Kaiser Permanente

Mapping the System

I created a comprehensive user flow for current members to understand how all GPI components interacted. As requirements and constraints evolved, this artifact became a living source of truth — critical for timeline planning, stakeholder alignment, and design decisions across multiple projects.

Improving the Existing Experience

The existing Document Delivery Preferences page surfaced several issues:

• Unclear page labeling (later validated in testing)
• ADA violations (radio button behavior, checkbox placement)
• Poor mobile usability

This page predated updated ADA standards, presenting an opportunity to both fix compliance gaps and improve clarity.

Once document selections are made, the user progresses to these screens:

Initial Hypothesis

Combining paperless preferences directly into the T&C risked eroding user trust, confusing mental models, and introducing complex, costly conditional logic. The proposed solution was a two-step flow that included:

• Mandatory Site T&C
• Optional Paperless Preferences

This separation improved transparency, reduced technical complexity, and aligned with user expectations. Key decisions included:

• Step indicator to clarify process
• Attestation checkbox gating progression
• CTA activated only after explicit consent
• "More / Less" pattern instead of scroll-boxes to avoid mobile "scroll within scroll" issues and improved accessibility

Usability test later validated these approaches.

See the low-fidelity wireframes below for the screens the user progresses to once document selections are made:

Early Iterations

The second step — Paperless Preferences — introduced several legal and UX constraints. The existing experience relied on three radio buttons: Yes (to all), Customize, and No. While I initially explored a similar pattern, the Legal team rejected it, as a "Yes to all" option posed liability risks. Instead, users were required to provide explicit consent by manually selecting each paperless document category.

Key interactions in this iteration included:

• Selecting "Yes" revealed available document categories, conditionally displayed based on the member's existing paperless settings
• Selecting "No thanks" updated the primary CTA to "Save," allowing the user to proceed directly to the authenticated site
• The "I agree" CTA remained disabled until the user both checked the attestation checkbox and selected at least one document type

ADA-Driven Requirements & Refinement

During design review, I identified an ADA compliance issue: checkboxes nested within a radio button require clear explanatory labels. To address this without increasing form complexity, I defaulted the prompt to "Yes" and put "No" above it. This approach avoided adding additional sections while allowing all available options to be visible upfront.

Defaulting to "Yes" also enabled me to place instructional copy directly within the radio button, satisfying ADA guidelines while reinforcing clarity for users. Additional requirements included:

• Pre-selecting only non-billing document categories (per Legal guidance), with RECOMMENDED labels to transparently explain why some items were pre-selected
• Simplifying confirmation by replacing the multi-step confirmation screen with a modal overlay
• Removing outbound text links, as users had not yet entered the authenticated experience
• Reinforcing the attestation checkbox as a required consent mechanism

Usability Testing & Key Insights

To validate that a two-step flow outperformed a single-step approach — and to build stakeholder confidence — I partnered with the UX Researcher to prototype both experiences and conduct our first round of usability testing. Key findings included:

• Most users were inclined to opt into all available document types without reading the legal text and expressed a strong preference not to be prompted again: only a small sub-set preferred receiving paperless bills
• A consistent mental model emerged; users viewed paperless as a permanent state, not a collection of individual settings ("I chose paperless, so I'm paperless now")

New Constraints

At this stage, several unexpected constraints required a strategic pivot and rethinking how users were introduced to Paperless Preferences.

• The rollout of a new multi-factor authentication (MFA) system required decoupling Paperless Preferences from the Terms & Conditions, eliminating the initial T&C step and promoting a redesign of the entry point into the paperless flow
• A design system update mandated the removal of inactive CTAs. To accommodate this, I kept the 'I Agree' button enabled and introduced clear error handling for missing selections
• Per ADA guidance, pages with form inputs typically require the statement "All fields are required unless noted as optional." Because this form combined required radio buttons with optional checkboxes, I partnered with the UX Writer to develop more precise instructional copy

These adjustments preserved accessibility, compliance, and usability while aligning with new technological and system constraints.

Escape State

Once Paperless Preferences became a stand-alone prompt, users needed a clear escape for moments when they weren't ready to decide. I introduced a "Go paperless later" text link at the bottom of the prompt — deferring the decision without blocking access to the site.

Placing the agreement CTA at the bottom of the prompt was a deliberate choice intended to encourage users to engage with the content before agreeing — a hypothesis later validated through usability testing. Key decisions included:

• Using "Go paperless later" instead of "Skip" to clearly signal that users would be reminded again
• Removing the global header and footer to prevent users from navigating away without completing the flow
• Keeping the CTA active at all times, supported by clear error handling when users attempted to continue without selecting a document type
• Limiting how often the prompt could reappear within a single day; I pushed back on Product's analytics-driven re-prompting request on ethical UX grounds, recommending reasonable limits to avoid dark-pattern behavior