Language and user experience
What we looked at
6.1 How accessible is the language used in the platform? Is the language loaded, insensitive or offputting? Is there scope for misunderstanding?
6.2 Does the platform require you to share your medical conditions or diagnoses in order to share your actionable support needs?
6.3 How good is the online user experience, given that many users of the platform may not be "digitally native"?
6.4 How good is the user experience for people who can't (or choose not to) go online to share their information?
What good could look like
An approach which...
Uses “gloriously ordinary language” – everyday, inclusive, non-judgmental language rather than jargon – in every aspect of its communication to the people who need to use it.
Allows people to share their actionable support needs without asking intrusive or obstructive questions about medical conditions or diagnoses, meeting the spirit and letter of the Equality Act Code of Practice.
Offers a user-friendly, intuitive online portal for people to share their information, with an equally carefully designed offline alternative for those who can’t or choose not to go online.
Good practice
Poor practice
The Notice of Correction comes out with the highest score, largely for the ease with which it can be submitted either online or offline. However, this is misleading given its limited purpose and reach: there is extremely limited potential to extend its use into other sectors (and equally limited benefits from so doing).
About Me, the Experian Support Hub , the Hidden Disabilities Sunflower, This is Me and Wel-co.me all demonstrate good practice across the board, with particularly careful attention paid to the language they use, and with a recognition that conditions and diagnoses don’t need to be shared in order to share actionable support needs (although some people may wish to do so). Life Ledger and the JAM Card both take an equally careful approach to language.
None of the platforms reviewed offer a fully inclusive online and offline experience.
Among the platforms reviewed, the Vulnerability Services Register shows the least maturity and sensitivity in its use of language. Although “Vulnerable” is a term used by the financial regulator, it is widely understood to be an inappropriate and insensitive word for use in this context.
Likewise, the term “disclosure” (used within the financial services sector, but not explicitly within the VRS) has a specific meaning in the context of safeguarding, and has extremely negative connotations for many people who have been involved in a safeguarding process. It should be avoided as, like “vulnerable”, the word itself is a barrier to people sharing their information.
The Nimbus Access Card asks for medical evidence of disabilities. This is presumably at the request of its recipients - live music promoters - but is at odds with the Equality Act Code of Practice.
6.1
Language
Specifically designed to let the person express their needs and wishes in their own language/voice. Implies that any professional reading it should think carefully enough about the language used to make sure they understand what is meant - may involve suspending professional judgement and thinking like a human.
There's a value set in SNOMED-CT (see Reasonable Adjustments Flag) for capturing AIS needs. It contains - wait for it - 348 options, of which 202 are for different language interpreters. Not 100% sure how practical this is.
I think there's an alternative and much smaller value set, developed by one of the ASC system suppliers.
6.2
Diagnoses
A fairly wide-ranging list of ASNs, but these can only be accessed by selecting the right "vulnerability flag" (sic). There may not be a direct correlation between these flags and the needs listed, so you may not be presented with the "circumstances outcomes" options that relfect your ASNs.
Focus on "vulnerability flags" as a gateway to ASNs suggests undue emphasis on a condition rather than on the impact that condition has on your day-to-day life. Equality Act statutory guidance states ("There is no need for a person to establish a medically diagnosed cause for their impairment. What it is important to consider is the effect of the impairment, not the cause."
6.3
Online UX
6.4
Offline UX
Based on its design and intent, About Me ought to offer a very high standard of user experience, rooted in conversation and connection rather than box-ticking. UX will be heavily influenced by the way it's undertaken and the person/professional (if any) who's having that conversation with the person.