eRegs user research workshop results

At the outset of phase 2 of the ATF eRegs project, our ATF stakeholders and the 18F project team identified the underlying needs and risks for possible features to include in the next round of development. The purpose of this exercise was to better understand the hypotheses behind each feature so that we can focus our user research.

Develop sections in right column to include Rulings, Q&A, Forms, Newsletters, Open Letters, and Other Guidance. Link related items in each of these sections to the regulation that it applies.

What problem will this solve?

• Provides reliable and relevant information to the industry and to internal users
• Provides an antidote to the false sense of security people get from the orange/white book, in thinking they know everything they need to know from the book and that it is up-to-date.
• Reduces search fatigue and back and forth navigation between different sites.
• Nice to all have all information there and not have to do mousing backward and forward.

This solution will fail if:

• The documentation is not comprehensive.
• The related documentation is not updated on a regular basis.
• People don’t see the right hand column or the resources in it.
• The linked documents aren’t relevant.
• Content is not tagged properly
• Content is not 508 compliant
• Content is not in plain language.
• Info on the right hand side is not organized well and overwhelms the user. We don’t want to send them on a wild goose chase.
• It requires multiple open tabs.

Other items of note

• Sounds like there is no established mapping between reg and rulings, does anything rely on that? If you wanted to change part of the reg you might not know what else needs to be changed.
• Here we aren’t trying to help people find what changed in the reg. My main concern now is that we are a one stop shop for regs. Not so much as identifying changes or how to make them.
• Because we've never had a resource for one stop shop, it’s hard to tell how they will use it.
• Audiences will be mobile based – 56 percent of traffic to ATF is mobile, likely because many investigators are working in the field.

On each Part page, add a print and PDF converter button to the page that allows the user to print the whole Part. Also, add a Print button for each regulation page to print only that regulation.

What problem will this solve?

• Solves the need to print regulations and resources by meeting the tactile need in this industry.
• Allows less tech savvy people, who may not know how to use the browser’s print function, to print regulations.
• Solve previous issue that we found users needed [to print individual sections].
• People (for example, field investigators) who are offline or have poor internet access can print (or download) a PDF in advance.

This solution will fail if:

• it’s too hard to figure out how to print or make into a PDF.
• We interpret “Part” wrong.
• It doesn’t work on tablet.
• (Will be unecessary if) users know how to print from the browser.
• It’s no better than what’s already available on eCFR.
• It doesn’t remove browser chrome.
• Users get the two print functions confused (Printing Parts and printing one specific eRegs page).

Other items of note

• Are those (printing vs. creating pdf) different tasks? A lot of times those are connected. Times people would want a pdf and and want to print might be different. Asking for a print option should not pull up a different unformatted version. IMHO, everything should be pdf b/c people can work with that.

In search results, highlight the search terms.

What problem will this solve?

• Users can more quickly find the text they’re interested in.
• Provides instant feedback for users about their search strategy.

This solution will fail if:

• Color is bad or not 508 compliant.
• It doesn't have content related to the word around it, that is, if it doesn’t provide the context that the word or phrase appears in.

Display search results in chronological order.

Note: we ran out of time on this one and we’ll need to follow up to get more clarity around the need.

What problem will this solve?

• Ease of search for user.
• Right now the current program is judging what is most relevant, but that may not be the most relevant for users.
• Clarity of search for everyone.

This solution will fail if:

• We don’t agree on what chronological means.
• We can’t have the relevant offering be more responsive. In the order of the regulation makes it clear that as you go down that you will get more in depth.
• Users have a different perception of what counts as relevant.