Work in progress - ratings and comments are still to be finalised
Wel-co.me
1.1 Stated purpose
Share your needs in advance and enjoy a smoother, more welcoming experience.
1.2 Episodic or relational
2.1 Statutory notification
2.2 Info validated by
Sector
4.1 Personal identifier used
Online portal
Offline alternative
1.3 Data included
Relational
No
Retail and hospitality
Self-ID through user account
Yes
No
Communication preferences
Physical disabilities
Sensory impairment
Cognitive impairment
Dyslexia, literacy and numeracy
Strengths
An extremely well designed platform, rated highly for
• transparency, choice and control;
• a well curated list of actionable support needs;
• excellent online user experience;
• the ability to share conditions/diagnoses without a requirement to do so;
• a particularly well written privacy statement.
Weaknesses
• A frustratingly limited list of participating venues/organisations, all the more so as it is an extremely well designed platform.
• No offline alternative to the online platform for registering and identifying needs, which excludes those unable to access the internet.
• Actionable support needs are limited to the person's face-to-face experience, and don't include written or phone communication, e.g. when making a booking.
Further information
Overall functional rating
3. Transparency, choice and control
3.1 Transparency
Inherently transparent
3.2 Choice and control
Choice and control over when you show the app and to whom.
4. Functionality
4.2 Structured data
4.3 Free text
A well constructed list of conditions and support needs covering visits to retail/hospitality venues. First on the conditions list is "A discreet general awareness", so there's no need to name a specific condition - you can still get to the full list of support needs.
4.4 Carer role
Not rated as this platform isn't designed for proxy nomination. May not be relevant, as it's designed to operate face-to-face, so if a carer is present they can do whatever is needed. Might benefit from a "Talk to me, not my carer" marker.
4.5 Acknowledgement of receipt
tba
4.6 Updates
System allows for updates
4.7 Access to records
n/a
5. Reach
5.1 Multi-sector acceptance
Extremely limited list of recipients (venues), but the opportunity to suggest new ones
5.2 Recipients within orgs/services
Relies on the venue to ensure that information is visible to those who may need it.
5.3 Proactive sharing
Opportunity to suggest new venues to receive your information, but no opportunity to share your information proactively with them or others.
6. Language and user experience
6.1 Language
No obvious loaded vocabulary, and a particularly well written privacy notice
Words to watch
6.2 Conditions vs actionable support
Conditions/diagnoses can be shared, but there's an option for "A discreet general awareness" which allows you to sidestep this. There is no filtration of ASNs based on the conditions/diagnoses selected.
6.3 Online UX
A good clear simple UX for registration and identifying needs
6.4 Offline UX
No offline alternative to the online platform
7. Outcomes
7.1 Actionable support needs
List of ASNs appears to be thorough without being over-complicated. However, it's all focused on F2F experience, and may not give the coverage someone would need about how to communicate by phone or in writing (e.g. when booking a visit).
7.2 Trustworthiness
Gives a feeling of confidence. Privacy notice is in very clear English, which contributes to this.
Think Local Act Personal: Data for People
Ratings against the 15 Principles
Overall
TLAP 2
TLAP 3
TLAP 4
TLAP 5
TLAP 6
TLAP 7
TLAP 8
TLAP 9
TLAP 10
TLAP 11
TLAP 12
TLAP 14
Money Advice Trust
Ratings against the 10 principles for designing vulnerable consumer data-sharing programmes
Overall
MAT 1
MAT 2
MAT 3
MAT 4
MAT 5
MAT 6
MAT 7
MAT 8
MAT 10-