions deepened my appreciation for iterative, evidence-based design, and showed me how even as a contributor, I can meaningfully influence product outcomes.