UX case study · Civic UX · Research & design

City of Dearborn

Redesigning a city government's permit and form completion process to increase user productivity, reduce completion time, and rebuild trust in public services.

Task analysis
Think-aloud testing
Wireframing
Accessibility
Usability evaluation

Explore the solution See the research

Problem: Residents struggled to find, complete and submit city permits on mobile.
My role: UX research and design: task analysis, wireframes, accessibility and usability testing.
Timeline: 3 months
Outcome so far: In the usability comparison, completion time fell 65.3% and time to locate a permit fell 42.7%.

01 · Context & stakes

Government forms that shouldn't be hard.

As mobile internet usage becomes increasingly common, users expect to complete tasks on their phones as easily as on a desktop. The City of Dearborn's forms and permits are integral parts of users' lives — but the system suffered from usability and navigation challenges that caused decreased productivity and eroded user trust.

A permit isn't just a form. It represents access to benefits, rights, and civic participation. When that process fails, it fails people who often have no alternative.

Design Question

How might we redesign the permit and form completion process to reduce the number of steps needed, make desired permits easier to locate, and improve the usability of the form?

02 · Role & boundaries

What I owned

I drove

Research through evaluation

Mobile task analysis and cognitive walkthroughs
Research synthesis and personas
Wireframes and redesigned permit screens
Usability testing and analysis of task time, sentiment and satisfaction

Research contributors

Six participants

Participants ages 23–63 worked through the mobile permit journey and supplied think-aloud feedback. Their task performance and comments grounded the redesign.

Constraints

A civic service on a small screen

Regulatory requirements and existing permit content
Different levels of smartphone experience
Accessibility considerations informed by WCAG 2.1/2.2
A three-month research and design project; outcomes reported here are from usability testing

03 · Research

Six people. Every friction point surfaced.

6 individuals — ages 23 to 63 — were asked to find a specific permit on the mobile site, then fill it out and locate where to send it as if they were going to submit it. The cognitive walkthrough revealed frustrations that were immediate and consistent.

Cognitive walkthrough participants · ages 23–63

Participants were asked to locate a permit, fill it out, and find submission instructions — simulating a real-world use case on mobile. Every participant encountered friction at multiple points in the process.

It took me so long to find the right permit. You'd never know that there were more besides the two that you can see right away… having to zoom in and out repeatedly to find the right box to write in and then fill out is really frustrating and time-consuming.

— Participant 3

I can't find it… am I allowed to ask for help from you?

— Participant 4, to the interviewer

Three core gaps. All addressable.

A task analysis mapped the full permit process end-to-end with impairment and mobile constraints included — identifying where the experience broke down and why.

Task analysis diagram for City of Dearborn permit process

Task analysis — the full permit process broken down with friction points identified at each stage.

Core Gaps Identified

Horizontal scroll from gallery-style permit listing led to user confusion in locating the necessary permit on mobile.

Using a PDF rather than on-site fillable forms created longer completion times and increased frustration from poor PDF usability — only small portions of the permit card were clickable.

Trouble locating information on where to send the permit once completed — and no information was saved if the user exited the PDF without downloading.

Further Supported by Think-Alouds

User think-aloud sessions confirmed each gap identified in the task analysis. Participants consistently struggled with the same three points — validating that these weren't edge cases, but fundamental usability failures in the current system.

The consistency across age groups (23–63) and tech-savviness levels indicated that the problems were system-level issues, not user errors.

User Personas

Persona 01

Kim Stevenson

22 · College student · Very tech-savvy

Goals

Fill out permits on her bus ride to class
Work in small increments — must save progress

Pain Points

Might not have all the information at once; wants to enter what she knows and come back

Persona 02

Ed Wilson

70 · Retired · Limited smartphone experience

Goals

Easily submit requests for changes on his street
Needs a user-friendly experience

Pain Points

Zooming in and out between apps is hard
Current PDF fill-in text is too small

Persona 03

Sarah Daniels

35 · Local business owner · Always on the go

Goals

Work from anywhere to fit her busy lifestyle
Efficiently manage permits for her business

Pain Points

Losing unsaved progress when balancing work, kids, and contractors

04 · The solution

Find the permit. Complete it. Know where it goes.

Each screen in the redesign directly addresses one of the three core gaps. The before/after comparison shows the scope of the change — same content, fundamentally different experience.

Before — Current system

Homepage

Permit list

Permit page

After — Redesign

Homepage

Permit list

Permit page

05 · Key decisions & trade-offs

Three gaps, three design responses

01 · Permit discovery

Make the options visible

Evidence: The horizontal gallery concealed permits from mobile users.

Decision: Reorganize the permit list so residents can find the right form without discovering a hidden sideways scroll.

Trade-off: More visible options require a clear hierarchy as the permit list grows.

02 · Form completion

Bring the form into the site

Evidence: PDF fields forced repeated zooming and made completion slow.

Decision: Present a mobile form within the permit flow, using the same required content.

Trade-off: A native form must still preserve regulatory requirements and communicate field errors clearly.

03 · System status

Make the next step explicit

Evidence: Residents struggled to locate submission instructions and could lose unsaved PDF progress.

Decision: Treat completion, progress and submission as parts of one journey.

Trade-off: Adding a progress indicator did not guarantee that users understood it; its communication remained a design issue after testing.

06 · Outcome & evidence

Faster tasks, with one unresolved signal

118%

Increase in user satisfaction

65%

Decrease in permit completion time

43%

Decrease in time to locate permit

Think-aloud participants · ages 23–63

Testing Methods

Qualitative

Think-Aloud Interviews

6 think-aloud sessions
Sentiment analysis across both systems
Verbal protocols captured throughout task completion

Quantitative

Time-on-Task + CSAT

Time to locate permit (current vs. redesign)
Time to complete permit (current vs. redesign)
CSAT scoring across 7 dimensions
Randomized order to reduce bias

Participants were significantly faster in locating and completing permits using the redesigned system. Order of testing was randomized across participants to reduce bias.

Qualitative — Sentiment Analysis

Participants had an overall more positive experience filling out a permit using the redesigned portal system — confirmed by sentiment analysis across all sessions.

Time on Task — Locate Permit

Participants were significantly faster in locating the permit using the redesigned system — a 42.7% decrease in time-on-task.

Time on Task — Complete Permit

A statistically significant decrease in completion time — 65.3% faster using the redesigned system. Same randomized order used as the locate-permit task.

CSAT Scoring

CSAT results across all 7 dimensions — 6 of 7 showed statistically significant improvement.

7 CSAT dimensions measured

1Did you feel "stuck" at any point while using the site?
2Was it clear how to get back on track after an issue?
3Were instructions and field labels clear enough to avoid mistakes?
4Did the site keep you informed about what was happening?
5Were status messages (success/failure) easy to understand?
6Did loading indicators or progress bars help you understand what was happening?
7Overall, how satisfied were you with your experience?

Six of seven CSAT dimensions showed statistically significant improvement; Q1 did not. Separately, participant feedback identified the progress indicator as a communication issue: users didn't report that it helped communicate system status.

These results describe the usability comparison of the current and redesigned experiences. They do not establish changes in citywide service use or outcomes after deployment.

07 · The hard question

Did the progress bar actually help?

Users did not report that the progress bar helped them understand system status. A brighter blue or branded accent was proposed to improve its visibility and meaning; that change still needs evaluation.

Completion is only part of success

Faster task times and higher satisfaction do not show that every interaction is clear. The progress indicator remained a specific problem to investigate.

Constraints shape the design

Regulatory requirements are design parameters. The challenge is to preserve what the service needs while making each step understandable.

Clarity supports trust

Permits connect people to benefits, rights and civic participation. A usable form can make those interactions feel more respectful and inclusive.

This project reminded me that good UX in government services is about dignity and inclusion. A form may seem small, but it represents access to benefits, permits, and rights. The biggest shift in my practice was learning how to balance regulatory constraints with human-centered design. Instead of accepting compliance as a barrier, I reframed it as a design parameter — creativity with constraints made the solution stronger.

This experience deepened my belief that UX design is not just about interfaces, but about building trust in institutions.