dEsign: Embracing Emotion to Empathize with fellow human beings.
Welcome to the 2020s —featuring a global pandemic, economic uncertainty, and the trial of governments as policy struggles to provide for citizens’ needs.
The title of this article was originally drafted with more Es to read, “dEsign: Embracing Emotion to Empathize with End-users,” but the term “end-users” no longer seems appropriate. Last week our team had a focus group that challenged our perspective on the potential users of our design. In product development, an end-user is defined as someone who uses or is intended to use a product. As we listened to six individuals share their stories of resilience in applying for benefits, we realized that the term “end-user” lacks a sense of humanity in our particular problem space. In product development, it is possible to scope new iPhone features, design high-tech kitchen appliances, and create HGTV approved apartments that will delight end-users. In the space of public benefits, we should keep in mind that there really is no “end-user,” only fellow human beings who are trying to get by and have basic human needs fulfilled.
From the Focus Group
As we listened, stories from individuals echoed as members fed off of each others’ accounts of being lost within the application process, trying to find resources, not requalifying, and facing rejection despite best-efforts to explain their circumstances. The stories were difficult to listen to as people timidly asked, “does this make sense?” and “do you know what this feels like?”
These stories gave a real, human voice to suggestions from our earlier finding of the difficulties people face as they seek support.
We are humbled to share some observations and quotes:
Applicants:
- See a lack of transparency regarding how they are being evaluated.
- Must keep track of their documents, and do not place their trust in the benefits system. It is up to the applicant to find the resources to fill out and keep records of their information.
“Nobody works with you to say ‘this isn’t right.”
“Sometimes it feels like they take the information that you gave them and put it in a bin, a garbage can, and don’t read it.”
“I don’t trust them anymore at SS or DHS. I do not mail any of them anymore. I take it in by hand, I have them stamp something for that day and take their name down on the back of the paper to prove I was there.”
- Are aware of, and battle the stigma that people see them “ripping off the system.”
“We’re not trying to rip off the system. I just think that having to prove it year after year is wrong.”
- Receive differing levels of service (e.g. there are disabled people who use do not use technology but another group is tech-savvy).
“8pt font print, no pictures, nothing to break up the application, and if you screw up you miss out on the benefits that you rely on to live.”
“Not everyone should be painted with the same paintbrush.”
- Are dissuaded by a lack of consistency in the process.
“ You never, or rarely, get help from the same caseworker.”
- Need to track their status separately across multiple benefits programs.
- See the use of technology as helpful, but not always available to them.
“Applying online was the best tool.”
“…but everyone can’t afford that technology.”
Something that surprised us logistically was that several members of our focus group called in on landlines. They did not have access to home computers or phones that could support video.
Understanding the policy of how programs are run and supporting the process for handling applications could improve transparency, decrease application error, and ultimately help people qualify and access benefits sooner.
Reaching out to Reddit
Having overprepared for our focus group session, we were left with a significant amount of questions as well as materials that we wanted to validate and/or challenge with individuals that our design may go on to directly impact. To do this, we had to think outside of the box. Since many of the places where we’ve been talking to individuals directly have been closed or are now less traveled due to social distancing, we decided to take our interviews to where people are spending more time: social media. Specifically, Reddit.
After posting to 13 subreddits across a variety of topically relevant (e.g. /r/FoodStamps) and geographically proximate (e.g. /r/Erie) topics, we received over 50 responses from people who either had already applied to or were interested in applying to US benefit programs. The next steps here are to get them on a video call to conduct what we’re internally calling “flash interviews” to get as many perspectives from as many people as we can as our spring semester comes to a close, starting with PA SNAP applicants.
Inspiration from COVID-19 Screening Tools
Our goal is to explore a voice-enabled screening tool to help people
understand their eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits in Pennsylvania. Because of COVID-19, we noticed that health organizations and tech corporations are playing a role in helping individuals understand if they should seek medical attention.
We took an interesting side-step in our design prototyping to explore and distill notable features of chat, phone, and voice-enabled COVID-19 screening tools.
Key areas for comparison included:
- Accessibility: does the tool allow screening for someone else; what
option is possible without a computer; how do users input responses. - Dynamic Response: does state or regional information come into play;
how are symptoms quantified; are screening suggestions helpful. - Natural Interaction: is the tool intuitive; is the outcome simple to
understand; what are the fail-points of the interaction.
You can view a link to our analysis: “Comparison of COVID-19 Screening Tools” where we looked at 10 selected tools which are a mix of those offered from tech companies in collaboration with the Center for Disease Control and those created by health organizations based on CDC guidelines.
The take-away from the analysis was that, while no one tool mastered usability, those that excelled had features such as providing dynamic responses based on peoples’ answers, offering an option to screen for someone else, giving actionable next steps in a clear step-wise format, keeping options for answer choices brief, and presenting multi-language support.
People First, Tech Second
On the technology front, we are taking a two-pronged approach. The first is defining buckets to accommodate people who may use voice in different ways. Buckets are how we can dynamically begin to route information.
Bucket 1: To learn about applying, to determine their eligibility, or to inquire about recertification.
Bucket 2: As part of learning about applying, we can offer an overview of a benefits process and give clear steps to improve the transparency of documents needed, and provide support through application tips. These tips can be dynamic in that young mother or student qualifying for SNAP would get different tips than a retiree.
Bucket 3: To determine eligibility we would be able to screen applicants by asking basic information, and through these questions get an idea of the support that they may qualify to receive.
Bucket 4: If an applicant can provide more personal information, such as household income, life changes, disability information, case record, and social security information, the full screening could be complete. Voice can provide the ability for an applicant to whisper more private information (we’re working to demo this!).
Bucket 5: Reveal an estimate of the support that someone may qualify to receive, and provide clear next steps that can be forwarded (e.g. emailed or texted ) to the applicants. This information helps them understand what documents to submit and gives them custom application tips.
This week, we are prototyping skills with Alexa and have created a fact-based skill where Alexa shares a daily fact about applying for benefits. We are learning how to dynamically generate content, and are uncovering facts that bring awareness to technicalities in the process.
Bored? More like Boards
Before we left for spring break (and subsequently not return to campus), we worked out of an office absolutely covered in whiteboards and post-it note walls.
As an ongoing task in the background, we’ve been regularly digitizing these boards to reduce the physical clutter in our workspace (as well as visual clutter in the resulting digital artifact).
However the transition to remote work from each of our homes left us with a half-complete physical board in need of more work before we would normally digitize it. This lead to us creating a digital/physical whiteboard hybrid before working to digitize our insights from it.
Up Next
It is our task to distill themes from our research. Our boards help us to group common themes and use anecdotes which allow us to share examples from peoples’ experiences applying for and supporting access to benefits. These examples will guide us as we decide specifics for interactions through voice which will bring value to people seeking assistance.
On our radar for the next week is how policy can be brought to light and how we can take action to help humans — those with and without access to technology — who are seeking assistance.
Chat with you next time, Humans!
— Laura, Tommy, Simran, Conlon, and Judy
