Project overview |
Language impacts how people feel and think and can make people feel like they belong, or it can be used to discriminate. For this reason, developing accessible resources on inclusive language is essential. On this project, I worked as the lead UX researcher at the Haas Center for Equity, Gender, and Leadership to convert their academic inclusive language framework into a simple how-to guide that everyone can use.
|
ChallengeWe began with an inclusive language framework developed by a team of academic and industry leaders, which wasn't designed with a lay audience in mind. Our UX research aimed to assess user reaction to the current framework to identify necessary changes to make it accessible to a broad, non-academic audience. What aspects of the framework resonate with users, and what pain points do they encounter?
|
SolutionBy conducting iterative user research with a diverse group of participants, we uncovered several ways in which the framework needed improvement, especially to be useful for users early in their inclusive language journey or those who weren't from the US. Based on our data, we identified 3 groups of actionable insights, which led us to redesign the guide in a way that made it empowering, clear, and engaging to users of diverse backgrounds.
|
Methods
|
Tools
|
Team
|
My role
- I was the lead UX researcher on the project, preparing the user testing plan and materials and facilitating all user testing sessions.
- I identified target research participants to ensure that we recruited and engaged a diverse group of people for user research.
- I synthesized 150+ data points, analyzed them, and identified 3 groups of actionable insights.
- I presented these findings to 12 key stakeholders and workshopped with them to determine how the guide should be re-designed.
- I leveraged my linguistic expertise to contribute content design for the re-design.
My process
To begin the user research process, I worked with the project manager and a UX designer to identify diverse target research participants. We took a broad, global perspective, since landscape analysis revealed that the majority of existing resources were highly US- and tech-centric. Target participants covered a range in terms of age, gender, race, ethnicity, education level, occupation, disability status, and language background, since these factors can all color a person's experience with language.
Next, we recruited participants based on our targets and prepared research materials. Working across multiple countries and time zones, we scheduled 5 research sessions--both in-person and remote--with 20 participants total.
I led preparation of the research plan and materials. Our first round of user research involved:
When planning this round of research, I wanted to ensure that we could collect multiple different kinds of data without overwhelming participants or making them feel uncomfortable—for instance, by creating opportunities for participants to share spoken and written feedback depending on what they were most comfortable with.
Next, we recruited participants based on our targets and prepared research materials. Working across multiple countries and time zones, we scheduled 5 research sessions--both in-person and remote--with 20 participants total.
I led preparation of the research plan and materials. Our first round of user research involved:
- A pre-survey to collect demographic information and details about participants' language backgrounds
- A 1-hour research session with activities to prompt different types of interaction with the framework and quick "mood checks" to gauge participants' emotional responses at various points in the session
- An immediate post-survey to capture additional information about participants' experiences during the session
When planning this round of research, I wanted to ensure that we could collect multiple different kinds of data without overwhelming participants or making them feel uncomfortable—for instance, by creating opportunities for participants to share spoken and written feedback depending on what they were most comfortable with.
Next, I facilitated all research sessions, leading activities with participants and managing participant compensation. These sessions involved intentionally small groups of participants to encourage them to interact with each other and the framework in meaningful ways. During these sessions, we guided the conversation while remaining flexible, since things didn't always go to plan, but participants often expressed valuable insights during digressions. We also made sure to ask probing questions to clarify participant feedback without taking over the conversation in a way that would stifle participant involvement.
We then analyzed the data from these research sessions, synthesizing 150+ data points into 3 groups of actionable insights. Based on our findings, some key successes of the framework were:
However, participants faced some challenges when using the framework like:
Many of these challenges were particularly striking for participants early in their inclusive language journey or those who weren't as familiar with the US cultural context.
We compiled our results into a report with prioritized recommendations for improving the guide, which we presented to the group of academic and industry leaders who created the original inclusive language framework. We walked them through our research process and findings—including quotes from participants to build empathy with users--and got leadership buy-in on the necessary changes.
- The framework sparked curiosity about inclusive language.
- The framework's principles of inclusive language resonated across the board.
- Users found the framework helpful for structuring conversations on inclusive language.
However, participants faced some challenges when using the framework like:
- The framework didn't provide enough complexity for identity-related terms.
- The framework assumed a base level of knowledge about a term being inclusive or not.
- The framework didn't make it clear enough that there's not a single right way to use inclusive language.
Many of these challenges were particularly striking for participants early in their inclusive language journey or those who weren't as familiar with the US cultural context.
We compiled our results into a report with prioritized recommendations for improving the guide, which we presented to the group of academic and industry leaders who created the original inclusive language framework. We walked them through our research process and findings—including quotes from participants to build empathy with users--and got leadership buy-in on the necessary changes.
At this phase of the project, I took on content design responsibilities, in addition to remaining the lead UX researcher. Before implementing the recommended improvements to the guide, we completed a workshop to solidify the experience that we wanted users to have. Through this process, we honed in on a list of 5 key experience attributes:
These experience attributes influenced the message architecture that we then developed. Together, the user research insights, experience attributes, and message architecture informed subsequent design decisions to ensure that every aspect of the guide--from its content to its format--aligned with our goals.
- Empowering
- Clear
- Engaging
- Trustworthy
- Awareness-building
These experience attributes influenced the message architecture that we then developed. Together, the user research insights, experience attributes, and message architecture informed subsequent design decisions to ensure that every aspect of the guide--from its content to its format--aligned with our goals.
Next, 2 web developers joined the team to help us convert the framework into an accessible and interactive website that mitigates the challenges identified during our first round of user research.
We added context about the site's aims, use cases, and positioning, as well as an FAQ with more information about tricky subjects related to inclusive language, like identity terms. We also restructured the framework to ensure that users have access to all necessary information without becoming overwhelmed.
The framework was originally structured as a simple flowchart, with guiding questions that led to "yes" or "no" answers. However, this structure didn't leave space for the full range of responses that users could have, including "I don't know" or "I need more information". To support these responses, we redesigned the guide as a journey map, which expands as the user responds to each question. This redesign allows for more flexible user responses, better conveys that learning about inclusive language is a process, and limits the amount of information that a user encounters at once, lessening their cognitive load.
We added context about the site's aims, use cases, and positioning, as well as an FAQ with more information about tricky subjects related to inclusive language, like identity terms. We also restructured the framework to ensure that users have access to all necessary information without becoming overwhelmed.
The framework was originally structured as a simple flowchart, with guiding questions that led to "yes" or "no" answers. However, this structure didn't leave space for the full range of responses that users could have, including "I don't know" or "I need more information". To support these responses, we redesigned the guide as a journey map, which expands as the user responds to each question. This redesign allows for more flexible user responses, better conveys that learning about inclusive language is a process, and limits the amount of information that a user encounters at once, lessening their cognitive load.
With the redesigned framework in hand, we conducted another round of user research to ensure that the redesigned framework successfully mitigated the original challenges and to identify additional areas for improvement. In this round of testing, we completed five 1-on-1 interviews with people who participated in the first round of research, as well as 3 group interviews with new participants. Speaking with participants who were familiar with the original framework allowed us to ask targeted questions about how the experience changed across sessions, while the new participants provided a fresh, unbiased perspective on our redesigned tool.
Next steps
Some next steps for the development of the inclusive language guide are outlined below.
|
01
We want to conduct A/B testing to explore how user response to the framework differs based on the ordering of two particular questions. Do users get through the framework more quickly with one order vs. the other? Do they have a more positive experience with one order vs. the other? A/B testing would help us speak directly to these questions. |
02
We would also like to complete a benchmarking study of the revised framework to develop a baseline understanding of the tool before we make additional changes. We're particularly interested in metrics around user satisfaction and task efficiency, since these measures are particularly relevant to the inclusive language context. |
Skills
This project was my first hands-on experience with evaluative UX research and content design. I continued to refine my end-to-end research skills, collecting and analyzing qualitative user feedback, identifying and prioritizing recommendations, and sharing those findings with diverse stakeholders. I also learned plain language principles and applied them to technical linguistic concepts, presenting this information in an accessible and non-threatening way.
