search

hackforla / expunge-assist

Expunge Assist is a free digital tool specifically designed to aid Californians with arrest and conviction histories in clearing their criminal records.
https://expungeassist.org
36 stars 17 forks source link

Content Terminology Research #999

Closed sofialaguna closed 2 months ago

sofialaguna commented 10 months ago

Overview

We are conducting research to evaluate the terminology used on the Expunge Assist website related to 3 key terms.

Content request for this issue is for research into three specific terms and their nuances, including contextual information. The information will be used by content together with plain language, trauma informed, and conscious language principles to iterate the best terminology for our user, and it should be legally correct. Those terms are in the research plan linked in the action items, and more briefly here:

  1. What do we call the process (expungement, record clearance, something else)
  2. What do we call the user (justice-impacted individual, people/folks with criminal records, something else)
  3. What do we call the thing they write (declaration, personal statement, letter, etc.)

Action Items

Resources/Instructions

Deliverable is the 3 key terms and relevant research to assist in understanding, reasoning, and using them.

SamHyler commented 9 months ago

Notes from the first meeting:

Hey team, thanks for everything today! We are working in this Figjam section: https://www.figma.com/file/SRsM0BvWhtmFwpg23bKTLB/EA-Collaboration-(Design%2FContent)?type=whiteboard&node-id=2414-6109&t=iCAyVv9c21W7h2r8-4 First, Deadlines: Thursday (Aug 31), have column 1 filled in. Everyone will look through the whole site (click EVERYTHING). Reminder, you can push “1” into all fields of the letter generator to get through it quick, doesn’t matter. Don’t duplicate terms, but give a thumbs up with your face/initial stamp (stamps are at the bottom toolbar, pops up as a circle wheel) or write in the discrepancy column if you find something else. Then we evaluate and choose who will look at which competitor site Monday (Sept 4), have column 2 filled in. Work will be divided We can meet after Monday to evaluate our work and move forward. I’ll send a new lettucemeet later. Today we discussed the following potential methods for a multi-pronged approach: use existing surveys with a new distribution approach, in a more casual manner subject matter/expert interview(s) (I think a couple people of EA have a couple of contacts). So a lawyer, clinic, or person with a record all fit here. Can be 1 or 2 interviews for ex. Desk research doing content analysis with a quant. count of legal vs colloquial terms encountered A/B testing in some form, i.e. side by side comparisons of a page (for ex the landing page (LP)) and ask users to pick which one makes most sense to them/preference and why. Would be helpful to ask users with criminal records or legal backgrounds to fill it in. Other: Survey with folks who DON’T have criminal records to understand what would be the most plain language approach ---> This might be in conjunction with understanding what Dev is willing to build (hover over or glossary for Content to explain terms for ex). Dev could create a test environment to test out hover over or other features

SamHyler commented 9 months ago

content should look at this issue after this one is done https://github.com/hackforla/expunge-assist/issues/478

SamHyler commented 9 months ago

Notes from second meeting:

Huge thanks everyone! Here’s the notes and plan from today: Meet next week to check in. Tasks for that meeting:

  1. Sam will start the research plan (RP) and have a plan for peer review
  2. Everyone finish their sections on the FigJam board
  3. Everyone consider if they have a contact to interview
  4. Bring the user personas to the meeting and begin thinking about who we would want to talk to and why, and if our existing contacts fit the criteria Today we discussed creating a short research plan. In the plan we can define the 3 questions we are seeking answers to (already in the Figjam more informally written). Methods we will use now:
  5. Audit (done - ish) our site and competitors/context analysis
  6. Work with personas to build criteria for who we will interview
  7. By gathering who we already know, interview key persons who are subject matter experts (20 min, anonymous interviews, possibly 1 person interviewing 1 person notetaking, varies by person) . Discussing if we need to interview more than these people
  8. Sending out the existing interviews internally to HfLA We will also need to discuss and write in the RP our analysis methods and deliverables.
sylvia-nam commented 3 months ago

Here is the updated glossary

SamHyler commented 2 months ago

Edited issue for accuracy and clarity

sylvia-nam commented 2 months ago

@SamHyler Since the issue was closed, can you create a new issue with the requested deliverable?

amejiamesinas commented 2 months ago

@sylvia-nam @SamHyler I reopened issue, so no need for a new issue. We can continue to work from here.

sylvia-nam commented 2 months ago

@SamHyler Can you specify what you mean by the deliverable? I am doing a slide deck and presentation for Friday. The UXR glossary contains the terms you note with the exception of what to call the user.

amejiamesinas commented 2 months ago

@sylvia-nam yes, this is my understanding of the deliverable

SamHyler commented 2 months ago

@sylvia-nam The deliverable would be a response to the questions, goals, and background in the research plan that the UXR team created together in the Fall linked above. All 3 terms were chosen in response to results from IUT 1 and 2 and goals for stakeholder 1. So deliverable here relates to the 3 key terms.

The glossary is a deliverable for the glossary collab issue(s), currently under review to create clarity, we will discuss soon. These 3 terms will be part of future glossary.

Deliverable formats are for UXR to decide, but happy to work across the teams with you over time if you want to learn together about what processes for delivering research results has the most impact in UX and for the product. I think it would be fun and interesting in Design and Content as well to learn about and develop handover practices together.

sylvia-nam commented 2 months ago

Comments from @SamHyler on Google doc: Thanks Sylvia, I appreciate your work and knowledge in expungement, it will help EA a lot. I addressed both old glossary docs for Content and am reviewing and updating the glossary issue for the Stakeholder 2 milestone as I get a chance to look at it all. Will get back to you there soon for crossfunctional discussions.

For now, it could be helpful if we can separate the glossary work from other ongoing work. A glossary should read as Term - definition - explanation/similar terms/etc. In list form, something like the original doc, with a clear header/overview section, with any contextual or other research materials that help explain nuances and so forth in another relevant section, and including a reference section to document for future teams. The glossary has a very specific functional need for Dev and Content to create tool tips at a later stage. More about that when we get to discussions about the glossary issue.

The to-do, research and strategy, interview phase type sections in this document can be better placed in another document to assist with clarity in this document, as they don't pertain to a glossary, but rather research strategy and other tasks. But from reading this, and our discussions, I know there is ongoing research into expungement processes, and legal information, and also a need to disseminate that research to the teams. I think you are already working on that and have a separate issue for it. It could be helpful to separate that work from the glossary work for legibility. I'm seeing a lot of good information in this doc around expungement and laws, so my suggestion is that expungement foundational research and clarity/team education should be step 1, and is a separate github issue (likely the one you've already created), that will be the basis to inform the glossary and other potential initiatives. Much of this document seems to belong better to the 1214 issue you've created in UXR here: https://github.com/hackforla/expunge-assist/issues/1214.

sylvia-nam commented 2 months ago

@amejiamesinas @SamHyler @emmathrash: The next steps should be to clarify responsibilities and the direction of the what and how of the ask. The UXR glossary was originally tied to this issue, and was 1 of 4 docs. It is the UXR glossary. The other document is Content glossary, which can be amended according to what the Content co-leads and team (which you list in the instructions listed here).

SamHyler commented 2 months ago

Comments from @SamHyler on Google doc: Thanks Sylvia, I appreciate your work and knowledge in expungement, it will help EA a lot. I addressed both old glossary docs for Content and am reviewing and updating the glossary issue for the Stakeholder 2 milestone as I get a chance to look at it all. Will get back to you there soon for crossfunctional discussions.

For now, it could be helpful if we can separate the glossary work from other ongoing work. A glossary should read as Term - definition - explanation/similar terms/etc. In list form, something like the original doc, with a clear header/overview section, with any contextual or other research materials that help explain nuances and so forth in another relevant section, and including a reference section to document for future teams. The glossary has a very specific functional need for Dev and Content to create tool tips at a later stage. More about that when we get to discussions about the glossary issue.

The to-do, research and strategy, interview phase type sections in this document can be better placed in another document to assist with clarity in this document, as they don't pertain to a glossary, but rather research strategy and other tasks. But from reading this, and our discussions, I know there is ongoing research into expungement processes, and legal information, and also a need to disseminate that research to the teams. I think you are already working on that and have a separate issue for it. It could be helpful to separate that work from the glossary work for legibility. I'm seeing a lot of good information in this doc around expungement and laws, so my suggestion is that expungement foundational research and clarity/team education should be step 1, and is a separate github issue (likely the one you've already created), that will be the basis to inform the glossary and other potential initiatives. Much of this document seems to belong better to the 1214 issue you've created in UXR here: https://github.com/hackforla/expunge-assist/issues/1214.

Yes, these (above) are my comments on the UXR glossary which is one part of issues 478 and 409.

@sylvia-nam Yes, the glossary work is part of the next steps after this issue, and those next steps are in other issues (main, epic). There will be other work from here as well, Content will be implementing the results across the site by updating the terminology used and noting which terms will be used/why/etc. in our Content Guidelines to create and maintain consistency.

sylvia-nam commented 2 months ago

@sylvia-nam The deliverable would be a response to the questions, goals, and background in the research plan that the UXR team created together in the Fall linked above. All 3 terms were chosen in response to results from IUT 1 and 2 and goals for stakeholder 1. So deliverable here relates to the 3 key terms.

@SamHyler Here's the draft of the slide deck I am presenting to Open Sync on Friday, which @amejiamesinas noted would be the deliverable requested by Content

sylvia-nam commented 2 months ago

Refer to #1353 for next steps

sylvia-nam commented 2 months ago

Two deliverables: 1) UXR glossary, 2) slide deck.