AnsweredAssumed Answered

Forms: Mixing Visibility Rules with Progressive Profiling

Question asked by 15a0acde9ee3d4c5fc98346056e39c6df5f4a17d on Mar 22, 2016
Latest reply on Oct 17, 2017 by Ashley Ayan

Hey Team,


To accommodate the broad audience that we sell/communicate to, I've had to build a form that starts with the initial set of fields:

- name

- email

- prospect type


Based on their type, the form then "branches" out to 7 different paths to collect the information that is unique to each type.


The remaining fields were built in the following hierarchy. I "mapped" 14 progressive fields to the 7 different prospect types using visibility rules.

Tier 1 - Required Field

Tier 2 - Progressive Profiling

Tier 2a - Visibility Rules Enabled for Prospect Types

     - Type 1 = Fields 1-7

     - Type 2 = Fields 8-11

     - Type 3 = Fields 8-11

     - Type 4 = Fields 8-12

     - Type 5 = Fields 8-11, 13, 14

     - Type 6 = Fields 8, 9

     - Type 7 = None


I set the number of blank progressive fields to 2, thinking that the progressive function would would "skip" over the fields not applicable to the respective prospect types. However, this is not the case.


For example, if a prospect identified themselves as Type 6, no progressive fields would display. For a Type 2 prospect, no progressive fields would display. Only by increasing the number of blank progressive fields to 14 could I get any fields to show for Type 5. At that form looked horrendous for all users.


Any way to get around this?