February 21, 2024 - Updates, priorities of the week

Back to GC Web Priorities Meetings - Réunions des Priorités Web du GC

Meeting information

Agenda

1. Updates

2. Roundtable

Notes and action item

DTO update

• We are updating the new main page title style (H1). It has been rolled out in AEM and is available in the latest release of GCWeb. The main heading styles will be automatically updated when you upgrade to the latest version. It should be available via CDTS, Drupal WXT and the GC design system by mid-March

• The typography specs areː

English: https://design.canada.ca/styles/typography.html\

French: https://conception.canada.ca/styles/typographie.html

• The social media channels pattern in GCWeb has been updated to reflect the new Twitter/X logo, but there’s no set deadline to make the changes. The change has been automatically in AEM.
• Reminder our email has changed, our old forwarding email is not active anymore
• New email: cds.dto-btn.snc@servicecanada.gc.ca
• Roundtable

Principal Publisher

• Release went through this week on changes to Institutional Landing Page Template that DTO discussed
  • Update to the main page title (h1) style
  • Update to the bold class for the news feed
  • Logo change: Twitter to X

WAGE

• International Women's Day 2024 theme and toolkit are now live: (https://women-gender-equality.canada.ca/en/commemorations-celebrations/international-womens-day/2024-theme.html)

Service Canada

Presentation: Using page feedback to improve the Canadian Dental Care Plan

Canadian Dental Care Plan case study: Iterative approach

• December 2023 - Published content on web
• We included page feedback tool, for 8 pages of English, and 8 pages of French content
• We analyzed feedback to make quick iterative improvements according to comments, this was a game-changer
• Many issues identified in first week, period with highest amount of feedback
• 4 post launch reports at different time periods
• We manually tagged and sorted comments, 800 comments
• Summarized top issues, provided recommendations for improvements
• Reports were more detailed as time went on

• Four big issues:
  1. Birth date calendar picker was hard to use to determine when to apply
     • So we simplified the way the calendar worked
     • We also gave users the choice of using the tool, or using a text chart to enter their information
  2. Children’s dental benefit alerts reduced the scent of information for seniors
     • 64 comments in first 24 hours from seniors who were confused if the program was for them, they were thrown of by the information about children
     • We added the text “starting with seniors” which helped and negative feedback decreased right away
  3. Adjusted family net income terminology confuses single seniors
     • The term is confusing
     • We improved the navigation to make it more clear where users should keep clicking, avoiding specific eligibility criteria on navigation pages
     • We also added expand and collapse to define eligibility criteria
  4. Policy for eligibility confusing: what if someone has partial dental coverage
     • This became a big issue, even internally the answer was not fully known
     • We grouped the questions from users we got and shared them with policy makers
     • In addition, media raised the issue which raised visibility

LESSONS LEARNED

• Guidance in WET could be updated to help people with date picker calendars
• It would help GOC web community to have discussion around when is best time to introduce eligibility criteria
• Shared top policy questions with policy partners from the two departments
• Worked with call centers to determine if answers were coming from other actors
• That users questions are extremely valuable, to alert policy makers to problems with programs/policies
• Brings up the interesting idea of crowd-sourcing for ideas
• Reduce risk by audience testing, read and analyze feedback, share with partners

Questions:

Q:Where is the best place to post about eligibility requirements?

A: The main point is that the help has to be interactive. This is what we’ve learned from testing.

Q: For CRA , we have to go all the way up the approval chain. Was your approval process for this project fairly agile?

A: Setting up the approval process, and a warning before it launched that there would be the need for approvals and iterative changes right away. We were clear with our senior leaders what the iterative approach meant, that there would be a need for quick approvals. We were able to get buy-in from senior management which was key.  

LISA FAST - AB testing with IRCC

• Looking to understand the use of the alert band
• We did an A/B test with what was on the website, and other kind of warnings
• We discovered that on mobile an icon was missing
• The warning worked better than the alert band, especially in mobile
• So we moved on to test 2
• The band as designed on the live site is doing a good job
• However, we consistently saw differences between the desktop and mobile, which isn’t supposed to happen
• Test 3: Alert band vs warning alert vs contrast band
  • Contrast band had more conversions
  • Unfortunately it distracted from other content on the page which was more important

Takeaways:

• Contrast design is too noticeable
• Standard warning alert should be placed before important content
• Warnings/alerts are more distracting on mobile…so if your page is really popular on mobile, be careful you don’t overuse them
• Warnings imply that something has changed, something has just happened