This week I've updated the screens per the feedback I received from the group. I've made a few relatively dramatic changes since last week, but I believe they're for the better. Plus, they speak to all the issues (at least those I recall) that everyone raised about the last screens.

I'm not going to summarize the scope of the design, other than to describe how to organize the sequence of the screens.

My numerating system works as follows:

1, 2, 3, 4 – Each number represents a "unique" screen template presented in a sequential order based on a user's flow

1, 2, 2a, 2b, 3 – The a, b, c... n denotation implies a change in a screen's state. So 2a and 2b are the same screen, but something changed. The change is most often sequential based on the letter (but not always, so follow the flows below for best results).

4b.1 – Screens with these notations imply an "alternative" screen. In other words, if you compare 4b and 4b.1, they fall in the same sequence, but 4b.1 is an alternate to 4b for some reason or another.

### Sequence Guide (follow these steps)

##### Flow 1 - User Adds Content

1, (1.1 - if some portfolios already exist), 2, 3, 4, 4a, 4b, (4b.1 - if there is no content available for this section), 4c, (4c.1 - shows a multi-select alternative), 4d. If there are questions about what happens on 4d, I will answer them either here or on a call.

1, 2, 3, 5, 5a

##### Flow 3 - User Shares Portfolio

1, 2, 3, 6, 6a, 6b, 6c, back to -> 3a

### Notes

• Notice that now there is no longer a step by step status indicator. The wizard has been re-arranged into a hub model, which upon further analysis, seems to be the better approach to this data model.
• I still haven't included "commenting" and "expiration" into these screens. Those options will probably appear in screen 6. I'm just not comfortable with how much information is on this screen already. If we can lose the "share by role" feature, it would make life a lot easier