If users need or want to provide longer and more complex responses. They need help in focusing on relevant points and structuring their response.
Those reading the answers would also benefit from users answers being more focused and structured in a consistent format.
How it works
SSCS - Submit your appeal
For an appeal to be valid citizens need to give reasons for their appeal. It's in their interest to provide a focussed reason, so a judge is able to make an informed decision on how to progress their appeal.
In the SSCS paper form, users are asked to enter their 'Grounds for appeal' in a big white box. This is intimidating and they are often not sure what to write.
For the digital service, we looked at how we could assist users in completing this part of the form. The service cannot provide advice on what to write as this would compromise its impartiality.
Instead, in the online form, users are advised on what to respond to i.e. 'Read your MRN or the decision letter and write what you disagree with and why.'
The 'What' and 'Why' form fields then provide the structure for their response. Users are able to add multiple reasons using the 'Add another' button.
We tested a design which collapsed the previous answer into an accordion each time the users added another. This simplfied the display and reduced clutter but for our less digitally capable users they found this disorientating and confusing. We therefore decided to move forward with the simpler list of fields design. With this design users are able to scan all their answers check for duplication and consistence and easily edit between fields.
We haven't included a 'Remove' link so individual reasons can be deleted. As users can invest a lot oif time and mental energy into each reason we had to be careful they didn't accidently click on the remove link. A confirmation or 'are you sure' pattern could be added in a future iteration but this was prioritised for our project.
Research
We have researched ‘reasons for appealing’ with citizens, Welfare Rights Groups, Judicial members and our judicial stakeholders to develop ‘reasons for appealing’ to work for all. A common theme found was that citizens single white box on the paper form incredibly difficult to fill in. They did not know what they need to provide for this, how to articulate themselves and need help to answer this. Those with mental and / or physical health conditions shut off for days to answer this question. Citizens experienced anxiety and confusion over what to write. Many needed the help of a supporter or representative.
During the research, most users could explain in conversation their condition and how it affects their life but found it very difficult to articulate in writing. When completing this part of the paper form many citizens told us they’d write out answers in draft form on paper then deliberate for days before attempting to fill in the white text box on the actual paper form. In some cases they’d use separate pieces of paper as the white text box on the paper form was too small. Others would use one or two words or sentences. Another common problem for our participants is that not all MRNs are as detailed as each other, nor are they easy to understand. No matter how much we have tried to simplify the concept of a ‘reasons for appealing’ during our research and iteration, some participants always had some difficulty articulating their reasons for appealing.
We explored various ways to provide some level of direction and structure to the users answers researching and iterating from initial sketches to a paper prototype. Options included asking users:
What they disagree with in the MRN and why
Tell us about each medical condition and how it affects them (no MRN ref)
Anything DWP didn’t take account of and how it affects them
Tell us about the assessment descriptors they feel haven’t been taken into account (options which do / don’t require reference to the MRN)
Following feedback from judges and other stakeholders 3 options were tested with users
Option 1: asked what you disagree with and why
Option 2: ask about their medical condition/s and how this affected their life
Option 3: provided a list of pre-defined descriptors that users can select and provide more details on accordingly
We received a positive reaction to all three but the ‘what you disagree with and why’ design solution tested most positively with users and was built as a digital prototype. What was clear is that all participants responded well to being asked what they disagreed with and why with direction to refer to their MRN for guidance.
Further research and iterations have primarily focused on the interactions which enable users to:
Add multiple reasons for appealing
Review and edit answers before continuing
Through research and iteration, we have provided a solution that strives to give citizens structure and focus on what’s relevant in their MRN to enable them to provide reasons for the appeal. We refer them to their MRN letter to see how the decision was made and ask what citizens disagree with and why in terms of the DWP’s decision on their entitlement to a benefit type. We enable them to add as many things as they want in terms of what they disagree with about the DWP’s decision.
In research, this had positive feedback with participants, Welfare Rights Groups and Judicial members. Participants understood what they are being asked to do and were able to provide an answer of some sort, rather than not doing so as seen before in earlier research rounds. They responded well to being asked what they disagreed with and why, with the direction to refer to their MRN for guidance. They can choose how much they write to support their appeal but the text boxes are designed to a size that does not overwhelm them. They have a better idea of where to begin and what to focus on, and felt less scared about what to write and where to start.
Judges and DWP have reported that Reasons for appealing submitted through SYA are more focused and relevant which has helped them make more informed decisions.
When to use this pattern
If users need or want to provide longer and more complex responses. They need help in focusing on relevant points and structuring their response.
Those reading the answers would also benefit from users answers being more focused and structured in a consistent format.
How it works SSCS - Submit your appeal For an appeal to be valid citizens need to give reasons for their appeal. It's in their interest to provide a focussed reason, so a judge is able to make an informed decision on how to progress their appeal.
In the SSCS paper form, users are asked to enter their 'Grounds for appeal' in a big white box. This is intimidating and they are often not sure what to write.
For the digital service, we looked at how we could assist users in completing this part of the form. The service cannot provide advice on what to write as this would compromise its impartiality.
Instead, in the online form, users are advised on what to respond to i.e. 'Read your MRN or the decision letter and write what you disagree with and why.'
The 'What' and 'Why' form fields then provide the structure for their response. Users are able to add multiple reasons using the 'Add another' button.
We tested a design which collapsed the previous answer into an accordion each time the users added another. This simplfied the display and reduced clutter but for our less digitally capable users they found this disorientating and confusing. We therefore decided to move forward with the simpler list of fields design. With this design users are able to scan all their answers check for duplication and consistence and easily edit between fields.
We haven't included a 'Remove' link so individual reasons can be deleted. As users can invest a lot oif time and mental energy into each reason we had to be careful they didn't accidently click on the remove link. A confirmation or 'are you sure' pattern could be added in a future iteration but this was prioritised for our project.
Research We have researched ‘reasons for appealing’ with citizens, Welfare Rights Groups, Judicial members and our judicial stakeholders to develop ‘reasons for appealing’ to work for all. A common theme found was that citizens single white box on the paper form incredibly difficult to fill in. They did not know what they need to provide for this, how to articulate themselves and need help to answer this. Those with mental and / or physical health conditions shut off for days to answer this question. Citizens experienced anxiety and confusion over what to write. Many needed the help of a supporter or representative.
During the research, most users could explain in conversation their condition and how it affects their life but found it very difficult to articulate in writing. When completing this part of the paper form many citizens told us they’d write out answers in draft form on paper then deliberate for days before attempting to fill in the white text box on the actual paper form. In some cases they’d use separate pieces of paper as the white text box on the paper form was too small. Others would use one or two words or sentences. Another common problem for our participants is that not all MRNs are as detailed as each other, nor are they easy to understand. No matter how much we have tried to simplify the concept of a ‘reasons for appealing’ during our research and iteration, some participants always had some difficulty articulating their reasons for appealing.
We explored various ways to provide some level of direction and structure to the users answers researching and iterating from initial sketches to a paper prototype. Options included asking users:
Following feedback from judges and other stakeholders 3 options were tested with users
We received a positive reaction to all three but the ‘what you disagree with and why’ design solution tested most positively with users and was built as a digital prototype. What was clear is that all participants responded well to being asked what they disagreed with and why with direction to refer to their MRN for guidance.
Further research and iterations have primarily focused on the interactions which enable users to:
Through research and iteration, we have provided a solution that strives to give citizens structure and focus on what’s relevant in their MRN to enable them to provide reasons for the appeal. We refer them to their MRN letter to see how the decision was made and ask what citizens disagree with and why in terms of the DWP’s decision on their entitlement to a benefit type. We enable them to add as many things as they want in terms of what they disagree with about the DWP’s decision.
In research, this had positive feedback with participants, Welfare Rights Groups and Judicial members. Participants understood what they are being asked to do and were able to provide an answer of some sort, rather than not doing so as seen before in earlier research rounds. They responded well to being asked what they disagreed with and why, with the direction to refer to their MRN for guidance. They can choose how much they write to support their appeal but the text boxes are designed to a size that does not overwhelm them. They have a better idea of where to begin and what to focus on, and felt less scared about what to write and where to start.
Judges and DWP have reported that Reasons for appealing submitted through SYA are more focused and relevant which has helped them make more informed decisions.
Research on Confluence PB Sprint 03 | Fox Court / Liverpool Tribunal | SSCS1 Form Research
PB Sprint 03 | NHS Maudsley Hospital | SSCS1 Form Research
PB Sprint 04 | Lab Research Outputs: London | SSCS1 Form Experiences
PB Sprint 05 | SSCS1 Form Lab Testing | Paper Prototype: Iteration 1 | London
PB Sprint 06 | SSCS1 Form Review | Paper Prototype: Iteration 2 | CAB London
PB Sprint 07 | SSCS1 Form Review | Paper Prototype: Iteration 2 | NHS South Maudsley Hospital | London
PB Sprint 14 | Online Submission Prototype | Iteration 2 | Grounds For Appeal / Hearing Dates
PB Sprint 35 | Online Submission Prototype | Iteration 10 | Appellants | London
PB Sprint 36 | Online Submission pilot review | West Midlands appellants | Wolverhampton
PB Sprint 36 | Online Submission pilot review | Appellants with assistive technology in their own homes | Bristol
PB Sprint 37 | Online Submission prototype | Assisted digital support model testing | West Midlands appellants | Balsall Heath, Birmingham