Statistically significant taxonomy

Talk at World Information Architecture 2017 in Manchester by Jonathan Porton and myself.

1. A statistically significant taxonomy.
2. Matt Jukes ..formerly known as ‘Head of Product, Office for National Statistics’
3. Jonathan Porton ..formerly known as ‘UX Architect, Office for National Statistics’
4. 1.What we faced 2.What we did 3.What we learned 4.Questions
5. 1.What we faced 2.What we did 3.What we learned 4.Questions
6. The Office for National Statistics is the UK’s largest independent producer of official statistics. @jukesie @iauxbod
7. The website gets approximately 500,000 visitors per month. @jukesie @iauxbod
8. The website had approximately [shed loads] pages & documents. Publishing an additional 
 [boat loads] a week. @jukesie @iauxbod
9. The annual list of baby names is the single most popular release. @jukesie @iauxbod
10. @jukesi e @jukesi e @jukesie
11. The site was called
 “..a national embarrassment” 
 in the Financial Times. @jukesie @iauxbod
12. @jukesi e According to the Parliamentary Administration Select Committee;
 “The Office for National Statistics website makes figures hard to find and statistics are often presented in a confusing way..”
 
 @jukesie @iauxbod
13. A respondent to the website satisfaction survey ended their response
 “The ONS website makes me want to cry..”
 
 @jukesie @iauxbod
14. The previous taxonomy for the website had 1400 categories that went down five levels.
 
 @jukesie @iauxbod
15. A number of the categories were in fact empty and reflected statistical publications that the ONS did not actually publish.
 
 @jukesie @iauxbod
16. The site search was referred to as like 
 “..using Google on LSD”
 
 @jukesie @iauxbod
17. 1.What we faced 2.What we did 3.What we learned 4.Questions
18. We had to persuade a risk-averse organisation to trust us. @jukesie @iauxbod
19. Outlined and agreed the approach and methodology with ONS methodology team. @jukesie @iauxbod
20. Web analytics - analysis to identify patterns within the taxonomy
 
 @jukesie @iauxbod
22. Previous research - reviewed every minute of every usability test conducted on the website. Not the binge watch of choice!
 @jukesie @iauxbod
23. Competitor analysis - just as applicable as private sector organisations. Lots of mini standardisations, but no real consistency @jukesie @iauxbod
24. Content audit - what was there, why was it there and how the hell did it get there? Reviewed and consolidated structure and content. @jukesie @iauxbod
25. Card sort - closed, compromised and complicated. Yet still a step forward. 200 participants, moderated and unmoderated.
 
 @jukesie @iauxbod
26. Tree tests - proposed vs status quo and benchmarking the hell out of things. 100+ participants, moderated and unmoderated. Tested and iterated...a lot
 
 @jukesie @iauxbod
30. The new (not quite a) taxonomy for the website has 173 categories and three levels.
 
 @jukesie @iauxbod
31. 1.What we faced 2.What we did 3.What we learned 4.Questions
32. Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. 
 
 Mike Tyson
33. Real life gets in the way of implementing research no matter how comprehensive.
 
 @jukesie @iauxbod
34. There was consensus as to what made up the main navigation categories - unfortunately nobody agreed what fitted under them.
 @jukesie @iauxbod
35. Usability tests on live website show top level is essentially surplus to requirements. Exposing the 2nd level makes the user’s life so much simpler! @jukesie @iauxbod
36. Content confuses as often as clarifies and specialised terminology is a burden even to expert users. 
 
 @jukesie @iauxbod
37. In removing friction from publishing we had failed to capture sufficient metadata. This became a major issue.
 
 @jukesie @iauxbod
38. Internal politics creep back in and the requirements of the ‘business’ start to crowd out the needs of the user.
 
 @jukesie @iauxbod
39. If I had my time again...
41. It should have been an open card sort.
42. 1.What we faced 2.What we did 3.What we learned 4.Questions
43. @jukesi e Thanks.
 @jukesie and @iauxbod