Table 1 Users’ experiences using rapid response briefs
Domain | Issues raised (illustrated with quotes where possible) | What we changed | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Major problems | Big problems or frustrations | Minor issues | Positive feedback | Specific suggestions | ||
Findability (the extent to which the product is navigable and the user can locate and easily find what they need) | • None | • A lot of information on the first page • Too many logos on the face/first page • Too many key messages – preference for only one or two | • Distracting information box(es) especially on the first page • A dislike for headings presented in form of questions | • Headings, colours, formatting, font are clear enough • Use of tables to summarise findings • A good balance between precision and detail of information | • Reduce information on the first/face page • Use a style that allows for citation to show in the text not at the end • More use of figures and less of text | • Only main logos left on front page, others moved to the back • Logos made smaller • No set number of key messages but instruction to keep these to a minimum • Revised what information would be on page one • Some information boxes moved to other pages |
Usability (the ease of use of a product) | • None | • The report seemed lengthy • The methodology of how the report was prepared being in a small information box on the second page was easily missed • The absence of recommendations | • None | • A background section that sets the context of the report • The small size of the document • Decision options were presented clearly • The conclusion was clear • Key messages were well linked to the approaches or options provided and discussed later, which made it easy to follow • Information boxes were helpful in providing guidance on what to find in the report | • Aim to restrict text under a given subheading to the same page and not spill over to the next • Key messages should not simply be bullet points they should have a little more detail • Keep only important references | • Report should aim at 5–7 pages • Reference to the methodology to be included in the main text, in the background whenever possible (considering a balance with size of the document) |
Usefulness (the extent to which the product fills a need that the user had) | • None | • The absence of recommendations or a clear way forward | • None | • All participants found the reports useful for themselves and others | • The provision of recommendations | • Communications to rapid response service team to give more time to explaining the absence of recommendations (in report and during interaction) |
Accessibility (the ease with which the product is available to all users including those with different preferences or disabilities) | • None | • None | • None | • Generally found accessible “…yeah I think, everyone, okay at least a good percentage can use this document without a problem” | • None | • No changes made to the template |
Credibility (the extent to which the users trust and believe what is presented to them and what elements of the product influence this trust) | • None | • None | • None | • Credibility attached to the research institution and partners (as identified by the logos) • Referencing using credible and trusted sources • Provision of contact information to follow up on the report and its content | • None | • No changes made to the template |
Understandability (understanding (or recognising) the document category and understanding the document content) | • None | • Poor initial understanding of the type of document and its potential uses | • Unclear reference to methods used to prepare the document | • Simple language | • None | • Revision of information in the information boxes |
Desirability (how much appreciation is drawn from the user by the power and value of the image, identity, brand, and other elements of emotional design) | • None | • None | • None | “I love the report especially the background. Also it is not very long so it is readable…” “Very desirable, we hope this service will not end” | • Presentation of recommendations | • No changes made to the template |
Value | • None | • None | “… the writing seems ‘laborious’. …you are spending a lot on describing yourselves…” “Make the reports/reports more accessible for those other than those who requested for it…” | • None | • Increase visibility of the products through different kinds of dissemination | • Less information about partners and all of it moved to the back of the document • Decision to increase visibility with caution; need to balance demand with capacity to meet it |