Initial Filtering System

On the last project with Invisible Strengths, it was discussed that the accommodations provided in their filter needed further research and card sorting to determine what was intuitive to users when they were filtering jobs.

The previous filtering system was based on the most common disabilities in the US, but it was not known what accommodations belong where and if users would know where to look.

Challenge & Questions

At the start of this project, I was tasked with a challenge. Providing users with a way to filter jobs by accommodations provided. While the task is clear, there were definitely some questions I had as I ask myself how to tackle this:

• How might we categorize a list of accommodations that is, by definition, ever-expanding?
• How do people currently find the accommodations needed and how do they categorize these accommodations in their head?
• And lastly, how might we handle accommodations that could fall into more than one category? (overlaps)

COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS

As I got to work on the initial research, it was essential to do a competitive and comparative analysis of the platforms available in the marketplace. It was key to see how other platforms handled categorization and accommodations and see how this could be applied to Invisible strengths. 

From the research, it was clear that each platform handled the categorization of disability in its own way. Therefore, it was decided that Invisible strengths should clearly define categories and accommodations similarly to Inclusively, but should also allow for flexibility as I have learned from XR Access and Servicenow as the list of accommodations is constantly growing.

research on federal policy

After taking a look at Invisible Strengths’ competitors, I also wanted to make sure I was really clear on the law. The ADA requires reasonable accommodations for anyone in a job, but also anyone applying to a job–and this includes state and local governments.

• The ADA requires reasonable accommodations :
• • Ensuring equal opportunity in the application process; enabling a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of a job; and making it possible for an employee with a disability to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment like those that are enjoyed by other employees without disabilities.
• The ADA covers employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments.
• No specific information about the ADA is required on job advertisements - but the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission advises employers to include information about the essential functions of the job in job announcements, advertisements, and other recruitment notices

Key takeaways from initial research

• Any accommodation lists is by definition non-comprehensive, so the organizational scheme created for filtering must be flexible and have broad categories with intuitive titles that people look for things in the right place.
• We’ll need language explaining that the list is non comprehensive.

Card Sort round 1 results

From the open card sorting task, it was clear that users grouped the accommodations into two different categories:

• Accommodations that can be used as tools.
• Accommodations that help reach a certain goal.

Based on the users' two mental models, it was decided that a second card sort should be conducted. This time, closed with the categories relating to tools or goals.

Card Sort round 2 results

From the open card sorting task, it was clear that users had a general consensus on what accommodations belonged in which category.

• The agreement rate was about 70%.
• And the only reason that rate isn’t closer to 100 was that some accommodations really did belong in multiple categories. So for example, “Environmental Sounds Machines” really does fit in to the categories of “Auditory aids”, “Behavior aids”, and “Cognitive aids” – it’s not that people are confused, this is just the reality.

Now were have categories and accommodations that are robust and intuitive to users. Now this brings us back to that question of what to do with overlaps, or accommodations that fit into multiple categories.

recommendations

These are some recommendations for the client based on the results:

• Accommodations that could be placed in multiple categories will show up in each one (i.e. repetition is ok)
• • For example, “Environmental Sounds Machines” goes under “Auditory aids”, “Behavior aids”, and “Cognitive aids”
• Include a search bar at the top of the accommodations filter
• • Further research on the Nielsen Norman group recommends that it is good practice in information architecture to include a search bar as an additional findability tool to assist users.
• When the product goes into development, accommodations should also be tagged in such a way that they pull up other similar ones. So searching “wheelchair lifts” should pull up “wheelchair ramps”
• Language that helps users understand that reasonable accommodations are non exhaustive and required by the employer.

Final results

From the research conducted, the final results are 10 accommodation categories created as well as 82 unique common accommodations, sorted into those 10 categories.

Next Steps

From the research, findings and recomendations, these are the next steps:

• Update all frames with the updated information architecture.
• See which recommendations the client is comfortable implementing and making a plan on how to execute.
• Usability testing to further confirm users understand the filtering system.