[Solution Validation]: Usability focused validation for adding/editing job token permissions
What did we learn
| Results |
|---|
| Users found the experience of adding and editing job token permissions for a group and project to be usable, straight-forward and easy to use. |
| Dovetail project |
The proposed designs for adding and editing job token permissions for a group and project in the allowlist is "straightforward, clear and easy to use"
| Task | Pass/fail | Average rating for ease (out of 5) | User feedback |
|---|---|---|---|
| On this page, configure job token access so that only the Mango project can use your current project's resources. | 4/5 | 4.4 |
|
| From this page, update the Mango project’s permissions to allow only read and write access to the container. | 5/5 | 5 |
|
Recommendation: Move forward with the proposed designs with refinement considerations below.
Users expressed familiarity with the token permission options: default vs fine-grained permissions
When asked to describe token permission options, users were able to understand the meaning of both permission options, describing fine-grained as "stricter."
Recommendation: Move forward with UX language in token permissions.
A few other considerations for improvement:
- 1/5 participant noted a potential improvement would be moving the save button. Design recommendation: Continue to monitor feedback in this area and refine hierarchy as needed
- 1/5 participant expressed a more simplified copy for the subheading for Job Token Permissions would benefit users who are new to using GitLab. Design recommendation: Explore potential copy improvements.
Background
What’s this issue all about?
From [UX] Design: Adding and editing fine-grained pe... (gitlab#482107), we have an MVC for adding and editing permissions on job tokens.
Who is the target user of the feature?
- Development Team Lead / Software Developer / Platform Engineer / Security Operations
- Role in GitLab instance specific to Project Owner / Maintainer
What questions are you trying to answer?
Core questions
- Is the proposed workflow for job token permissions usable?
- Is it clear to users where to go to update their job token's permissions?
- We are assuming that permission definition is implied in the workflow
- Are the options of read, write and read, none clear for users?
- What other information is needed to ensure task success?
Usability success measurement
- Task effectiveness (Pass/fail rate)
- Observation of why users pass or fail
- Task efficiency (Ease of rating)
- Qualitative explanation of rating
- Quality of experience (Good or bad)
- Qualitative explanation of rating
What hypotheses and/or assumptions do you have?
- Users will find the workflow to define job token permissions to be efficient, effective
What persona, persona segment, or customer type experiences the problem most acutely?
- Project owners and maintainer
What business decisions will be made based on this research?
- Move forward with the MVC proposal for gitlab#482107 (closed)
- Generate usability feedback for future iterations and improvements
Past research
- In this research we learned that gitlab#480756 (closed)
- API & UI definition for job token permissions with project allowlist is acceptable to participants, provided there's a default set of permissions to ensure existing jobs and pipelines do not break
Test materials
- Test plan
- Usertesting - unmoderated test
Checklist
-
Draft goals and objectives, review with collaborators -
Create test plan, review with collaborators -
Build prototypes -
Launch study on usertesting.com -
Analyze and communicate findings -
Close issue 🎉
Edited by Ilonah Pelaez