I think this article about the new PA 2-1-1 Southwest website might be the first time I’ve ever been quoted in the media?! 🙂
Tag: information and referral
InfoCommons #2 – Usability and Online Forms
My second InfoCommons column was published this February in the AIRS Newsletter.
Forms are ubiquitous in the world of information and referral. Many of us use online intake forms embedded in software to record calls; we use online search forms in resource databases, and we provide forms for users and agencies to contact us. Poorly designed forms can cause confusion for users and result in bad information being entered. If users don’t understand why they’re being asked for certain information, they may simply refuse to provide the information. In their book Forms That Work, Caroline Jarrett and Gerry Gaffney propose that forms involve three layers:
- The relationship of a form is the relationship between the organization that is asking the questions and the person that is answering.
- The conversation of a form comes from the questions that it asks, any other instructions, and the way the form is arranged into topics.
- The appearance of a form is the way it looks: the arrangement of text, input areas such as fields and graphics, and the use of color. (Jarrett & Gaffney, 2009)
The user experience involved in each of these three layers has implications for the success of a form.
Relationship and Conversation
It can be challenging to organize the flow of an intake form to promote accurate collection of information while facilitating natural dialogue between an I&R Specialist and a caller. One common problem with online forms is that questions may seem random if each new piece of information doesn’t relate to what’s previously been requested. When an I&R Specialist is acting as an intermediary between a caller and an intake form, it’s easy to explain why certain information is being requested – there’s a more personal relationship and conversation happening. In a purely web-based setting, it becomes crucial to gain users’ trust by clearly indicating who we are, why we’re requesting certain information, and how that information relates to what the user has already entered. Jarrett and Gaffney provide this advice: “It’s usually best to ask anticipated questions before you move into something unexpected or unusual. Ease into questions that may intrude on the user’s privacy by dealing with neutral topics first.”
The relationship between your organization and the users of your online forms may be relatively clear, but it always helps to make sure that your public online forms are clearly labeled with your logo, and provide reassurance to the user about how their information will be used and where it will be sent.
Appearance
The appearance of forms is often the area over which we have the least control when using software, content management systems, or online services like Google Forms or Formstack. Many form-creation services don’t allow customization of field label displays, dimensions of input boxes, typography, or grouping and placement of fields. However, if you have control over the appearance of your online forms, I encourage you to consider how you can manipulate these elements to promote usability:
- Results from user testing of forms, including eye-tracking studies, indicate that users see labels above and to the left of fields. Putting labels above fields reduces the eye movement required to scan the labels and fields, but can result in the form appearing longer.
- Reading right-aligned text is harder than reading left-aligned text, especially if your question runs over more than one line. For simple, often requested data, right-aligned field labels will enable users to move swiftly through a group of fields. However, if you form asks unfamiliar questions that requires people to scan labels to learn what’s required, left-aligned labels work best.
- Make your forms more organized by grouping related fields together. You can do this using placement, spacing, alignment, and background color.
Users with different experience levels and motivations will interact with web forms differently. By providing well-organized and easy-to-use forms for the public and for I&R Specialists, we’ll be more likely to succeed in collecting the information we need.
Further reading:
Friedman, V. (2008, July 4). Smashing Magazine. “Web Form Design Patterns: Sign-Up Forms.” http://uxdesign.smashingmagazine.com/2008/07/04/web-form-design-patterns-sign-up-forms/
Jarrett, C. & Gaffney, G. (2009). Forms that Work: Designing Web Forms for Usability. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Penzo, M. (2006, January 23) UXMatters. “Evaluating the Usability of Search Forms Using Eyetracking: A Practical Approach.” http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2006/01/evaluating-the-usability-of-search-forms-using-eyetracking-a-practical-approach.php
InfoCommons, Episode 1
My very first column debuts this month in the AIRS Newsletter. Thanks to AIRS for letting me share my thoughts about technology and the world of I&R!
Introducing InfoCommons: The Column & The Concept
By Tricia Burmeister
Usability and Data Manager, PA 2-1-1 Southwest United Way of Allegheny County
Editor’s Note: This month we welcome Tricia Burmeister and the new InfoCommons feature that replaces the former User-Friendly column.
This new column in the AIRS newsletter is inspired by the concept of the “information commons” – an interactive space where people can share knowledge and resources. In the coming year, I will be sharing my thoughts on how I&Rs can use technology to facilitate collaboration and communication amongst ourselves and in our communities. The term “information commons” has become trendy in recent years, but what does it really mean? The World Wide Web is one giant information commons, with some sites like Wikipedia and the Internet Archive embodying the concept especially well. Many libraries have begun to use the term to describe physical spaces where users can collaborate and access online resources. Investigating the idea of the
information commons can provide an interesting perspective on how I&Rs interact with one another and with those we serve.
A 2008 article in the Annual Review of Information Science and Technology outlined the following characteristics of information commons:
•they benefit from participation: the greater the participation, the more valuable the resource
•they take advantage of the Internet to build information communities
•they are often free or low cost
•they are interactive, encouraging discourse and exchange among their members
•their participants often contribute new creations after they gain and benefit from access (1)
Each of these criteria can be applied to I&R services in some way. By serving as a one-stop resource for social services information, I&Rs function as information hubs for our communities. Our resource databases are valuable stores of knowledge about services, while the data we collect about those we serve provides a crucial perspective on community needs. When agencies
participate in the maintenance of information in an I&R database, everyone benefits from the improved quality of the resource. By providing searchable online databases and using our websites to guide people to services, I&Rs are taking advantage of the Internet, but are we doing as much as we can to build “information communities”, online or otherwise? How do we encourage
discourse between ourselves, service providers, and the people we serve?
There’s an important exchange of information that happens when we follow-up with callers to find out if they received services. Caller satisfaction surveys provide feedback on how we’re doing, as does the number of people who contact us again after reaching out for help the first time. Follow-up plays a
role in the exchange of resource information when callers provide feedback about the help they received and their experiences accessing services. When inquirers receive information or referrals from you, do you provide easy
ways for them to contribute something back to the system, whether it be
positive feedback, complaints, success stories, or updated information about
services for your resource staff to investigate? How can we connect those in need of services with the help they need, but also encourage them to share
information with us – to engage in more of a discourse instead of information
flowing one direction? How do you capture feedback from callers so you can synthesize it and draw meaningful conclusions?
Similar questions apply to the interactions between I&Rs and service providers. Many resource databases offer comment features that allow anyone to submit feedback about the information in our records. There is always conversation going on between I&Rs and service providers to ensure that appropriate referrals are being made. Nevertheless, I’m sure many resource managers wish for higher levels of participation from agencies in keeping their information up to date. Generating interest doesn’t seem nearly as difficult as sustaining engagement over time, when, despite your gentle reminders, that agency still hasn’t reviewed their information. What methods do you use to encourage feedback from service providers? Are there ways that you use caller feedback to provide a sense of urgency that prompts an agency to update their
information?
The model of Wikipedia – the quintessential information commons – is difficult to apply to I&R because many people in need don’t want that fact to become public. This eliminates the motivation to contribute information in a public forum where it could benefit everyone. One of the values of I&R is that we can serve as more personalized, confidential Wikipedias for social services, comparing caller feedback with the information provided to us by agencies. By balancing these two information channels and promoting the flow of information, we provide a valuable shared resource and serve as information commons for our communities.
(1) Kranich, N., & Schement, J.R. (2008). Information Commons. In Annual
Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST), 42, 547-‐590.