Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Awhitty pra blog edits #1060

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jan 16, 2025
Merged

Awhitty pra blog edits #1060

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
3bb38f5
Merge pull request #1059 from usds/staging
amwhitty Jan 10, 2025
5eed634
NMoore edits
amwhitty Jan 16, 2025
c963f23
NMoore edits
amwhitty Jan 16, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
16 changes: 8 additions & 8 deletions _news-and-blog/2024-08-19-user-research-and-the-paperwork-reduction-act.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ Specifically, there are activities common in user research that **do not** requi

- Asking people non-standardized questions as part of a one-on-one research session (i.e., asking people questions orally, in an unstructured way, about navigating government benefits or signing up for an appointment). “Non-standardized,” in this context, means the questions asked vary from person to person, and are not drawn from a list of identical questions posed in every research session.

Unlike methods that constitute information collection and require PRA clearance (for example, surveys or large focus groups with a set of the same questions or tasks), these types of research conversations (direct observations or one-on-one sessions with non-standardized questions) do not require PRA approval, regardless of the number of users ultimately involved in the research.
Unlike methods that constitute information collection and require PRA clearance (for example, surveys or large focus groups with a set of the same questions or tasks), these types of research conversations (direct observations or one-on-one sessions with non-standardized questions) do not require PRA approval, regardless of the number of users ultimately involved in the research. On November 19, 2024 this was further clarified in a [briefing room](https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-room/2024/11/21/ensuring-effective-and-timely-usability-research/){:target="blank"} blog by the White House and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and in this [Usability Testing memo](https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/PRA-Usability-Testing-Guidance-Memo.pdf){:target="blank"}.

Direct observations and one-on-one feedback sessions can be more valuable than [focus groups](https://www.nngroup.com/articles/focus-groups-definition/){:target="blank"} or [surveys](https://www.nngroup.com/articles/should-you-run-a-survey/){:target="blank"}, since they may provide a deeper understanding of people’s behavior rather than feelings and opinions and showcase what's working well, what isn't, and why. You can learn more about talking to people with [tips](https://www.dhs.gov/cx/how-do-I-talk-to-customers){:target="blank"} from the Department of Homeland Security.

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ During the second round of research, the main focus was observing individuals as

**Why did the PRA not cover this research?**

In this project, the DOL directly observed the experiences of program applicants and participants and asked non-standardized questions on a particular process, theme, or issue without any specification of the information being sought. [See 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(3).](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-1320){:target="blank"}
In this project, the DOL directly observed the experiences of program applicants and participants and asked non-standardized questions on a particular process, theme, or issue without any specification of the information being sought. [See 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(3)](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-1320){:target="blank"}. This type of research was also PRA exempt because it involved usability testing a website. [See White House and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs memo](https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/PRA-Usability-Testing-Guidance-Memo.pdf){:target="blank"}.

### Case study 2: Conducting user research for a new application launch

Expand All @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ Many Veterans found the health care application process at the VA frustrating. M

**Solution**

The team developed a new, user-friendly online application that doesn't require a certain software to use. For more details, check out the [USDS blog post](https://medium.com/the-u-s-digital-service/introducing-a-new-digital-application-for-healthcare-at-va-610d8bac4c78), "Introducing a new digital application for healthcare at VA."
The team developed a new, user-friendly online application that doesn't require a certain software to use. For more details, check out the [USDS blog post](https://medium.com/the-u-s-digital-service/introducing-a-new-digital-application-for-healthcare-at-va-610d8bac4c78){:target="blank"}, "Introducing a new digital application for healthcare at VA."


**User research**
Expand All @@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ The team observed Veterans using the existing application to identify pain point

**Why did the PRA not cover this research?**

In this project, the VA directly observed the experiences of program applicants and participants and engaged in unstructured one-on-one interactions. They asked non-standardized questions on a particular process, theme, or issue without any specification of the information being sought. [See 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(3).](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-1320){:target="blank"}
In this project, the VA directly observed the experiences of program applicants and participants and engaged in unstructured one-on-one interactions. They asked non-standardized questions on a particular process, theme, or issue without any specification of the information being sought. [See 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(3)](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-1320){:target="blank"}. This type of research was also PRA exempt because it involved usability testing an online application. [See White House and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Usability Testing memo](https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/PRA-Usability-Testing-Guidance-Memo.pdf){:target="blank"}.

### Case study 3: Conducting user research to inform policy and strategy

Expand All @@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ The team met one-on-one with current sponsors to learn about their experience an

**Why the PRA did not cover this research?**

In this project, the team observed the experiences of sponsors and potential sponsors and engaged in unstructured one-on-one interactions. They asked non-standardized questions on a particular process, theme, or issue without any specification of the information being sought. [See 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(3).](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-1320){:target="blank"}
In this project, the team observed the experiences of sponsors and potential sponsors and engaged in unstructured one-on-one interactions. They asked non-standardized questions on a particular process, theme, or issue without any specification of the information being sought. [See 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(3)](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-1320){:target="blank"}.

### Case study 4: Conducting user research to streamline digital experiences

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ The team performed user research throughout the year by working with non-profits

**Why the PRA did not cover this research?**

In this project, the groups directly observed the experiences of program applicants and participants. They asked non-standardized questions on a particular process, theme, or issue without any specification of the information being sought. [See 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(3).](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-1320){:target="blank"}
In this project, the groups directly observed the experiences of program applicants and participants. They asked non-standardized questions on a particular process, theme, or issue without any specification of the information being sought. [See 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(3)](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-1320){:target="blank"}. This type of research was also PRA exempt because it involved usability testing text messages. [See White House and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Usability Testing memo](https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/PRA-Usability-Testing-Guidance-Memo.pdf){:target="blank"}.


### Case study 6: Conducting user research with internal users of a system
Expand All @@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ ORR contacted case workers nationwide and observed them filling out both version

**Why did the PRA not cover this research?**

In this project, the ORR directly observed case workers (not federal employees) using a form via one-on-one interviews to understand any usability concerns. They asked non-standardized questions on a particular process, theme, or issue without any specification of the information being sought. [See 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(3).](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-1320){:target="blank"}
In this project, the ORR directly observed case workers (not federal employees) using a form via one-on-one interviews to understand any usability concerns. They asked non-standardized questions on a particular process, theme, or issue without any specification of the information being sought. [See 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(3)](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-1320){:target="blank"}. This type of research was also PRA exempt because it involved usability testing a form. [See White House and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Usability Testing memo](https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/PRA-Usability-Testing-Guidance-Memo.pdf){:target="blank"}.

### Case study 7: Conducting user research with students and families

Expand All @@ -269,7 +269,7 @@ Based on this research, the team developed a College Scorecard prototype and the

**Why did the PRA not cover this research**?

In this project, the Department of Education directly observed the program applicants and participants engaging with the College Scorecard. The Department of Education also asked non-standardized questions on a particular process, theme, or issue without any specification of the information being sought. See [5 CFR 1320.3(h)(3).](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-1320){:target="blank"}
In this project, the Department of Education directly observed the program applicants and participants engaging with the College Scorecard. The Department of Education also asked non-standardized questions on a particular process, theme, or issue without any specification of the information being sought. [See 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(3)](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-1320){:target="blank"}. This type of research was also PRA exempt because it involved usability testing a website. [See White House and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Usability Testing memo](https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/PRA-Usability-Testing-Guidance-Memo.pdf){:target="blank"}.

## Ready to conduct user research?

Expand Down
Loading