Involving the Audience

A Rhetoric Perspective on Using Social Media to Improve Websites

Lee Ann Kastman Breuch

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351204170
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Lingue e linguistica
• Subtopic: Studi sulla comunicazione

Involving the Audience: A Rhetorical Perspective on Using Social Media to Improve Websites examines the usability challenges raised by large complex websites and proposes ways the social web can expand usability research to address these new challenges. Using the website healthcare.gov as an initial illustration, Breuch explains how large complex websites are inherently challenged by open-ended, interactive tasks that often have multiple pathways to completion. These challenges are illustrated through two in-depth case studies, each addressing the launch of an interactive, complex website designed for a large public audience.

1

THE SOCIAL WEB IMPERATIVE

On October 1, 2013 the federal government launched a website called HealthCare.gov to support the newly passed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) of 2010. For the first time in American history, PPACA, or the ACA, required all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a tax, and an enrollment period was opened between October and December 2013 in which uninsured Americans could purchase insurance. The website HealthCare.gov was built as the primary channel to find, shop for, and purchase healthcare insurance. Stakes for this national website were extremely high: the website was designed to serve a very large population (uninsured Americans in 40 states) with the very complex task of purchasing health insurance. Unfortunately, the website launch failed miserably, as evidenced by people who reported technical failures while creating accounts or even logging on to the site. Initial reports showed only a 1% success rate with the website in the first week of website operation (Ford, 2013). Severe, show-stopping troubles continued for at least two weeks into the launch, including errors related to account creation, ID recognition, data loading, and accuracy of information shared with insurers (Parsons & Levey, 2013).

Slowly, error rates began to decline through December 2013, with help from an emergency team of technology experts (Brill, 2014). But by that point, the damage to the reputation of the large-scale website had already been done. News media began to cover the website troubles and gather various perspectives, and their stories revealed that the development team did not include skilled coders and that the team was much larger than necessary, spanning several organizations without centralized leadership (Somashekhar & Sun, 2013). Reports revealed that no one on the development team knew if the technology would work prior to the launch; and yet, more effort was placed on bringing the public to the website to encourage them to apply (Brill, 2014). Initial testing reports on the website were said to be falsified, creating false confidence in the technology as promises of an easy website were made. And, the cost of developing the website ballooned from an initial $93.7 million to $292 million, or about three times the initial budgeted cost (Begley, 2013). Questions swirled in the media: How could development of this website cost so much money and fail so miserably? How could this happen in today’s world of high technology?

These questions sparked the research driving this book. As I began to follow complex websites and their failures, I began asking the same questions: Why and how could such high-stakes website failures happen today? I believe one answer to that question is to integrate audience feedback via social media into usability research methods. A key factor influencing websites today is the increasing visibility of their audiences and how they become involved. That is, every day, people have more “user-generated content” (UGC) channels for communicating with organizations that sponsor websites—whether through social media, email, online feedback forms, help or question-and-answer (Q&A) forums, or news media blogs—all of which make the feedback loop for websites much bigger, more complex, and inevitably more public. In addition, this feedback often happens in real time, as audiences interact with websites and post comments in the moment. This kind of real-time, authentic audience feedback provides an important new window to website usability that we have not fully explored. And as websites tackle more complex information situations, these involved audience perspectives are more valuable than ever before.

In response, this book explores ways that social media has influenced the rhetorical concept of audience toward the idea of involvement, or the perception of audience as active contributors in public communication. While this concept of audience involvement is not entirely new, it has been pronounced and accelerated by “Web 2.0” and social media applications in which audiences have come to expect participation. This shift toward audience involvement is important for renewed understandings of rhetoric and audience in light of participatory technologies. But this shift also has real implications for how we use, live, and work in today’s interactive web-based environments, particularly large public websites. Indeed, we are facing a social web imperative—the idea that listening to audience voices in social media is necessary and important. The remainder of this chapter introduces factors important to understanding this contextual shift of audience, including the evolution of complex websites, increased use of social media, characteristics of social media feedback, and reasons why social media responses are important for examining website usability.

Large Public Websites Are Increasingly Interactive and Complex

In the last 20 years, websites have evolved from “Web 1.0” pages with static information to “Web 2.0” pages that facilitate dynamic interactions with website readers, users, and even other information systems. Such dynamic interactivity matches the more complex web environments we now encounter, such as HealthCare.gov in which individuals shop, select, and purchase insurance online. The challenge of designing complex websites has been described in terms of “complex information systems” (Albers, 2004) and “interactive design” (Mirel, 2004). Albers (2015) explained that “simple information” is comprised of tasks that often involve one correct answer and a single clear path (p. 5). Complex information, in contrast, is characterized by tasks that include multiple paths, open-ended answers that cannot be predetermined, and non-linear responses (p. 6). Instances of complex websites include electronic medical health records, online government documents, and university websites—each involves large, multi-layered audiences that might use the same website for several different purposes.

As an example, university websites are often criticized for being “perennially difficult and unpopular” (Fullick, 2016, para. 1). Fullick analyzed complaints voiced on Twitter about university websites and suggested that primary obstacles were poor navigation, missing information, and audience confusion. In terms of navigation, drop-down menus may not always help users find basic information such as class schedules, transcript requests, campus maps, and fees or financial information (para. 5). Fullick suggested that dates and deadlines are often missing or inconsistent in university websites, and that information written for prospective students rather than for current students confuses readers (para. 8). She noted several complaints about how university websites may separate audience members into groups such as “faculty and staff” and “students,” while designing home pages for prospective students. Having experience with university websites as an academic, I have encountered many of these issues. But I also understand that large public universities address the needs of thousands of people, and I see this problem in the rhetorical terms of audience. To whom should university websites be addressed? Which audiences and tasks should be prioritized? These questions illustrate the challenges faced by complex websites designed for large audiences.

Questions about website audiences could also be described in terms of usability, or the study of how users interact with technologies and systems. On one hand, the problem is one of front-end design. Albers (2015) argued that software designers, web developers, and technical communicators need to design more effectively for such complexity. On the other hand, usability experts may also need to update their methods and approaches to web usability. For example, Redish (2007) noted the importance of highly interactive, complex websites and the inability of static usability research techniques to address them. She argued for usability that would include “complex information analysis: the work that domain experts do when solving open-ended, complex problems involving extensive and recursive decision-making” (p. 102). Johnson and Henderson (2012) noted this problem as well by describing the immense growth of interactive computer-based technology in all kinds of products, such as cameras, watches, phones, appliances, and more (p. 89). In fact, he predicted that usability of these products will get worse before it gets better because interactive design has not yet been integrated into development processes (p. 90). He argued that we need to tap into user experience more broadly: “To turn things around, HCI [human-computer interaction] experts must convince management of the benefits of optimizing the users’ experience with digital products and services” (p. 91). The question remains: How do we responsibly design and evaluate complex websites for a wide range of users?

This book offers a step toward addressing the problem of usable complex websites by suggesting how usability research could embrace social media to learn more about users in context. That is, how do we approach social media for usability purposes? This book begins investigating this question through a rhetorical lens, by connecting web usability, social media, and the rhetorical concept of audience (see Figure 1.1). This intersection examines ways that social media reflects audience involvement through real-time feedback, which provides a valuable usability lens when high-stakes websites or other designs are launched. Social media, after all, is designed to encourage participation, collaboration, and involvement—the very qualities many usability researchers advocate. Yet social media is an avenue that has not been fully explored for this purpose.

In this book, I address the intersection of website usability, social media, and the rhetorical concept of audience. Potentially, the concept of “audience involvement” lies in the center of this intersection, and I explore what it means to understand audience involvement through social media.

Case Studies of Complex Public Websites

To further develop the concept of audience involvement, in this book I also address two case studies of complex websites and ways that usability methods might probe social media to provide valuable dynamic feedback. One case study examines the 2013 launch of MNsure.org—Minnesota’s version of HealthCare.gov—which provided an online marketplace exchange to purchase insurance through the ACA (2010). The website was built to facilitate insurance purchases among the entire state population (native, immigrant, rural, and urban); it was also frequently advertised and highlighted in news media, and many Minnesotans took to social media to share dissatisfaction with their online web experiences. Unfortunately, upon launch, MNsure.org immediately experienced failures such as difficulties with the login system, which prevented users from even entering the site. Users took to social media, providing feedback about their website experiences on Facebook and news media blogs. Several blog responses uncovered detailed user accounts as well as a number of usability errors. Attitudes—both positive and negative—could also be detected in blog responses, as well as communal responses that sometimes provided support among users to help one another. Website problems continued to plague MNsure.org for six months and were well documented in news media. This case and the resulting analysis of real-time usability feedback demonstrates how an “involved audience” can help address problems facing complex websites today (see Figure 1.2).

FIGURE 1.1 Intersection of Website Usability, Social Media, and Audience.

A second case study examines the launch of another complex website from a large, midwestern metropolitan public library serving a resident population of roughly 1 million people. This particular library includes 41 locations within its metropolitan county, yet one central website serves them all. Library website usage has grown year after year, making the website crucial to daily functions such as searching for library material, reserving materials, and supporting individual patron accounts. The launch featured a significant revision of a preexisting library website, and while the revision included several significant changes, the primary change was the integration of a unified search bar (“like Google”) to replace other search methods such as menu-driven reference lists and a separate catalog link (see Figure 1.3). Library patrons provided feedback through multiple channels, and the library created task force teams to directly track and address audience/patron concerns. My case study examined social media responses, online message feedback channels, and interviews with librarians on the usability and social media teams. Overall, the library took an extremely...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Involving the Audience
• ATTW Book Series in Technical and Professional Communication
• Title
• Copyright
• Author Note
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Series Editor Foreword
• Acknowledgments
• 1 The Social Web Imperative
• 2 Rhetorical Roots of Audience Involvement
• 3 Social Web Usability Research Method(s)
• 4 Failure and Fallout/Response and Recovery
• 5 Trouble with Searches/Managing Change
• 6 Audience Involved/Audience Initiated
• Methodological Appendix
• Appendix A: Sample Memo 1
• Appendix B: Sample Memo 2
• Appendix C: Sample Memo 3
• Appendix D: First-cycle Codebook for MNsure Case (MNsure.org), Top Ten Blog Words
• Appendix E: First-cycle Codebook for MNsure Case (MNsure.org), Top Ten Facebook Words
• Appendix F: First-cycle Codebook for MNsure Case (MNsure.org), Top Ten Twitter Words
• Appendix G: First-cycle Codebook for Library Case (Hclib.org), Top Ten Web Form Words
• Appendix H: First-cycle Codebook for Library Case (Hclib.org), Top Ten Facebook Words
• Appendix I: First-cycle Codebook for Library Case (Hclib.org), Top Ten Twitter Words
• Appendix J: Attempt at Second-cycle Coding (Assigning In Vivo Codes to Categories)
• Appendix K: First-cycle Codebook of Question Words in Library Case (Hclib.org)
• Index