11 minutes

Review one resource

The practical tool: a usability review record you can copy, complete for one real public-facing resource, and turn into fixes, routed handoffs and a report back to the people who took part.

What you’ll be able to do

Complete a usability review record for one public-facing resource, naming the resource, the reviewers and their compensation, the tasks attempted, what happened, the findings with owners, and what changed.
Compare the responses to this question and explain your choice: How do you carry the findings?
Draft a usability review of one public-facing resource for your work, including resource and the task it exists for, reviewers, how they were invited and how they are paid, tasks attempted, in the reader's own words.

Pick one real resource and review it properly

The temptation at the end of a module like this is to propose a review program for everything the division publishes. Do not. Choose one resource that is in use now, that reaches people outside the division, and that you can change at least part of: the page you maintain, the standing letter your unit sends, the information sheet you reprint every year, the deck you present at public meetings, the training your unit publishes.

Run it small and run it properly. Three tasks. Five or six reviewers reached through organizations that already have the relationship. Access arranged before the invitation goes out, and payment arranged before anyone says yes. Watch rather than help, write down what happened, and sort what you find by who is stopped and how completely.

Then keep the record honest. Compare two ways of writing the same finding. “The form is confusing” cannot be acted on, cannot be checked later, and quietly puts the fault on the reader. “Asked to request a service, four of five reviewers stopped at the question about who may act for them; three said they could not tell whether it applied to them, and two using a screen reader could not tell which field went with the question” names the task, the stopping point, the number of people and the effect. The second version is the one that still means something months later, in another office, to someone who was not in the room.

A usability review of one public-facing resource

One page you can copy into your own work and complete for a single web page, letter, notice, form, presentation or training.

Resource and the task it exists for Name the resource, where people meet it, who owns each part of it, and the one thing a person should be able to do after meeting it. Example: the public page explaining how to request a service; found through a search; page owned by our unit, linked form owned by another office; a person should be able to tell whether they can ask for the service and then submit a complete request.

Reviewers, how they were invited and how they are paid Five or six people who actually use the service, reached through organizations that already have the relationship. Record how you invited them, what you told them about the time involved and what is still open to change, the access arranged in advance — interpreters, captioning, a format that works with a screen reader, a room someone can get into, a remote option — and the payment arranged before anyone agreed. Community reviewers are contributing expertise; they are not learners here.

Tasks attempted, in the reader's own words Three real tasks written the way a member of the public would say them, not the way the division names them. Example: “Find out whether you can ask for this service.” “Start the request and get as far as you can.” “Find out what happens after you send it, and who to call if you hear nothing.”

What happened, recorded as it happened For each task and each reviewer: where they stopped, the exact words they read aloud or repeated back, what they tried, what they expected instead, and what they said they would do next in real life. Record events, not conclusions. Note anything you had to say to keep the session moving, because that is a finding too.

Findings, owners, first fixes and what you told the reviewers Write each finding as a sentence naming the task, how many reviewers were affected, the stopping point and the effect. Rank by who is stopped and how completely, not by how annoying it is. Mark each one as yours to fix, someone else's to fix, or a decision for a named office, and for anything that is not yours attach the exact location and suggested wording. Finish with the short note you sent every reviewer saying what changed because of them and what is still open.

Copy the five fields into a blank page, complete them for one resource you maintain this month, make the fixes inside your control, route the rest with suggested wording, and send every reviewer the last field.

Browse and download only. Staff notes are not typed or saved on this page.

Fixes that need nobody's permission

Put what the reader must do, and by when, in the first two lines.
Write dates out in full instead of “within ten days of the date of this letter.”
Replace a program term with the plain words for it, keeping the program term once in brackets if it is needed later.
Move essential information out of an attachment, a scan or a photograph and into real text.
Give link text that names where it goes, and headings a reader can skim and a screen reader can jump between.
Name a real person or team, a real way to reach them, and the hours they actually answer.
Add one line inviting people to say what they need in order to take part, with examples of what is available.
Send materials early enough that someone can read them, ask a question and arrange an interpreter before the date that matters.

Fix what you own, route the rest the same week

What you can change

You control the wording, the reading path, the timing and the channel of the parts you maintain, and you control how precisely you describe the parts you do not.

What to watch for

Do not hold every finding until the whole set can be solved, and do not send a general concern about accessibility upward. A vague message lands nowhere and comes back as a question, while the barrier stays in place for everyone who arrives meanwhile.

Your next step

Make your own fixes before the next print run or publication, and send each remaining finding the same week as a named location, what happened, who was affected and suggested wording.

Your review found that a form owned by another office cannot be completed with a screen reader. What is the most useful thing to send that office?

A message asking them to review the form for accessibility when they have time.

The exact task reviewers attempted, the question where they stopped, what the screen reader announced instead, how many reviewers were affected, suggested wording or structure for the fields, and a question about who owns the change.

A copy of the full review record with a note asking them to look at the relevant part.

A line added to your own page warning people that the linked form may be difficult to use with a screen reader.

Try a situation

You have run a short review of a public information sheet your unit maintains. Five reviewers attempted three tasks. Four could not tell whether they needed to respond. Two could not use the linked online form at all with a screen reader, and that form belongs to another office. One reviewer said the photograph at the top does not look like anyone she knows. The next print run is in a week.

How do you carry the findings?

Fix the wording about responding, reprint, and hold the rest until there is time to handle it properly.

Fix the wording and the reading path in the sheet you own before the print run; send the form's owner the exact task, what happened and suggested wording that same week; record the photograph comment with what you would change and who should decide; and tell all five reviewers what happened to each finding.

Send all five findings to the accessibility office and wait for direction before changing anything.

Carry this forward

Pick something real, currently in use, and reaching people outside the division. One finished review teaches more than a plan to review everything.
Record what happened, not what you concluded. “Four of five reviewers stopped at the third question” survives a handoff; “the form is confusing” does not.
Rank findings by who is stopped and how completely, not by how annoying they are.
Telling reviewers what changed is part of the method, not a courtesy. Without it the next invitation is worth less, and deserves to be.

A usability review record you can copy into your own work, a scenario about carrying findings you do not all own, and a knowledge check on a handoff another office can act on.

Run the review on one resource this month. Make the fixes you own, route the rest with suggested wording, and send the reviewers a short note saying what changed because of them.

Your next step

Which resource will you review, and who will hear what came of it?

Name the resource, the three tasks and the week you will run it

Name who you will invite, how you will reach them, and how they will be paid

Name the colleague or office that will receive the findings you cannot fix yourself

Browse and download only. Course notes are not typed or saved on this page.

Mark this lesson complete

Participation and course completion in this program do not count toward DHS-required training credits unless management, a director, or DHS leadership expressly approves an exception.