1. Page 1 Building User Friendly Taxonomies Charles Hoffman, CPA (Charles.Hoffman@UBmatrix.com) Director of Innovative Solutions, UBmatrix

2. Page 2 Your Takeaways Usability does matter Characteristics of a user friendly taxonomy Where to find best practices guidance Provide feedback to XBRL International Provide feedback to software vendors

3. Page 3 Usability Does Matter

4. Page 4 What Dogs Here

5. Page 5 What Taxonomy Creators Here Taxonomy Creators Subject Matter Experts

6. Page 6 Bad Organization

7. Page 7 Good Organization

8. Page 8 Regulations

9. Page 9 Spreadsheet

10. Page 10 Characteristics of a User Friendly Taxonomy A classification system Provide documentation and/or references to understand what is being classified –Creation of taxonomy –Use of taxonomy Recognizable to the user Consistent Categorized to facilitate use Modular Hide the techie stuff

11. Page 11 A Classification System

12. Page 12 Example of No Documentation or References Concept: –Cash Are you SURE the users understand what you mean? How do you know?

13. Page 13 Example of Documentation or References Concept: –Cash Documentation: –Cash includes cash on hand, cash in the bank, petty cash, short term investments easily convertible into cash, and anything with similar characteristics References: –http://www.xasb.org/xfrs/references/Cashhttp://www.xasb.org/xfrs/references/Cash –XFRS 1, section 2, paragraph A, clause iii Sometimes documentation is best, sometimes references, sometimes both

14. Page 14 Example of Inconsistency Pro forma Pro-forma Proforma Pro-Forma Imagine these inconsistencies while attempting to read or use some search tool for finding things in the taxonomy

15. Page 15 Example of Consistency Pro forma Consistency in EVERYTHING If you are not attempting to be consistent, you are being inconsistent (whether you realize it or not)

16. Page 16 Example of Not Recognizable AFS

17. Page 17 Example of Recognizable Available-for-Sale Avoid acronyms Attempt to determine what is recognizable to the users, then what you create will be recognizable

18. Page 18 Example of Poor Categorization One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten Eleven Twelve

19. Page 19 Example of Good Categorization One –Two –Three Four –Five –Six –Seven –Eight –Nine Ten –Eleven –Twelve Rule of “Sevens”; try not to have a list with more than seven things in it, break things up Too many categories can also make things hard to read or use

20. Page 20 Example of Poor Modularity 10,000 concepts in one schema file Financial institutions and non-financial institutions together –10,000 financial institutions –10,000,000 non-financial institutions

21. Page 21 Example of Good Modularity 10,000 concepts in multiple schema files –Labels in one file –Documentation in another file Separated by who uses them –Financial institutions separate from non-financial institutions Break things up so users can use what they need, and are not forced to deal with things they don’t need

22. Page 22 Example of NOT Hiding the Techie Stuff http://www.xbrl.org/roles/label/standard

23. Page 23 Example of Hiding the Techie Stuff Standard Label

24. Page 24 Techniques for Hiding Techie Stuff Use of definitions in extended links Use of documentation element in linkbases Etc.

25. Page 25 Best Practice Guidance FRTA USFRTF Style Guide Modeling Financial Reporting Concepts in Taxonomies (Patterns Document) Other taxonomies The Chicago Manual of Style

26. Page 26 Provide Feedback to XBRL International To improve XBRL specification To improve best practices

27. Page 27 Provide Feedback to Software Vendors Software can help you create user friendly taxonomies

28. Page 28 Your Takeaways Usability does matter Characteristics of a user friendly taxonomy Where to find best practices guidance Provide feedback to XBRL International Provide feedback to software vendors

29. Page 29 Book

30. Page 30 Questions and Discussion Charles.Hoffman@UBmatrix.com