VOIX — Shared Space · Mid-fidelity Wireframes

"SUP? Things a bit tough atm?" brought in from the current voix.com.au, as requested. It's the most distinctive thing the live site says and it does something no polished headline can: it speaks in the register rather than about it. A young person recognises it instantly.

"Two doors, both open" demoted to the subhead rather than cut — it's still the load-bearing idea (it kills the fear of picking wrong, which is the real barrier), but it works better as the explanation than as the greeting.

Section retained in the IA so Christian keeps the slot and the page rhythm. No copy generated.

Wireframe says "two sentences" — this is exactly two. Longer version available if you want the strengths-based idea ("what's missing vs what's there") spelled out, but that breaks the spec, so flagging rather than doing it.

GP referral stated on the home page, not buried at step four. That's the anti-dark-pattern rule doing real work — and "we've written a guide for how to ask" turns the barrier into a service.

Parallel construction is deliberate: "When you need a clinician" / "When you need a room and something to make." Equal grammatical weight = equal brand weight. If one card gets a verb phrase and the other a noun phrase, Clinic silently wins.

One ID, used on every page. No brand voice, no wordplay, no "atm". This is the one place the voice fully yields.

Copy provided directly by Jarek/Vanessa and used as written, with "Voix" → "VOIX" for brand casing.

Two changes worth noticing, because both are improvements:

1. "You know that room" instead of "We got tired of the room." Mine made the founder the subject; theirs makes the reader the subject. It opens with recognition rather than grievance — and it's a much better first line for a young person who has actually sat in that room.

2. "We spent years watching" instead of naming Dr Jarek. Collective rather than individual. That also closes the [CLIENT TO CONFIRM] flag that was on this section — I'd flagged that it put words in Jarek's mouth. They've resolved it by making it institutional, and his personal voice now lives on CLN-HOME-07 where it belongs.

Kept intact: "precise about what was missing and had nothing to say about what was there" — still the single most differentiating sentence VOIX has.

Two changes.

1. AHPRA numbers removed from visible card fields, per the same note applied on CLN-HOME-08 and the trust-row. Identifier stays in Person schema — invisible to readers, useful as a search E-E-A-T signal.

2. Card field order changed to match their stated bio convention (from the SHR-ABT-03 note): "empathy first and understanding, and highlight credentials as a part of their approach to young people." So the human sentence now comes before areas of focus and qualifications, rather than credentials leading. Same information, deliberately sequenced.

Fair correction, and I've taken it. Their note: "we can be quirky, but credentials bits are not boring. That's what clinicians worked for and it is expression of what they do."

My original line ("the boring credentials bit") was aiming at self-aware honesty, but it dismissed years of training in the voice of the organisation whose training it is. That's a different thing from being quirky at the site's own expense — it's being dismissive at the team's expense, which isn't mine to do.

"The work behind the work" keeps a light touch without deprecating anything, and the subhead now does what they described: frames credentials as part of the approach rather than a trophy cabinet — "part of how we practise, not a plaque on the wall."

Absurdism budget: this frees Shared's 1/5 spend. Shared now sits at 3/5, two free. Not spending them for the sake of it.

Their stated bio convention, recorded here so it survives into Phase 2: "We have a convention of bios to show empathy first and understanding, and highlight credentials as a part of their approach to young people."

Applied to: SHR-ABT-02 card field order, SHR-TEAM-01 individual template (the human paragraph already leads there), and it should govern every clinician and coach bio written in Phase 2. Christian: this is a content-ordering rule for the profile component, not just copy guidance.

Restructured from a paragraph run into four distinct value blocks, each with an oversized number (01–04), a bold lead line, and supporting text. This is the section that carries the brand's values, so it earns a striking treatment rather than reading as body copy.

For Christian: this is deliberately a layout moment — think large numerals, generous whitespace, maybe a 2×2 grid on desktop that stacks on mobile, or a bold single-column with big type. The four values are the emotional core of the About page; give them room to land. Component-wise it's closest to P4 (card grid) but with a manifesto sensibility — not boxed cards, more like statements. Your call on exact treatment; the point is these four shouldn't look like a list.

The "No thanks, I don't want to feel better" line is a real dark pattern quoted almost verbatim from the wild. Naming the specific absurdity convinces more than "we don't use dark patterns" — everyone reading it has clicked that exact button somewhere.

This is where the anti-dark-pattern principle stops being a design rule and becomes a brand promise. Worth Jarek reading closely — it's a commitment, and the site has to keep it.

Per Michał — treat this as design licence, not a fixed layout. The two photos change what's possible here. This section does not have to follow the standard stacked eyebrow → headline → body pattern. With a portrait and a personal photo to work with, the profile can be a genuinely distinctive layout:

• split-screen (professional / personal side by side, with copy bridging them)
• a large portrait with the personal photo as an inset or reveal-on-hover
• an editorial magazine-style spread — big portrait, pull-quote from their personal paragraph, credentials in a sidebar
• the personal photo as a full-bleed background with the professional one as the "official" inset

The point: the team pages are where the "credible AND human" promise gets proven, and two photos give you the raw material to make that a layout moment rather than a CV with a headshot. Go somewhere with it. The wireframe here is just showing the required elements (two images, first-person copy blocks, credentials) — not prescribing their arrangement.

The portrait does the reassurance job (credible, professional — the photo a nervous parent wants). The personal photo does the connection job (this is a human being, not a white coat). Together they resolve the tension the whole site runs on — credible and approachable — without either photo having to do both.

The personal paragraph is the highest-value copy here. A young person deciding whether to see someone is really asking "will this be excruciating?" — reading their psychologist is bad at parking answers that better than any credential. Personal, not performatively quirky.

A team page in third person ("Dr X is passionate about...") is the single most generic thing on any health website. Let them speak. It costs nothing and it's the whole brand.

Per Michał: the grid beneath the filter is now simulated so the filter→results relationship is visible, not just implied.

What's shown: the "For young people" default state (that chip is pre-selected, per the design note below), with six placeholder article cards — image, audience tag, headline, one-line excerpt. The headlines are indicative of the type and tone of content, not final: they show the register the Reads section should hit (peer-level, practical, non-clinical).

Christian: this is a filterable card grid — selecting a different chip swaps the visible cards to that audience's tagged content. Card anatomy: image top, tag, headline, excerpt. The tag is shown here for clarity but may be redundant once filtered (every visible card shares the active filter) — your call whether it stays visible or only appears in an "all" view.

"For young people" is pre-selected on page load, not a chip you have to click. The young person shouldn't have to identify themselves to see their own content. The other three are opt-in. That's the audience rule expressed in the filter's default rather than its labels.

The article titles here are placeholders indicating tone and content-type, not a committed content calendar. Actual articles are a Phase 2 content workstream — each one is also an SEO target, so the real titles should be keyword-led (e.g. the "anxiety or am I just like this" card maps to high-volume youth-anxiety search intent). Flagging so these aren't mistaken for final copy.

Cut. The anxiety line was flagged as too edgy — fair, it made a joke adjacent to someone's distress. Replaced with a plain, warm version. Shared absurdism now sits at 4/5, one slot free. Not spending it just to spend it; it's there if a later section earns it.

Per Michał: the cards are now the feature, not just labels. Tapping a card routes the user to a different, targeted form — so a GP never wades through fields meant for a 15-year-old, and a school never sees a clinical intake. Each audience gets a form built for them.

What this does to the old single "Contact form" (SHR-CONT-02): it's no longer one generic form. It becomes four targeted forms, one per route — see the note on that section. Same principle as the referral pathway: reduce cognitive load by asking only what's relevant to who you actually are.

Christian: this is a router pattern. Card → dedicated form view (or dedicated form page). The GP route specifically must go to the secure REF form (per SHR-GP-04 — Privacy Act, specialist provider), not a native Webflow form, because it can carry patient-identifying data.

A small self-aware aside that makes a disambiguation screen feel like a person rather than a form gate. Unchanged.

Two changes per Michał.

1. The four cards became a single selector. Instead of four cards to choose between, the user completes one sentence — "I am [dropdown]" — and the matching form appears below. Less to scan, feels like one decision rather than four, and it's a friendlier front door than a wall of options. The four form types still exist behind it; the selector just reveals the right one.

2. "GP referral" → "Standard form for GPs." Reframed as the ordinary, expected referral form rather than something bespoke — a GP referring should feel they're doing the normal thing, not learning a new system. Still the secure specialist-provider form underneath (Privacy Act), just described in the register a GP expects.

Christian: the interaction is select → reveal. On desktop the form can appear inline below the sentence; on mobile it can advance to the form. The dropdown values map 1:1 to the four form types.

This section is an accessibility feature, not filler. For an autistic reader, not knowing the social script is the barrier — not the contacting itself. Step 4 exists specifically to remove the sense that enquiring commits you to anything.

Note this crisis block has one extra sentence the global one doesn't — the "this form is not a crisis service" line. It's the one permitted deviation, because the risk is specific to this page. Everything else is identical.

Absurdism · Shared 5/5. "Pretending to be on their phone" is a small, exact, universally recognised moment. It's the neurodivergent-friendly principle delivered as recognition rather than as accommodation — which is a much better feeling for the person reading it.

Shared budget now full.

Last line matters: "we will still be here tomorrow." It's the one moment of warmth permitted on this page, and it's there because being told what a service can't do, in a crisis, can read as rejection. It shouldn't.

Per Michał: replaced the single paragraph with real, sequenced steps. The four are ordered by psychological readiness, not by service funnel:

1. Safety today — before anything else, because someone landing here may not be as "not in crisis" as the heading assumes.
2. Tell one person — the hardest and most protective step; "you don't need the right words" removes the barrier that stops most young people.
3. Pick a way in — only now do services appear, framed as options not obligations (Studio lower-pressure first, per the Discovery "stepping stone before crisis" positioning).
4. We take it from there — removes the fear that reaching out means facing a test.

Locked-serious section: zero wit, per the crisis-page rule. The warmth is in the reassurance, not in any joke.

"It doesn't have to get worse before you're allowed to ask for help" addresses the single most common reason young people don't reach out: the belief they aren't bad enough to qualify. Keep it as the subhead whatever else changes.

Resolved: the wireframe showed /clinic/for-gps and tagged this Clinic — that was an error, now confirmed with Michał. This is a Shared page at top-level /for-gps. Same for For Institutions.

Voice deliberately shifts — the wireframe asks for "professional, peer-to-peer, evidence-based." No "atm", no wordplay. A GP scanning this in four minutes wants competence signalled fast. Not a voice failure; the audience rule working as designed.

Rebuilt from the Discovery document's own positioning rather than generic bullets. Every card maps to a stated differentiator:
• "Faster review" → Discovery §4.3 / §9.2: "more effective triage, speed of response (shorter waiting time for review)."
• "Shared care" → §11.2: "Stressing SHARED-CARE model with primary care providers."
• "Strengths-based ICF" → §9.2: "ICF frameworks rather than diagnostic labelling." Note ICF here = the WHO functioning framework (Clinic sense), spelled out per the sitewide disambiguation.
• "ADHD/ASD/educational" → §6.1: "Specialised ADHD, ASD and educational assessments."
• "Before crisis" → §8.1 / §9.2: "VOIX Studio fills the gap between referral and first appointment... a stepping stone, not just a last resort." This is the strongest and most under-used GP argument — GPs currently have "refer to psychiatry" or "nothing," and Studio is a third option.

Format changed from a numbered list to a card grid — these are parallel reasons, not sequential steps, so a grid reads better and lets each differentiator carry a sentence of actual substance instead of a fragment.

Per Michał: the previous version read as a briefing-document/copy hybrid — describing the form's mechanics ("conditional fields, e-signature, encrypted") in the voice of a spec rather than speaking to a GP. Rewritten as actual copy.

What changed: the technical build details (conditional fields, encryption) moved out of the visible copy and into the accordion where they belong — a GP doesn't need to read the implementation, they need to know it's secure and fast. The visible copy now leads with the GP's actual concern ("you don't need to learn a new system") and the reassurance that matters most to a referrer: you'll hear back. That last point ties directly to the shared-care differentiator on SHR-GP-02 — "not silence" is the promise GPs most want from a referral relationship.

Tone: professional and warm, GP-to-colleague, not marketing and not spec. Permission-based CTA register kept ("prefer your own letter? completely fine").

Per Michał, the three situations are now: "I have a referral" / "I don't have a referral" / "I don't know what it is."

Why this framing is better than the old one (which was have-referral / have-GP-no-referral / no-GP): it sorts people by what they understand, not by their GP status. The old third branch ("I don't have a GP") was a sub-case — it now lives inside "I don't have a referral," where it belongs. The new third branch catches the person who's genuinely confused by the word itself, which is a real and under-served state: a 14-year-old who's never navigated the health system has no reason to know what "referral" means, and if the page assumes they do, they bounce.

The third answer deliberately de-escalates: "it's paperwork, not a test," "you're not being screened or judged." Then it hands them back to branch two once they understand — so the confused-beginner path resolves into the actionable one rather than dead-ending.

Content is now real, not placeholder — the GP script, the Medicare explanation, the bulk-billing-GP route are all written out. Two items still need client confirmation (below).

All three options visible at once, each expanding to its answer. Faster and calmer than a multi-step quiz, and more accessible — no hidden state, so ADHD and autistic readers can see every path at once. Keep the quiz pattern for genuine triage (Clinic-vs-Studio), where the user actually doesn't know the answer. Here they do — they just need the right door.

Reusable: same block drops onto CLN-HOME-04 step 1, CLN-SVC-03, and here. Christian builds it once.

Reworked per Michał's note. Conditions are now grouped tag/pill lozenges instead of a run-on list — scannable for a GP in a hurry, and each pill can expand to show referral detail or link to the relevant service page. Bonus: each pill maps cleanly to one MedicalCondition schema entity, which is better structured-data practice than a prose blob. Christian: three groups (Neurodevelopmental / Mood & anxiety / Also), pills wrap, tap-to-expand or tap-to-link his call.

Clinical vocabulary in full, in front of a clinical audience, no brand-voice compromise — because the reader is a GP, not a 15-year-old. Much of the parent-intent search volume ("autism spectrum disorder diagnosis" 2,400, "assessments for autism" 1,300) gets captured here honestly, without needing an SEO container anywhere on the site.

This is the actual sell to a GP, and it's the thing most private clinics get wrong. GPs don't fear referring — they fear losing the patient and getting a two-line letter six months later.

Filled with actual content grounded in the Discovery document rather than placeholder bullets. The institutional audience is a stated tertiary/complementary segment (§5.1), and the positioning maps to real strategy:
• "Referral pathway" + "shared care" → §11.2's shared-care model with primary care and services, extended to schools; and §13.1's school-counsellor referral networks.
• "Studio before clinical" → §8.1: "VOIX Studio fills the gap between referral and first appointment" and §9.2's "stepping stone, not last resort." This is the strongest institutional argument — schools have "monitor" or "refer to CAMHS/public services" and a long wait between; Studio is a third option they don't have.
• "Specialist assessment" → §6.1's ADHD/ASD/educational assessments, which is often precisely what a school needs for support planning.

Format changed from numbered steps to a card grid — these are parallel offerings a school chooses among, not a sequence. Two cards still carry [CLIENT TO CONFIRM] because training capacity and consultation format are genuinely unconfirmed (Discovery flags Studio formats/pricing as not yet finalised).

Note on "CAMHS": used as shorthand for public child/adolescent mental health services — confirm the WA-correct service name before publish (it may be branded differently locally).