The 3 types of feedback we need from subject experts

We need our content design team to make sure that our content can support disabled people to make decisions, often in complicated and risky situations created by society.

We need our subject experts to make sure that the content is not harmful. And we must make sure that everyone feels their work is respected and valued.

Subject experts help us in the 3 stages in the design process:

1. scoping content: work out how the answers to questions might connect or overlap
2. pair writing notes: write rough notes on how to solve the problem in the user story and acceptance criteria
3. checking content: we have feedback workshops called crits which we use instead of sign-off

Image attribution (Unspash)

1. Scoping: how problems connect and overlap

Before we start writing content, we have a scoping session with our subject expert. We look at:

• the user story
• acceptance criteria
• search keywords and search volume
• notes from our user researchers on triggers, people and context

This is when we can find out if the same ‘thing’ is the answer to more than 1 problem people have. For example, the Priority Services Register is something energy companies would use to support people who need both:

• bills sent in a format which makes them more accessible
• extra notice for planned power cuts

Knowing this before we start writing helps us to:

• make content that’s easy to find
• avoid writing the same thing more than once

2. Pair writing: the right level of detail

We know that content is not a substitute for expert advice. Helping the experts we work with to realise this helps a lot.

This usually means working with experts to find a useful level of detail before we link to a service that can offer advice. We need to do this before content gets too complicated. Sometimes this is the Scope helpline or a good specialist service that people can access.

We explain it this way:

We know that often cases are complicated, and people will need specialist advice. We know that our content is not a substitute for that. Instead, we’d like the content to support people to:

• work out when they will need advice
• be able to go to advisers with better questions and maybe supporting information so that they can get the advice they need

3. Checking content: is it harmful?

Subject experts are in charge of telling us how content might be harmful if people use it. Other people in the team and feedback workshops (crits) are in charge of:

• if content is clear: a content person who did not write the original piece decides this
• if content is in scope: user researchers are in charge of what content will help to meet the user story and acceptance criteria

Read our blog post about crits

We ask our experts for feedback like this:

“If something in the content is not correct, please tell us how it could harm the person using it.”

Sometimes we ask subject experts to use this format:

“That’s not true. If people believe X, they could do Y which means that Z would happen.”

For example:

• If people believe that there are no eligibility criteria for setting up a financial trust, like a discretionary trust
• They could set up the trust in a way that gave the disabled person an income which would be illegal
• Which could harm the disabled person’s income

The answers help us to make content that is correct and useful by:

• only using technical language when it’s useful and easier to understand
• avoiding the trap of being comprehensive without being useful

We need subject experts

This is the best way we’ve found of helping subject experts, content designers and user researchers to communicate. To build understanding between people who want to do the right thing but see the world differently.

We may find a better way to do this. And if that happens, like everything else we make, we’ll change it!