Build a combined Track and Submit flow on the FE, so we can use it to run our very first A/B test.

[anmurali]

Problem: The vast majority of signups are unengaged. Paid adoption from top or bottom up leads only happens when users are engaged with the product and derive value from it.

Hypothesis: The time it takes for a person to make a decision increases with the number and complexity of choices available. Presenting users with too many options can lead to decision fatigue, making the user experience overwhelming and less efficient.

Test: The Global Create menu is by far the most obvious and accessible option a new user explores to do something. Let’s make it a smaller, focused list that allows a user to pick one out of a very small set of choices. Instead of asking the user to decide between tracking and submitting an expense, let’s present a create expense that after the expense is manually entered or scanned allows the user to select what they want to do with that expense in the moment.

Metric: conversion in this test would be number of people that create an expense / number of people that see the create expense option Vs sum of the number of people that track or submit an expense / number of people that see track and submit as separate options in Global Create

Notes: We are already cleaning up the GC menu #47274 so we focus the user on a smaller set of realistic actions. Once we do that, we should be ready to test an idea @shawnborton proposed, which is to use one single combined flow that allows the user to first create the expense and in the next step decide to either save it for now or submit to someone.

Let's get started on building this and just put it on a beta for now and don't show it to anyone not on the beta. That way, when we finish cleaning up the GC and figure out how to set up the test, we can turn it on accordingly to the variant audience.

• Just track this for now would basically mimic the track expense flow
• Choosing someone to submit it to would then follow the submit flow

[shawnborton]

Updated mock would look like this:

cc @Expensify/design

I think this would be a good place to start. Then I think separately we should really follow up and make some improvements to the tracked expense experience, to make it easier to send a tracked expense somewhere after you indicate that you want to save it.

[dubielzyk-expensify]

That looks good to me :)

[grgia]

I can help move this forward - will assign for now to track but need a bit more context

[grgia]

@anmurali @danielrvidal
Curious how this would work. Is it % of all users? Or a subclass of users?

[anmurali]

@grgia how we actually deploy the test is still actively under discussion here. Cause we gotta adopt a framework that we can use repeatably over time. I think for now we could develop this variant, and put it behind a beta?

[grgia]

Yeah that works @anmurali. Do we have a doc or something this links to so I can get more context?

Is the A test just the current FAB/Global Create menu?

[grgia]

I pushed a PR for the beta. Can I get confirmation that this is ready to be built so I can get one of our external agencies on it?

[anmurali]

I wrote up a problem/ hypothesis/ solution here

[anmurali]

We are ready to build this and put on a beta while we figure out how we will setup testing itself.

[grgia]

Reached out to callstack and @fabioh8010 has offered to take this on - See here https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C03UK30EA1Z/p1724426198287819

[grgia]

@shawnborton could you update the main description with the final mock and link the figma? Thanks!

[grgia]

@fabioh8010 this is the beta we will build under #47921

[fabioh8010]

Hi, I'm Fábio - expert agency contributor - and I would like to work on this issue.

[fabioh8010]

@grgia @anmurali Do you mind sharing the content of these threads (here, here)? I don't have access to them. Thanks!

EDIT: Do you also mind sharing and giving access to the Figma link? Thanks!

[anmurali]

https://www.figma.com/design/ReBRDcqMXgtvPgWBBCmBxs/Wave-9%3A-Track-Expense?node-id=512-11640&t=0d1PZheynnl6iKNr-1

I updated the issue description with what's in the threads. No need to read them! :)

[danielrvidal]

Rather than saying Just track this for now I think we could/should use Personal tracking or Track for myself. My reasoning is 1) it's shorter and 2) I think it's more clear because just track this for now could still be submitted to someone else.

@anmurali @shawnborton @dubielzyk-expensify @jamesdeanexpensify not sure if you agree or like what it currently is more.

[shawnborton]

Personally I think we need some kind of verbiage that makes it clear that you are not trying to submit it, so saying "Just track it for now" reads as though you are acknowledging that you are on a submit screen, but you don't want to submit it. Actually my original suggestion was "Don't send this, just track for now" to be extra clear here but I think someone suggested we shorten that.

I don't feel too strongly though, happy to go with whatever you all think is best.

[jamesdeanexpensify]

'Just track, don't send (for now)' we could even remove the '(for now)' but I like keeping the affirmative in front.

[jamesdeanexpensify]

I would also be fine doing 'Just track it for now' though. We could perhaps make it a bit clearer as another option by saying 'Or just track it for now'

[danielrvidal]

Sounds like people like the affirmative so far so happy to stick with what we have right now. It just caught my eye.

[shawnborton]

Nice, I still think I like adding the don't in there somewhere to be extra clear, so I think something like Just track it, don't send would be my vote.

[jamesdeanexpensify]

I see the Figma file and I asked for edit access. We could look at a few options to see what looks nice?

[jamesdeanexpensify]

[dubielzyk-expensify]

Agree with that Mr Borton

[quinthar]

Can we make the title "Submit expense" so we follow the overall language of the product, and not introduce some new concept of "sending an expense to someone"?

[shawnborton]

Sure, that would look like this:

[grgia]

@shawnborton @jamesdeanexpensify
Could you ping me when we've confirmed the final mock up so I can keep this moving? Thank you!

[jamesdeanexpensify]

I would be fine with this!

[shawnborton]

Yup, same!

[fabioh8010]

Update: Working on the proposal / action plan to refactor and develop the combined flow. I plan to post it here tomorrow.

[fabioh8010]

Update: Validating / polishing the final proposal after encountering some problems.

[fabioh8010]

Edited by proposal-police: This proposal was edited at 2024-09-03 21:57:42 UTC.

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

The vast majority of signups are unengaged. Paid adoption from top or bottom up leads only happens when users are engaged with the product and derive value from it. The Global Create menu is by far the most obvious and accessible option a new user explores to do something.

What is the root cause of that problem?

The time it takes for a person to make a decision increases with the number and complexity of choices available. Presenting users with too many options like Track expense and Submit expense options in the Global Crea menu can lead to decision fatigue, making the user experience overwhelming and less efficient.

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

1) Change FloatingActionButtonAndPopover to pass different data to PopoverMenu's menuItems prop if the beta is enabled. If the beta is enabled we should render the Create expense option instead of Track expense and Submit expense.

2) Create a new create IOU Type in CONST.ts. This new type will represent the new global Create expense flow.

3) Modify IOUUtils.isValidMoneyRequestType() to account for the new type (maybe we can also check if user has beta here), so it will allow AccessOrNotFoundWrapper to let the user access the new flow when accessing the IOURequestStartPage page. Additionaly, a new header title will be added for IOURequestStartPage.

4) For each tab (Manual IOURequestStepAmount, Scan IOURequestStepScan, Distance IOURequestStepDistance), modify the code to navigate the user to IOURequestStepParticipants page if the IOU Type is create.

5) In IOURequestStepParticipants page, modify MoneyRequestParticipantsSelector component to add the Just track it button (using MenuItem) to its SelectorList's headerContent prop if the IOU Type is create.

This MenuItem, when clicked, will call the new onTrackExpensePress prop that will be used in IOURequestStepParticipants to navigate the user to IOURequestStepConfirmation page passing the track IOU Type, thus allowing the user to finish the flow as they was tracking an expense.

In case the user select a participant, they will be navigated to IOURequestStepConfirmation passing the submit IOU Type instead, so the user can finish the flow as they was submitting an expense.

---

With this proposal I believe we can achieve this goal with minimal changes in the code while having support for both Create expense and Track expense / Submit expense options.

There are other minor changes that will be required but the main ones are these. I believe all this can be done in one PR because there isn't too much work / refactoring to do as I noted in my investigations and tests.

---

@grgia I have one question though: When we click the Track expense button from Global Create, we are firstly presented with a Track onboarding modal that includes a video.

1) Should we show them when the user navigates to the confirmation page (after clicking the Just track it button)?

2) If yes, maybe we would need to have a new video for this modal as the current one won't make sense?

As discussed in this issue, the Track Expense onboarding modal won't be shown in the combined Track / Submit flow.

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

N/A

[github-actions]

{grgia} Your proposal will be dismissed because you did not follow the proposal template.

[shawnborton]

@fabioh8010 I think for this test, it would make sense to just remove the video from the combined flow entirely? Curious what @anmurali thinks too.

[fabioh8010]

Yeah I don't think we need the video modal there, it looks redundant to me.

[anmurali]

Yes, let's remove that for sure.

[fabioh8010]

@grgia bump 😄

[grgia]

@fabioh8010 Proposal looks good, thank you! Would you update it to specify that we will remove the video from that flow?

[grgia]

Progress Update

• Beta is ready to go
• I chatted with @fabioh8010, and implementation will start tomorrow.
• I created an issue here for the feature implementation

We should have the feature ready to go soon for when we decide how we want to A/B test

cc @anmurali

[fabioh8010]

@fabioh8010 Proposal looks good, thank you! Would you update it to specify that we will remove the video from that flow?

Updated!

[anmurali]

@fabioh8010 - responding to your question here

[dubielzyk-expensify]

Sorry if I'm coming in late here, but just curious what are we actually A/B testing here? Is it changing the wording from Submit expense to Create expense?

[anmurali]

Submit/ Track as separate options vs. Create. And where there is only one or the other of the former - that vs. Create.

[grgia]

@anmurali we've merged the feature. Once it's deployed and passes QA I can merge the code releasing it to half of users