#codeforall

What did we do last week? Mostly sent email. Emails, emails, emails. Basically this was me:

Ok, wait. Not interesting? Let’s talk instead about the purpose of these emails: planning and coordinating our UX Research. And more specifically, on ensuring that we are able to hear from a diverse and representative group of users as we move forward.

User Experience Research is about understanding and placing your users at the centre of design. It’s about listening (and then designing!) with empathy, making sure that you’re building a product that is relevant and really meets their underlying needs. It’s about making something delightful that excites them or, perhaps, maybe making their experience so seamless that they don’t even really think about the design at all.

But the thing is that, unless you’re marketing your product to a very specific segment of people, user needs can vary greatly. And unfortunately, our biases - and, let’s be real, systemic marginalization - mean that we often miss surfacing the needs of certain user populations. 

We’ve all heard by now about how office air conditioners are often set for the metabolic needs of men, leaving workers of other genders wearing blankets at their desk during summer (I am wearing one right now!) and, with more serious (and less fashionable) consequences, crash test dummies are based on men’s average weight and proportions, leaving others more vulnerable during an accident. There’s also the story of the soap dispenser that didn’t register the hands of black users. Yikes.

This is what happens when your research and testing does not take into account the varying needs of users. And when we’re talking about government services, accessibility and usability across a broad range of geographies and demographics is key - at the risk of perpetuating or exacerbating the exclusion of certain communities.  

Of course, empathy has limits, and the best way to ensure that design is inclusive is to have a diverse and representative design team. But in the absence of that possibility, the next best thing is to make sure that diverse voices are heard, that their needs are taken into consideration, and that products be built with them and not for them.

Ensuring that you have a diverse, representative sample of users for research is essential, and it may require extra time, resources, and consideration dedicated to planning. This is what we spent much of last week doing.

In our context, we’re lucky that our product has a fairly well-defined group of users; rather than designing for the Canadian public at large, as many government services target, our product is for organizations who are seeking PHAC funding. But right now, most of the funded organizations PHAC works with are based in Vancouver, Toronto and Ottawa. 

It should be fairly straightforward, both logistically and content-wise, to talk to urban-based organizations to understand what they’d like to see from an updated application process. But what about organizations outside of major urban Canadian centres? Who can we talk to from up North, from Atlantic Canada, from Francophone Canada, from rural communities, from Indigenous communities? How might their needs differ? How can we not only make the process better for current applicants, but actually encourage a broader range of applicants to apply?

The designer on our team, Rosemarie, encouraged us to think about “Extremes and Mainstreams” in our user research recruitment. In other words, how can we make sure we include the voices of users who experience significant barriers to the current process? Like, maybe poor Internet access or digital literacy levels. According to the Extremes and Mainstreams methodology, “an idea that suits an extreme user will nearly certainly work for the majority of others. And without understanding what people on the far reaches of your solution need, you’ll never arrive at solutions that can work for everyone.”

So last week, we dedicated a lot of time and energy to identify organizations across geographies and demographics to help us answer these questions. We also spent some time learning from other government departments - Natural  Resources Canada, for example - who already work closely with Indigenous communities on grants and contributions programs to help us anticipate the issues that may arise and make sure we get the most out of our conversations with these users.

We know it’s worth the effort to ensure that new government services are informed by the experiences of more than just easy-to-access organizations in major Canadian cities. We can’t wait to share with you the findings of our research across diverse and representative user groups!

Welcome to our Code for Canada: Ontario Team blog! 

There is such an amazing civic-tech community in Canada and across the world and we’re excited to contribute and participate as part of the inaugural Code for Canada fellowship!

Throughout our fellowship term we’ll be sharing our thoughts, learnings, and other interesting moments on this blog. 

So, who’s on the team?

There are 3 of us on the Ontario team: Christine Lee (Product Manager), Santiago Mendoza (Developer), and Sophie Sengmany (UX Designer). 

(...am realizing we don’t have a proper team pic yet. In the mean time, here’s an elevator selfie!)

What are we working on?

We’re excited to be working with Ontario’s Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development to build solutions that improve the adult education experience.