FAQ INFORMATION ARCHITECTURE/User INTERFACE update

Overview

as a subcontractor, I lead a team of three to update the information architecture and provide a suggested redesign of the user interface based of the USWDS 3.0 for a government agencies’ FAQ website. I created and administered user testing with a card sorting exercise to better understand the how users use the site and the pain points currently existing with the website’s information architecture and interface. The final deliverable was a written report and mockups for a proposed redesign.

The expert below are key recommendations we proposed (I have removed any direct reference to the site and the government agency)

Recommendations

In the following section, we present recommendations informed by user testing results to improve usability of the {website} FAQ web page.

Recommendation 1: Adopt New FAQ Categories Included on the Redesigned Web Page

On the basis of several metrics from user testing, we recommend {Gov agency} adopt the new FAQ categories incorporated on the Redesigned web page.

The Redesigned web page featured a revised FAQ content structure (Appendix C) previously recommended by RTI in {this} report. The updated FAQ content structure contains more-specific sections in which to categorize FAQs and served as the foundation of the card sorting exercise during user testing. According to the card sorting, seven users (87.5%) found that the categories provided in the Redesigned web page aligned with all the questions they were asked to sort. Additionally, in more than two thirds of questions, there was a majority or plurality agreement among users as to which questions fit into the given categories.

Additionally, in four of five different metrics measured by the survey (ease of use, visual appeal, best for first-time users, and the best way to present information on the site), the Redesigned or Blue Sky pages were rated higher by participants. The current web page was ranked in second place over the Blue Sky page in having the features needed to answer user questions. As previously noted, during the interview respondents indicated a need for a search feature on the Blue Sky web page, which may have contributed to a lower survey rating in this category.

During observational testing of the current web page, one participant recommended more-specific FAQ categories, noting that a user may miss the information they are looking for if scrolling down. This observation aligns with a previous RTI recommendation to reorganize FAQ content using simple yet specific subheaders. In the Redesigned web page, more-specific subheaders were used to organize FAQs.

Recommendation 2: Reduce the Amount of Content on FAQ Pages

Feedback shared during testing often addressed the amount of content on the FAQ pages. As noted above, 62.5% of participants felt that the current FAQ web page is lengthy or contains a lot of information. Six participants (75%) also commented on the amount of content on the Redesigned and Blue Sky web pages. One user noted that the Redesigned web page felt more user-friendly than the current web page but was “still skeptical” because the page presented a lot of information. The Redesigned web page contains several changes to the current page’s user interface and uses the new FAQ categories (see Recommendation 1) to organize the FAQs. However, the redesign does not include any changes to question or answer content. Participants viewed the same FAQs on both the current web page and the Redesigned web page.

Per this user feedback, our recommendation is to review the content on the current web page and identify areas where questions can be shortened, combined, or rephrased to reduce the amount of content the user must process on a particular screen and page. The Plain Writing Act of 2010 requires federal agencies to be clear and concise in their writing when “explain[ing] to the public how to comply with a requirement that the Federal Government administers or enforces.”[1] PlainLanguage.gov notes, “Nothing is more confusing to the user than long, complex sentences containing multiple phrases and clauses.”[2]

Some users justified the complex questions and answers because of the perceived “technical” nature that the FAQs address. Another participant noted that because the Provider Relief Fund is a government program, it “may [have] a lot of red tape.” Even if a page is perceived by some participants as more user-friendly, or the complexity of content is considered justified because of its technical nature, we encourage {Gov agency} to implement federal plain language requirements and principles. Federal agencies should write clearly for their audiences so they can “find what they need, understand what they find, and use what they find to meet their needs.”[3]

Recommendation 3: Use More Signposts on HRSA FAQ Pages

During testing, users were asked whether there was a better way to present the information on the current web page. Participants recommended signposts—specifically, use of tabs, visual icons, different colors, and bullet points—to improve navigation and make the text easier to scan.

The Redesigned and Blue Sky web pages feature various signposts, including a sidebar, numbered steps to denote a process, different background colors to highlight important information, and bold font. During testing sessions, participants liked all of these features, noting how they improve usability of the pages. One participant recommended integrating features from both the Redesigned and Blue Sky web pages, as well as integration of numbers to guide users and different colors to highlight certain items on page. As both the Redesigned and Blue Sky web pages were rated higher in the verbal 1-to-5 rankings on perceived ease of use, and in four of five metrics on usability in the survey, we recommend implementing these types of signposts across {Gov agency} FAQ web pages.

[1] The Plain Writing Act of 2010. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-111publ274/pdf/PLAW-111publ274.pdf

[2] PlainLanguage.gov, Be concise. https://www.plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/concise/

[3] PlainLanguage.gov, Federal plain language guidelines. https://www.plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/