In May, I was invited to speak at UX Lisbon, on Preventing Digital Harm in Online Spaces. At the main event, I presented the Internet Safety Lab’s framework for evaluating the relationship that digital technologies have with consumers and what we can do as designers to mitigate the digital harms and dark patterns that could potentially violate that relationship. You can download my presentation below.
On the first day of the event, I ran a half-day, pre-conference workshop titled “Designing Effective Search Strategies” in which I introduced a new framework using observation as a powerful tool to understand site search behavior. To explore this, we broke into seven groups and worked on creating empathy maps, search personas (including group personas) and mapping the user journey toward information discovery. As a takeaway, all participants received a toolkit for crafting these artifacts and a step-by-step process to enhance product search. We got to eat yummy Portuguese snacks, too!
“Noreen … made the interesting point that if we build an accessible design we’ll also be solving many search problems.”
What a wonderful event, interesting and welcoming people and an absolutely unforgettable time!
I am available to teach your team mitigating digital harm as a solo facilitator or how to understand user search behavior, solo or with my colleagues at the Information Architecture Gateway. Let me know if we can help.
“Tools for Accessibility” by Noreen Whysel. AI generated art produced at NightCafe Studio
I was on a call the other day where we were discussing identity services for underserved populations. Someone brought up Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) as a framework for ensuring accessible services for all.
DEI, as applied to product and service design, is a three-pronged philosophy that asks if you are assuring that diverse perspectives and lived experiences are being considered in the design of the service; whether access to the design or service is fair to all categories of people; and whether those—whose diverse experiences are considered—feel safe, welcome and included in the service and its outcome.
We discussed DEI in our group, but one person became uncomfortable, insisting that it doesn’t matter who is using the services as long as everyone can use it. He was concerned that focusing on DEI might mean that the unique needs of people, like the parent of a disabled person, would be excluded from consideration in the design of a product or service.
I thought this was an odd framing. He isn’t wrong to worry that caregivers may not have the best-designed experiences, which is why Universal Design, or design that everyone can use without impediment, is so important as a framework.
But rejecting conversations about DEI outright seems short sighted.
As a framework, I like DEI because it offers a reminder that there are people who get forgotten in the design process. It asks questions like “Who are we including?” and “Who are we leaving out?” So, my colleague’s concern about addressing the needs of the parent of a disabled person is exactly the type of inclusion issue that a DEI framework can help to identify.
It is also an area that I have been focusing on at IA Gateway with Shari Thurow and Bev Corwin. We are working on a model for a group persona that addresses the search needs of caregivers and people with a medical concern, whether a family member, acquaintance or someone in guardianship care.
I’m pleased to announce that the Charter for the Resilient Identifiers for Underserved Populations work group (RIUP WG) was approved by the Kantara Initiative Leadership Council earlier this week. This work group combines the legacy work groups (WGs) from the Identity Ecosystem Steering Group, which was formed in 2011 to provide a trust registry under the White House’s National Strategy for Trusted Identity in Cyberspace and absorbed by Kantara in 2018. I was a member of the UX Committee and wrote the User Experience Guidelines and Metrics document for the ID Ecosystem Framework Registry.
1) WG NAME (and any acronym or abbreviation of the name):Resilient Identifiers for Underserved Populations Work Group (RIUP WG)
(2) PURPOSE: The purpose of the Work Group is to support vulnerable and underserved populations in America. At a high level, these populations include those with physical and cognitive disabilities, or who are homeless, impoverished, senior citizens, immigrants, incarcerated, institutionalized and otherwise underserved minority groups that need digital credentials to access online resources; particularly, online healthcare and financial resources. Without an easily reusable identifier, it is nearly impossible for these individuals to gain secure access to the resources and services that may be available to them.
We will work, in collaboration with other private sector and public agencies towards establishing identifiers and access management (IAM) solutions that respect privacy, promote efficiency, limit redundancy, reduce barriers to use/adoption, increase interoperability, improve security, enhance safety and trust, eliminate identification errors, support resiliency, and achieve greater empowerment across the entire spectrum of online transactions. The RIUP WG will identify, coordinate, innovate and harmonize with ongoing and emerging identity initiatives, standards, and technologies, and communicate our findings to all relevant stakeholders, both in the US and, selectively, with other countries, under the leadership of the Kantara Initiative.
(3) A SCOPE – Guidelines for Cultivating a User-Centric Trust and Promoting Adoption within Underserved Communities
About “Underserved Populations”
Why does the RIUP WG use “underserved” rather than “vulnerable” when discussing the needs of healthcare populations? The US Health and Human Services tends to use “vulnerable” or “vulnerable and/or underserved” when discussing needs of people who require healthcare services but do not reflect the typical healthcare technology user.
In human subject testing, the category generally includes the elderly, poor, pregnant women, children, and infants, and recently, incarcerated people have been included in this description. But for the purposes of access to healthcare services, it also includes rural populations, those with permanent and temporary disabilities, indigenous peoples and others who may object to being described as vulnerable, yet need services that may be difficult to find, therefore rendering them “underserved.”
I had a conversation with Dana Chisnell, a founding member of the US Digital Service now serving as Deputy Design Director at US DHS, who convinced me to use “underserved” as a descriptor for identifiers. While there will still be “vulnerable populations” requiring special services, “underserved” puts the onus of care on the service provider rather than the traits of an individual which may or may not reflect their needs, abilities or level of personal agency. This work follows my research interest at the Internet Safety Lab where we are changing the conversation around digital harms, where the outcome of a service or lack of service can be harmful.
What’s Next?
RIUP WG will begin by creating guidelines for cultivating a user-centric trust registry and promoting adoption within Underserved Communities. We will publish a Use Case for Trusted Identifiers for underserved populations. And with a universal design strategy we will emphasize, highlight and prioritize user scenarios/stories from vulnerable and underserved populations to improve services for all users. We will test the use case and user stories across different verticals and persons of varying backgrounds and cultures. And we will create a dictionary that is harmonized with industry terminology.
There are a lot of initiatives that we will be watching. NIST is drafting 800-63-4 Digital Identity Guidelines, so we will work on comments on how to incorporate the needs of underserved people. The HSS Office of the National Coordinator (ONC) referenced trust registries in its work on Social Determinants of Health for Medicaid and we are participating in its information forums. We also plan to update the MAAS draft to incorporate recommendations from these efforts.
On May 5, 2022, I participated in the California Privacy Protection Agency’s (CPPA) stakeholder meeting, making a public statement about “dark patterns” which I urged them to redefine as “harmful patterns,” and suggested changes to their definitions of “Consent” and “Intentional Action.”
As Jared Spool says, we should be looking at the UX outcome of design decisions, not just the intent, as many designers adopt strategies or work with underlying technologies whose outcomes can be harmful to the technology user and other stakeholders. These UI patterns may not have the intent to do harm. Often the designers’ intent is to provide convenience or a useful service.
Take accessibility overlays that intend to provide a better experience for people with visual or cognitive disabilities but have the effect of overriding necessary controls. Even patterns that affect user behavior, like staying on a page longer, clicking on a link, accepting default cookie settings, etc. may be intended to provide convenience to users, but unknowingly to both the designer and the user, there are processes underlying many of these tools that share data and information about the transaction that can be harmful.
CPRA is defining what it means to consent to data collection and what an intentional user action is. It addresses “dark patterns” as an intentional deception, when often the digital harm is not intentional, yet is deep-rooted. We are hoping to make these harms clearer and provide guidelines for addressing them through our ISL Safe Software Specification.
Read more about the CPPA stakeholder meeting and my statement on behalf of the Internet Safety Labs (formerly the Me2B Alliance):
The Me2B Alliance is a standards development organization comprised of software engineers, policy analysts, UX experts, business and philanthropic leaders who are committed to giving individuals more say in how technology treats people. We are setting up a rigorous independent testing and certification program for websites, apps and connected devices. The Me2B Alliance is comprised of working groups for Me-s (the consumer), B-s (the business) as well as the Policy and Legal and Certification working groups. Together, we are setting the standard for Respectful Technology.
My Role
My role at the Me2B Alliance is twofold: I am leading up the Research and Validation practice to provide user experience and other research services to the various working groups, exploring questions around the consumer experience of their relationship with digital technology.
Secondly, I am developing the product integrity testing framework for digital technologies, in particular mobile apps and websites. This framework, coupled with data integrity and security testing, makes up the requirements for Me2BA certification.
User Research Methods
Ethnographic Research
I am engaging consumers in one on one conversations about their relationship with technologies they use in their day to day lives. Research questions range from and their understanding of privacy policies, terms of use agreements and other agreements they make implicitly by using a technology. for example, do users change how they interact with a website when they are familiar with the legal terms of the website? And would a score make a difference?
Preference Testing
I performed a series of tests of the certification mark to be used as a symbol of trust in connected digital technologies. This included interviews, focus groups, unmoderated 5-Second preference tests and surveys.
Product Integrity Testing
I developed a UX Integrity framework for the Me2B Safe and Respectful Technology Framework (now published as the Me2B Safe Specification). This framework was based on an applicaiton of IA heuristics to ensure that notices of data collection, use and sharing is Clear, Findable, Accessible, Credible and Communicative or understandable by a wide audience of human and machine readible or accessible devices.
Tools
Interviews and Focus Groups: Zoom, UserInterviews.com, Surveymonkey
Preference Tests and 5 Second tests: UserInterviews.com
Collaboration: Microsoft Teams, Zoom, Microsoft365, Trello, Monday
We are planning to conduct three focus groups per month of consumers and digital product designers/managers. The research will continue to evolve our understanding of how consumers experience their relationship and risks with respect to digital technologies.
Me2B Research: Consumer Views on Respectful Technology
In the research I’ve been doing on respectful technology relationships at the Me2B Alliance, it’s a combination of “I’ve got nothing to hide” and “I’ve got no other option”. People are deeply entangled in their technology relationships. Even when presented with overwhelmingly bad scores on Terms of Service and Privacy Policies, they will continue to use products they depend on or that give them access to their family, community, and in the case of Amazon an abundance of choice, entertainment and low prices. Even when they abandon a digital product or service, they are unlikely to delete their accounts. And the adtech SDKs they’ve agreed to track them keep on tracking.
My friend Austin Govella wrote today on using a kind of whole-body dot voting to teach teams to “Vote With Your Feet“. We are in a Liminal Thinking group on Facebook where he initially threw his ideas around. I was excited that he chose to add my comment about using negative dots to vote down ideas, and use them in my undergraduate UX class as a discussion point about what we Won’t do or talk about on a project.
My students get to use dot voting on the first day of our UX/UI class at CUNY CityTech, where we talk about what we are worried about for the upcoming semester. Addressing concerns and potential problems is a good exercise in most occasions, but in these days of online classes, crushing economy and pandemic, talking about our worries is particularly important. It helps to alleviate anxiety and develop a growth mindset toward the months ahead.
In this first class, the students learn about a number of design practices using a shared, online whiteboard, including brainstorming, dot voting, cluster analysis, and Kanban as part of a pre-mortem exercise on what can go wrong with the class. (I learned this exercise while teaching with Jimmy Chandler at the New York Code and Design Academy and modified it for online classes).
To begin, students use virtual sticky notes to write down their concerns about the coming semester. Then the students attach green and red mini circles, three each, to vote on which issues they want to discuss and which ones they don’t. Then we use Kanban (To do, Doing, Done) to keep the discussion orderly.
When I used the technique earlier on, I allowed each student three dots to vote on ideas that they want to discuss. There are usually concerns expressed that are common students commuting to our downtown Brooklyn campus, like getting to class on time (what if the subway breaks down? what if my work goes overtime?), having too much homework (it is a lot of homework, tbh), or dealing with a teammate that doesn’t pull their share (this happens on the job, too, unfortunately). It was OK. But these concerns, being fairly common are covered in the syllabus in the items about time management, group behavior and attendance, so the discussion becomes somewhat procedural.
There are of course new and now-common issues this semester about logging into school instead of commuting, managing family and job expectations, particularly for those students whose families rely on their job income and dealing with the combined stress of school, real and potential loss of family members (at least two of my students had a COVID death in the family and many have been displaced or ill), and just living in the 2020 political and budgetary climate. These issues are very personal and went largely unspoken but manifested as concerns about deadlines, time management and doubts that they have the skills it takes to be successful.
By allowing the students to select some issues that are not particularly a concern was a new idea and I found it especially interesting to explore them with the class. So along with items that have a lot of upvotes, I also selected items that have some upvotes, but also a few downvotes (more than one downvote, so as not to put any one person on the spot).
“Not a Concern” is key phrasing. For the upvote dots, I told the students to “mark items they want to talk about.” For downvote dots, the instructions are “mark items that are Not a Concern.” Te fact that someone wrote the issue on a sticky note in the first place means it is a concern for some students. I inferred from the “Not a Concern” votes that maybe there are people who have discovered ways to deal with the problem.
And for a teacher, it highlights differences in each class (there are always differences) that point to certain pedagogical approaches. For instance in one section the most up-voted concern was “potential weakness in design skills.” In the other section, a similar issue got a lot of down-votes. I wanted to know what was going on so made sure to expand on that concern in the second week’s discussion and begin a discussion of skills development, the importance of practice, and imposter syndrome.
This then becomes an opportunity for a discussion of growth. I tell them to ask themselves, How can I, as a student in a rigorous BFA program, discover ways to develop perspective so I understand where the doubt is coming from? How can I build confidence? Through practice, time management and simply being honest about the particularly stressful challenges this world is throwing at us and asking for help.
