Guides
How to reframe form usability issues with HMW questions
Struggling with form abandonment? Learn how How Might We questions transform form usability problems into actionable design opportunities.
Three key methods used in this
guide
When forms create barriers instead of pathways
Online forms are critical touchpoints. People use them to apply for services, register for programs, donate to causes, or access support. When forms work well, they disappear into the background. When they fail, people abandon tasks, call for help, or give up entirely.
The problem is that teams often know something is wrong but struggle to move from problem to solution. You might hear phrases like "users drop off at the payment step" or "the application form is too complicated." These observations describe symptoms, but they don't point toward action.
This is where many projects stall. Teams debate fixes without clarity. Should you remove fields? Simplify language? Add progress indicators? Without a clear framework, conversations circle back to opinions rather than user needs.
The How Might We (HMW) technique offers a structured way forward. It transforms vague complaints into specific, actionable questions that invite creative problem-solving. Instead of saying "our donation form is confusing," you ask, "How might we make giving amounts clearer for first-time donors?"
This shift matters because it changes how teams approach problems. Rather than defending existing designs or jumping to quick fixes, HMW questions create space for exploration. They acknowledge the problem while opening pathways to multiple solutions.
Who this helps: UX designers, product teams, and anyone responsible for improving digital forms need practical methods to diagnose and fix usability issues. This approach works whether you're conducting a UX audit, running usability testing, or responding to user feedback about online forms.
What problem this solves: Converting vague user complaints or analytics data into a clear design direction. You move from "people aren't completing the form" to specific, testable improvements that address root causes.
What question does this answer: How do you turn form usability problems into questions that generate better solutions?
Why form problems stay stuck at surface level
Most teams recognise when forms aren't working. Drop-off rates spike. Support calls increase. User testing reveals frustration. But awareness of a problem doesn't automatically lead to solutions.
Three common barriers prevent progress:
Solutions get embedded too early. Teams jump straight to answers before fully understanding the problem. Someone suggests "let's add a chatbot" or "we need a video tutorial" before exploring whether those solutions address the actual user need. This premature convergence limits thinking and often misses the real issue.
When solutions get locked in early, teams waste time building features that don't solve the underlying problem. A chatbot won't help if the form language itself is unclear. A tutorial won't fix a broken information architecture.
Problems stay too vague. Saying "the form is too long" or "users find it confusing" doesn't give designers clear direction. These broad statements could apply to dozens of different issues. Is the form too long because it asks unnecessary questions? Because the layout makes it feel overwhelming? Because there's no indication of progress?
Vague problem statements lead to scattered solutions. Different team members interpret the problem differently, resulting in conflicting priorities and unfocused design work.
Questions focus on what's wrong, not what's possible. Negative framing limits creativity. "How do we prevent form abandonment?" immediately puts teams in defensive mode, trying to stop something bad rather than create something better. This mindset narrows the solution space and makes brainstorming feel like damage control rather than innovation.
Research shows that negative framing reduces the number and diversity of ideas generated during brainstorming. Teams get stuck defending current approaches rather than exploring new possibilities.
The cost of staying stuck. When form problems remain at the surface level, the consequences compound. Users abandon tasks they need to complete. Organisations lose donations, applications, or registrations. Support teams field repetitive questions about the same confusing elements. Design teams make changes based on assumptions rather than clear problem understanding.
A council might know their permit application form has low completion rates, but without reframing the problem clearly, they can't prioritise which part to fix first. A charity might see donation drop-offs but struggle to determine whether the issue is payment options, amount suggestions, or trust signals.
This is where form usability improvements stall—not from lack of effort, but from lack of problem clarity. Teams need a structured way to translate observations into questions that unlock solutions.
Using HMW questions to reframe form problems
The How Might We technique provides a systematic approach to converting form usability problems into opportunities for improvement. It works through a specific structure that keeps teams focused while encouraging creative solutions.
Link questions directly to research findings
Start with concrete evidence from user research, analytics, or usability testing. Don't create HMW questions from assumptions or general concerns.
For example, if testing reveals users abandon a volunteer registration form because they're unsure what time commitment is required:
Weak approach: "How might we improve the volunteer form?" Strong approach: "How might we help potential volunteers understand the time commitment before they start registering?"
The strong version ties directly to the observed problem and focuses attention on a specific user need. It gives designers clear direction while leaving room for multiple solutions—you might add time estimates to role descriptions, create a pre-form questionnaire, or include typical schedules in the introduction.
When you base HMW questions on real research, solutions naturally connect to user needs rather than team preferences. This foundation prevents teams from solving imagined problems while real issues persist.
Keep solutions out of the question
The biggest mistake teams make is embedding their preferred solution into the HMW question. This happens when someone asks, "How might we add a progress bar to reduce form abandonment?" The question assumes a progress bar is the answer before exploring whether that addresses the actual problem.
Instead, focus on the desired outcome: "How might we help users feel confident about completing a long application?" Now the team can explore progress bars, but also step-by-step wizards, time estimates, save-and-return functionality, or form length reduction. The question stays open to the best solution rather than defending a predetermined answer.
This practice requires discipline. Teams naturally gravitate toward familiar solutions. Push back when questions contain words like "add," "build," or "create" followed by a specific feature. Reframe to describe the user outcome you're trying to achieve.
Focus on outcomes, not implementation
Strong HMW questions describe what you want to happen, not how you'll make it happen. This keeps discussions strategic rather than tactical.
If users struggle to understand which documents they need for a visa application:
Implementation-focused: "How might we create a document checklist feature?" Outcome-focused: "How might we help applicants gather the right documents before starting their application?"
The outcome-focused version opens more possibilities. Solutions might include a checklist, but also conditional logic that shows only relevant documents, email reminders, integration with document verification services, or clearer examples of acceptable documents. The question invites the team to consider which approach best serves the user's needs.
This distinction becomes critical when dealing with complex form usability challenges. Implementation questions lead to feature debates. Outcome questions lead to user-centred solutions.
Frame questions positively
Positive framing generates more creative ideas than negative framing. Instead of asking "How might we prevent users from making errors in the payment form?" ask "How might we help users complete payment accurately the first time?"
The difference seems subtle, but it changes how teams approach solutions. Prevention-focused questions lead to restrictive measures—adding validation rules, error messages, or blocking mechanisms. Positive questions encourage supportive measures—clearer field labels, format examples, real-time guidance, or simplified payment options.
Positive framing also improves team dynamics during brainstorming. People contribute more freely when exploring possibilities rather than defending against problems. This openness typically results in a wider range of solutions to evaluate.
Create questions collaboratively
The most effective HMW questions emerge from team discussion, not individual drafting. Bring together designers, researchers, developers, content specialists, and stakeholders to collectively frame problems.
Use a structured process:
Review research findings together
Have each person write potential HMW questions
Share and discuss as a group
Evaluate questions against quality criteria
Refine and combine overlapping questions
Select priority questions to address
Quality criteria help teams assess whether questions work:
Does it connect to specific research insights?
Is the outcome clear without prescribing solutions?
Is it phrased positively?
Is it broad enough to generate multiple ideas but focused enough to be actionable?
Would a non-designer understand what problem we're addressing?
This collaborative refinement strengthens questions and builds shared understanding. When the team creates questions together, everyone develops clearer mental models of user problems. This alignment continues into solution development, reducing friction later in the design process.
Apply HMW questions throughout form design
The technique works at different scales depending on where you are in the design process.
Strategic level: "How might we make council document requests feel less overwhelming for first-time users?" This might lead to exploring the entire information architecture or navigation structure.
Feature level: "How might we help donors feel confident about monthly giving commitments?" This focuses attention on a specific interaction within a larger donation flow.
Interaction level: "How might we make error messages helpful rather than frustrating?" This addresses micro-interactions that affect overall form usability.
Using HMW questions at multiple levels ensures you're addressing both systemic issues and detailed interactions. A form improvement project might start with strategic questions during problem framing, then develop feature-level questions during wireframing, and finally address interaction-level questions during prototyping and usability testing.
Connect to implementation decisions
HMW questions shouldn't exist only in workshops. They should directly inform design decisions and quality assurance.
When evaluating design options, refer back to your HMW questions. Does this solution address the question effectively? Does it create new problems? What assumptions need testing?
This connection keeps teams accountable to user needs rather than design preferences. If you asked "How might we help applicants provide accurate contact information?" your design system should reflect whatever approach best serves that outcome—whether it's clearer field labels, format examples, or verification steps.
During quality assurance, use HMW questions to structure testing. Did we actually help applicants provide accurate information? What evidence shows the solution works? Where do gaps remain?
Recognise when to iterate
Sometimes your first HMW question reveals itself as too broad, too narrow, or slightly misaligned with the actual problem. That's normal. The technique works through iteration.
If brainstorming produces scattered ideas that don't feel cohesive, your question might be too vague. Narrow it based on the most critical user need.
If you struggle to generate more than one or two ideas, your question might be too specific or have an embedded solution. Broaden it to invite more creative thinking.
If proposed solutions don't address the research findings you started with, your question might have drifted from the real problem. Reconnect it to concrete evidence.
This iterative refinement strengthens both your problem understanding and your solutions. The goal isn't perfect questions on the first attempt—it's questions that unlock better thinking about form usability.
Moving forward with clarity
Form usability problems don't fix themselves. They require clear problem framing that transforms observations into actionable questions. The How Might We technique provides that structure.
When you ground questions in research, keep solutions open, focus on outcomes, frame positively, and work collaboratively, you create the conditions for better form design. Problems that felt stuck suddenly have pathways forward. Teams that debated opinions start exploring user-centred solutions.
This approach doesn't guarantee perfect forms—but it ensures you're asking better questions before building solutions. And better questions consistently lead to better outcomes for the people who need to complete your forms.
You might find these helpful
A few related articles that build on what you’ve just read.
