We did research and planning around public access, but we learned that partners are not sophisticated enough to benefit from using Pelican directly (it was quite hard to recruit interviewees).
there was not a concrete need for a tool like Pelican as the participants in the study were grappling with much more fundamental data quality issues. Pelican was too far ahead in terms of their needs.
OCP should therefore continue to use it internally, and share prioritized feedback.
The research does identify some usability issues that could benefit internal users – but internal users can also learn some of the idiosyncrasies (e.g. the icons used to re-order field-level checks).
We did research and planning around public access, but we learned that partners are not sophisticated enough to benefit from using Pelican directly (it was quite hard to recruit interviewees).
OCP should therefore continue to use it internally, and share prioritized feedback.
The research does identify some usability issues that could benefit internal users – but internal users can also learn some of the idiosyncrasies (e.g. the icons used to re-order field-level checks).