Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

OPSI – Crown Copyright User Testing Report 30 th March 2009 Rebecca Gill and Poppy James.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "OPSI – Crown Copyright User Testing Report 30 th March 2009 Rebecca Gill and Poppy James."— Presentation transcript:

1 OPSI – Crown Copyright User Testing Report 30 th March 2009 Rebecca Gill and Poppy James

2 Background & Objectives OPSI has a responsibility for the management of Crown copyright, and Government is extremely interested in how to make information easier for people to re-use. The Government actively encourages the use of public sector information and in many cases this information is free. It is believed that there is a gap between the intended message and the interpreted message regarding the re-use of information under Crown copyright; however evidence is required to confirm this and to support any potential changes in licensing policy. This project is designed to:  Establish whether there are indeed barriers to engaging with re-using information under Crown copyright  Identify the problem areas from the point in the process of seeing a piece of information one wants to re-use, through to the end of the Click-Use Licence application process - do people understand the information they are presented Crown copyright and licences?  Evaluate alternatives for the presentation of Crown copyright status (alternatives generated by OPSI). These alternatives will be designed to encourage the re-use of information, overcome perception barriers, and simplify the process (for example non-transactional options, rather than Click-Use Licence application).

3 Approach (1 of 2) Online survey:  Survey questions were developed by Bunnyfoot and agreed with OPSI  The survey was deployed in 3 ways: an email invitation to Bunnyfoot’s database (representing the general public), an email invitation to OPSI’s database (individuals who have registered for the Click-Use Licence) and as a pop-up on appropriate pages of the OPSI website  This sample was selected to represent a wide user group of people who may have the need to re-use information, not only those who are already familiar with the process  The survey was open between 13 th March and the present (due to close 30 March)  Data was downloaded for analysis on 24 th March, at which point approximately 1350 respondents had started the survey (approx 1100 complete)  Sample sizes vary for each question – some respondents chose to skip questions 3

4 Approach (2 of 2) User testing:  ½ hour user tests were performed with 19 representative users over 2 days  Users were recruited to represent ‘interested parties’ (who might re-use information), the ‘general public’ and ‘previous licence applicants’  The sessions focused on the user journey from the point in the process of seeing a piece of information one wants to re-use through to accessing Crown copyright information (existing online statement and proposed alternative were presented alternately)  3 alternative presentations of this information were then shown to each interviewee (alternative presentations were developed by OPSI)  Eyetracking was used principally as a method to conduct efficient user testing sessions and record the sessions 4

5 Test materials Testing was performed using the live sites direct.gov.uk and statistics.gov.uk: 5 You need a Click-Use Licence to re-use material from statistics.gov.uk You do not need a licence to re-use material from direct.gov.uk

6 Our survey said...

7 Respondent profile

8 Profile of survey respondents – location, age and sex There is a fairly even spread of respondents across all working age groups. The bias towards the South East and London has been introduced by Bunnyfoot’s database (and to a lesser extent OPSI database). 57% of respondents were male, 43% female. 8

9 Profile of survey respondents - occupation The survey identified a number of occupations / sectors within which we expected the re-use of Crown copyright content to be common. 52% of respondents placed themselves in one of these categories. Of those who had applied for a Click- Use Licence, almost 60% fell into these categories. Of course, “other” also contains people who may re-use content. The “Publishing” audience was previously a focus for you – interestingly they only make up 9% of respondents. The “other” covers a huge range of occupations from hairdressers to environmental consultants. 9 n = 1353

10 Government sites visited Of the sites we specified, Directgov was visited by the highest number of respondents. Other sites mentioned included:  HMRC  DCSF  OFSTED  FSA  Jobcentre Plus  Home Office  British Council  LA websites  DCLG  Ministry of Defence  Learn Direct  DVLA  And more.... Note: Percentages here are of the number providing an answer. Approximately 80 respondents that carried on with the survey did not select any option for these specified sites. 10 n = 1247

11 Re-use of any content in the past Re-use of content (from any source) is widespread. Not surprisingly, it is more common amongst respondents from the OPSI database or website than the “general public” from Bunnyfoot databases. 11 n = 1313

12 Past re-use of content from a government website or publication Re-use of content from government publications and websites is also widespread. This time, the gap between the “general public” and OPSI database and website respondents is much larger. Re- use is much more common amongst OPSI database and website respondents. 12

13 The random sample here illustrates the diversity of re-use respondents reported. The data has not been coded, but it is clear that education is a key theme (both use by students and teachers). We also see here:  Quoting in reports / compiling reports  Blogging  Collation of data for re-use on other websites e.g. Upmystreet.com  Personal research e.g. Regarding places to live 13

14 How likely are you to copy anything from a government website for use in your own material or work? Crown copyright information is relevant to the majority of survey respondents. Even amongst the “general public” 43% are likely to re-use information. 14

15 Assumptions made: re-using content from government websites

16 What do people assume about re-using content from government sites? (1) The fact that the Government actively encourages the re-use of content needs to be better communicated. The majority expect getting permission to re-use content will be too complicated. Your messaging should overcome this. Only the OPSI database respondents (already engaed with the process) tended to disagree. 16 n = 1202

17 What do people assume about re-using content from government sites? (2) Approximately half of respondents believe there will be consequences and penalties if the information is misused. During the research we came across individuals that felt strongly that this should be the case. The majority claim they would not re-use without thinking about permissions and consequences. However, approximately a third of the public and a quarter of the OPSI website respondents would go ahead. User-tests also revealed there is a belief that there is little chance of being caught. 17 n = 1202

18 What do people assume about re-using content from government sites? (3) There was strong agreement that the Government should encourage re-use for content. 18 n = 1202

19 Interpreting different terms  Copyright  Crown  Crown copyright  PSI Licence  Click-Use Licence  Read terms and conditions  Commons  Creative Commons  Attribution

20 What does the word “copyright” communicate? (1) There is not a widely shared common understanding of “copyright” across respondents. However we can summarise that “copyright” is:  Not perceived to mean “public information”  Perceived to mean you cannot freely redistribute the information  Perceived to mean you must state from where you obtained the information  Has no fixed meaning in terms of rights to re-use – this will depend on individual circumstances. Respondents were in less agreement regarding their rights to re-use and the adaptation of copyrighted information. Interestingly, only a small proportion of respondents answered “Don’t know” to any of these questions. There appears to be confidence, therefore, in understanding “copyright” even if that is misplaced. Agree and strongly agree figures have been combined here, likewise disagree and strongly disagree. 20 n = 1205

21 What does the word “copyright” communicate? (2) 21 n = 1205

22 Imagine you want to re-use information from a website and you see “ Copyright ” on the page, how encouraged or discouraged do you think you would feel? At first sight, “copyright” seems to be a discouraging term for most. However, this should be balanced with the qualitative feedback gained in user testing. Interpretation can no doubt be influenced by other messaging used in regards to re- use. Note: figures for very discouraged and discouraged have been combined, likewise for encouraged. 22

23 If you saw the term “Crown” in relation to content on a website.... What would it mean to you? (1) The majority of OPSI related respondents associated “Crown” with the Government owning the information – fewer “general public” respondents made this association. 23 n = 1203

24 Interpreting “Crown copyright” in context We asked respondents to imagine they wanted to use information from these pages in an article they were writing on a blog and what they thought the most likely situations would be. These options were not truly mutually exclusive. Only 3% believe they do not need any permission. Those likely to have already applied for a licence were most likely to respond that this was necessary (45%). Overall (whole sample), “there will be terms and conditions to read...” received the highest response 37% - expectations fit well with proposed future plans for a non-transactional licence. 24

25 Familiarity with the term “Crown copyright” Not surprisingly, familiarity was lowest amongst the “general public”. Overall however, the majority have at least heard of the term and one should be cautious about making the term less visible. We understand the name will not change and therefore, we do not want to recommend a course of action that would potentially reduce prevalence of understanding. Even amongst the OPSI database and OPSI website respondents, there are many (41-43 %) who do not understand what it means. This supports your perception that it is not currently communicated as well as it could be. 25

26 Imagine you want to re-use information from a website and you see “ Crown copyright ” on the page, how encouraged or discouraged do you think you would feel? “Crown copyright” appears to be less discouraging terminology than just “copyright”. We recommend the term is not used in isolation as a gateway to information about re-use. Additional messaging enticing users to even read information about their right to re-use would be beneficial. Consider phrases like “want to re-use this content?”. Note: figures for very discouraged and discouraged have been combined, likewise for encouraged 26 n = 1140

27 Familiarity with the term “PSI Licence” Overall, familiarity with the term “PSI Licence” is low across all groups. 43% of respondents had never heard of it. Only respondents from the OPSI database show a higher level of understanding – 36%. “PSI Licence” is not a strong candidate for public-facing use moving forward. 27

28 Familiarity with the term “Click-Use Licence” Not surprisingly, we see a split in the sample here. The OPSI database respondents have the highest level of familiarity (most (73%) have applied for a licence), and the “general public” have the lowest. Click-Use is in itself a confusing term as it can be interpreted in different ways - “the use of” something and “to use something”, and what exactly am I clicking...and to use what... It is not a strong candidate for terminology to use moving forward – not least, perhaps, because of its association now with a transactional licence - if you are to move away from this. We recommend using plain English phrases that communicate meaning – that answer or mirror your audience’s question regarding re-use of content. 28 n = 1152

29 Imagine you want to re-use information from a website and you see “ Click-Use Licence ” on the page, how encouraged or discouraged do you think you would feel? Only those who have already engaged with the “Click-Use Licence” process find the term particularly encouraging (69%). Note: figures for very discouraged and discouraged have been combined, likewise for encouraged. 29 n = 1143

30 Imagine you want to re-use information from a website and you see “ Apply for a licence ” on the page, how encouraged or discouraged do you think you would feel? “Apply for a licence” seems to be particularly discouraging – except for those who have already engaged with this process. Note: figures for very discouraged and discouraged have been combined, likewise for encouraged 30 n = 1141

31 Imagine you want to re-use information from a website and you see “ Read terms and conditions ” on the page, how encouraged or discouraged do you think you would feel? “Read terms and conditions” was the term the highest number of respondents (across all groups) rated as encouraging or very encouraging. Your audience is likely to be familiar with this process in one form or another and realise that it is non- transactional. Note: figures for very discouraged and discouraged have been combined, likewise for encouraged 31 n = 1142

32 Understanding of the term “Commons” The term “Commons” in the context of publishing is not widely understood to mean “available to everyone”. Even amongst respondents from the OPSI database and from the website the term was not understood by 52% and 33% respectively. This casts doubt on the usefulness of “Commons” as a term to associate with Crown copyright. The fact that “Creative Commons” exists does not seem to be supporting an understanding of the term as one might have expected. 32

33 Understanding “Creative Commons” imagery and terms 75% of respondents did not recognise this image. Lack of recognition was highest amongst the “general public” – 87%. And lowest amongst respondents from the OPSI website – 55% did not recognise the image. The majority did not understand the meaning of the image. Understanding was highest amongst the OPSI website respondents – 35%. This is not surprising as this group was also the group in which the most had heard of Creative Commons licences before – 47% (vs 10% of the “general public” and 29% of the OPSI database). Only those likely to be more familiar with copyright (inferred from their route to the survey) are likely to have a previous understanding of Creative Commons terminology and imagery. One might argue that if these are used moving forward, more people will become more familiar with these, however, the benefits at this stage of shared / added meaning would only really apply to a minority – a minority who are likely to have a strong understanding of Crown copyright already. 33

34 Interpreting “attribution” in relation to the re-use of information “Attribution” is generally well understood though there is some uncertainty around whether actions have to be taken to inform the owner of your identity and how the information was used. 34

35 In summary... 35

36 The highlights from the survey (1)  The majority of respondents said they had re-used, copied or referred to content on Government websites or publications – this emphasises the importance of explaining Crown copyright.  There is uncertainty about whether the Government encourages the re-use of information – this message needs to be communicated more widely – most respondents felt that the Government should encourage re-use.  There is an expectation that the process of obtaining permission will be difficult – especially amongst the general public. This barrier needs to be overcome.  The consequences of mis-use are not well understood and are over-estimated – presenting another barrier to re-use.  There is not a widely shared understanding of the term “copyright”. For many it carries the meaning of “you must not”  The majority understand the term “Crown” – though we would recommend providing a clear explanation of the term as understanding amongst the general public was less prevalent. 36

37 The highlights from the survey (2)  Interpretations of “Crown copyright” fits reasonably well with the proposed non-transactional licence. However, familiarity and understanding of the term is by no means universal.  “Crown copyright” appears to be less discouraging than “copyright” in isolation.  Familiarity with the terms “Click-Use Licence” and “PSI Licence” is too low to indicate these would be useful terms to use moving forward.  “Read terms and conditions” was the most encouraging term we questioned respondents about.  There does not appear to be great benefits to aligning with “Creative Commons” as awareness and understanding amongst respondents was low. This alignment is probably most useful to the minority that are not targeted when trying to make the licensing process simpler, more encouraging and easier to understand. 37

38 User-testing findings

39 Existing barriers to engaging with re- using information under Crown copyright  Interpretation of Crown copyright  Understanding re-use policy  Seeking permission

40 Interpretation of Crown copyright We asked participants what they expected “Crown copyright” to mean. Crown copyright is seen as restrictive. Interviewees frequently believed they would have to seek permission before re-using information under Crown copyright, and 1/3 believed Crown copyright protection would completely prohibit the re-use of information. Most interviewees correctly dissected the term, stating that “ Crown” means originating from government and copyright means owned by.

41 Behaviour on government websites The majority of interviewees did not look for permission when asked what they would do if they wanted to re-use material from a government website. 11/19 interviewees immediately ‘copy – pasted’ information. Most said they would feel comfortable using information from the site in this way. This behaviour is not consistent with interviewees restrictive interpretation of Crown copyright. A barrier to correctly re-using information may be a lack of awareness that information is under Crown copyright. Interviewees were looking for extremely explicit signs: “There’s not a copyright symbol next to the paragraph so I’m alright to copy that.” Video highlights provided

42 Could not find information There is a low awareness of where to find guidance on re- using government information. Those seeking permission were typically looking for a contact number. Often despite previous experience: “I never get through to anyone who can help - you just get pushed from pillar to post” Only 8/19 interviewees accessed Crown copyright information on the site when asked to find information about re-using content. There are different reasons for this:  Not everyone looks in the footer  Not everyone is honing in on “Crown copyright” Common routes saw interviewees exploring the site, browsing the main navigation or viewing the terms and conditions. The word “copyright” appeared to be a trigger word for interviewees - a term associated with permission / copying content. Recommendations: Consider replicating / linking to your copyright explanation in “Terms and Conditions” wherever these appear. Consider the continued use of “Copyright” as this is a trigger word, even if it is associated with restrictions. Video highlights provided 42

43 Summary of existing barriers The perception of Crown copyright is more restrictive than the reality. There are some fairly realistic expectations, like seeking permission or acknowledging the source. However, participants’ behaviour suggests a low awareness of when Crown copyright applies and where this guidance would be found on a website. These 2 issues pose a significant barrier to correct re-use of information. 43

44 Impact of Crown copyright statements  Areas of high and low understanding  Confidence  Level of encouragement

45 Understanding existing explanations There was a high level of understanding of the existing online Crown copyright explanations read by participants in the test. After reading the guidelines, 16/19 interviewees’ descriptions of how they would re-use information were correct. The area of least clarity was permission to adapt content. 2 interviewees misinterpreted the information on direct.gov.uk, believing they would need to seek authorisation before re-using any information (this advice actually refers only to 3 rd party content). Several interviewees spontaneously commented that the language and presentation was easy to understand : “I like this summary box - that makes it really clear what I can do” Recommendation: If an explanation about “third party” content needs to appear at this stage, this should be explained more clearly. Do not expect everyone to understand the term “third party” – an example might inspire more confidence in the user that they understand.

46 The alternative presented: 46

47 Understanding alternative explanations The alternative Crown copyright explanation was more widely understood than the existing online explanation. After reading the summary slide, 18/19 interviewees’ descriptions of how they would re-use information were correct. The alternative summary explanation was considered very clear: “I’m absolutely clear I can do what I want to with this information” “That makes me feel very comfortable” “Very obvious” Although they correctly understood the summary, 3 interviewees said they would also read the full licence : “‘Read full licence’ seems like there are other terms and conditions so I might read that first” “It doesn’t feel as comprehensive [as the existing online explanation] so I would probably read the full licence” “Seems too easy, I’d be wary” There was a misconception that icons form part of a key that will be present in- page. This will be explored in forthcoming slides.

48 Positive impact – encouraging re-use Interviewees were more confident re-using material after reading the alternative summary statement.  Confidence was rated on average 8/10 after reading the existing statement  Confidence was rated on average 9/10 after reading the alternative summary explanation  Several interviewees rated confidence at 10/10 after both explanations The alternative summary explanation was felt to be more encouraging by 18/19 interviewees. The language and presentation contributed to this, specifically:  The phrasing ‘you are free’ was felt to be very encouraging  The green colour has positive associations “It is inviting you to do it” “People are looking for a yes or a no and this very clearly says yes” 48

49 Positive impact – overcomes perception barriers Both explanations overcame perception barriers identified in the pre-test interview; interviewees were able to correctly describe re-use policy. Definitions contained within the alternative summary of what it means to share, adapt and acknowledge appropriately were welcomed by interviewees and overcame perception barriers relating to these conditions. This is good practice, which could be further extended to include examples of correct applications of these conditions. Interviewees overestimated the potential consequences of not adhering to re- use policy. Frequently interviewees cited this as illegal or ‘fraudulent’ and expected a fine or to be sued. For some, repercussions were intensified by the Government’s involvement: “You would get sued without a doubt, it’s the government. You don’t mess with the government” This misconception was not resolved by exposure to existing or alternative explanations. However, interviewees did perceive “crown commons” to be less restrictive than “crown copyright”:. Here we see an impact of the word “copyright”: “It is not as strict as copyright, copyright is enshrined in law, commons is just legal documents. Copyright adds an extra meaning, extra restrictions” The term ‘deliberately’ offered some guidance to interviewees as to what constitutes misuse but this remained an area of low understanding. 49

50 Positive impact – simplified process The requirement of applying for a licence was clear to all 10 interviewees exposed to this message. Generally, interviewees accepted this. A minority said they would devise ‘work arounds’ to prevent having to apply for a licence – for example hyper linking to the website or paraphrasing the content. This suggests that a transactional licence process is a barrier for some people. A non transactional process demands a lower level of investment, which was attractive to people: The minority of our sample who had experience of applying for Click-Use Licences saw a non-transactional process to be time and energy saving and that this would encourage them to re-use information:  “I would be inclined to use information more if I didn’t need a licence”  “It is frustrating when you have to put things on hold for 15 days and wait for a licence. It would definitely speed things up if you didn’t have to have a licence” The summary alternative also sped up the process of digesting the information:  “Both versions are telling me I can go ahead and use the information, the difference is I would have to read the online version 3 or 4 times, whereas with this [alternative] version I know straight away” Video highlights provided 50

51 Summary understanding and impact of explanations Both explanations were understood. BUT the alternative has the greater positive impact. It inspires more confidence, is felt to be more encouraging and is perceived as more simple. 51

52 Exploring the different alternatives

53 Alternatives: the titles (1 of 2) The term “Commons” in the context of publishing is not widely understood to mean “available to everyone”. Interviewees actually considered the term “ Crown commons” to be official, bureaucratic and scary. Conversely, “Click 2 Use” is regarded as too casual. Derived as ‘webchat’ and ‘buzzwordy’ it was not felt to be appropriate for government use. This title also created a degree of confusion ‘what do I have to click?’ “Public Sector Information Licence” was the most popular title presented to interviewees. Although considered formal it was seen as descriptive and informative “does what it says on the tin”. However, licence implied an application process. The crest was popular with interviewees, many believed this gave content more weight and would influence them to pay more attention to it. However, these benefits may not outweigh the clear signage the well known copyright symbol provides.

54 Alternatives: the titles (2 of 2) Over 1/3 of interviewees made unprompted comments about the importance of retaining the word “copyright ”. As identified in the survey there appears to be confidence (albeit misplaced) in understanding “copyright”. All feedback indicates this term exists in the users mental model and is strongly associated with publishing rights. The familiarity with the word “copyright “should be harnessed in naming conventions. The most significant barrier to correctly re-using material under Crown copyright identified during user testing is not being able to find the copyright statement. Clear signposting is critical to overcoming this battle. The familiarity with the term copyright will play a role but evidence suggest users are looking for extremely explicit guidance, often to the point of wanting to see the phrase ‘ click here if you want to re-use this information ’. Video highlights provided

55 Icons vs ticks Whilst some interviewees preferred icons, they frequently misunderstood what the function of the icons would be, thinking that they would act as an in- page key to how information could be re-used. Inconsistencies such as this between the users’ mental model and the site model should be avoided. The icons chosen were not effective: “That is the symbol for men’s toilet – and it’s sexist!” “I think they use that on Microsoft word so maybe that means something” “They don’t mean anything” Bunnyfoot understands it is not the intention to move forward with the icons tested however this feedback may be relevant to future design decisions. Unlike the ticks, which deliver a message of their own (go ahead), the icons repeat what is said in text. This offers comparatively less value. Recurring reasons for preferring ticks were:  Positive  Simple  Clearer  Ticks give permission Interviewees suggested this could be expanded by including a red cross to highlight what you must not do – at the moment this appears as part of the previous point next to a tick. “Ticks and crosses are the best way of showing what’s right from wrong” Video highlights provided

56 Terminology: Attribution vs Acknowledgement Both of these terms are well understood. 2 participants preferred “attribution”: “Attribution is more serious than acknowledgement” “It is stronger, but less understood” 17 participants preferred “acknowledgement”: “More common” “Familiar” “Everyone will understand” (several interviewees) The accompanying text ‘state Crown Commons’ is preferable to ‘acknowledge the source’. Interviewees did not know who the source would be, some presumed this would be the author of the material or the website e.g. Directgov. Leaving this open for interpretation will cause “extra hassle” for users and creates room for confusion and error. Providing an example is a good way around this.

57 Terminology: Remix vs Adapt Only 2 preferred “remix”. Remix created the impression that content could be rearranged but not changed. “Remix sounds like something you do to a record” (several participants). 17 preferred the term “adapt”. It was interpreted as ‘alter’ by most interviewees. Adapt was seen as simple and clear: “speaks for itself” Some interviewees wanted further guidance: “To adapt is too broad” “So I could do anything?” Examples of how content could be adapted would offer solid guidance on what this term means.

58 Compatible with other licences In nearly all cases this was the only aspect of the explanation not understood (only 2 participants understood). Interviewees frequently stated that it would probably be useful for someone else, but does not convey any message to them. The element of uncertainty created by this information should be assessed against the proportion of users who will benefit from its inclusion at this top level.

59 Suggested changes: Use the crest – this helped users understand who the owner is and promoted confidence that this is official advice. Consider using the copyright symbol. Use ticks rather than icons as they communicate a positive “go ahead “ message. Use the term “ adap t”, but provide explanation as you have for other terms. Use “ acknowledgement ” rather than “attribution” – it is felt to be more widely understood. Make it clear that the “must not” is a “must not” by adding a cross – this helps separate it from the previous point. Remove the “compatible with” – those for whom this is relevant are likely to “read the full licence” anyway. Consider sticking with “Crown copyright” – ultimately this name will not change. It is the link through to it that matters. Providing alternative routes, for example, through “terms and conditions” and links such as “want to re-use this content?” are likely to be more beneficial than introducing a new term. Especially a term using “commons” or “licence”. (see survey results too) 59 Please note: this is to illustrate ideas only and not intended to be a complete solution.

60 In conclusion No difficulty has been identified in users correctly interpreting both the existing online Crown copyright statement and the alternatives presented. A non-transactional process and an easy to digest summary of Crown copyright policy are perceived by users to be more encouraging and easier to understand than existing processes. The alternatives also inspired more confidence in those re-using information. Scope for further potential optimisation of the summary alternative has been identified. The most significant barrier to correctly engaging with Crown copyright material identified by the user testing is a low awareness of when Crown copyright applies and of where on a website guidance about this can be found. As such it is considered more beneficial to retain the familiar term ‘copyright’, and to introduce explicit signposting such as “want to re- use this content?” than to introduce a new term. Let’s discuss... 60

61 Appendix 61

62 Participant schedule (1 of 5) Description Interested Party – Marketing  Female, aged 48  Fundraiser  Has visited the ONS website for work purposes  Has visited the NHS Direct website for personal purposes  Has visited the DirectGov, DoH and Businesslink websites for both work and personal purposes  Has had to copy/re-use information – for work purposes (“for Oxford Theatre Guild for content for the website, posters, and press releases, I use quotes about plays and playwrights, or use the information to compose biographical details. When providing reports for clients I will quote research to provide evidence for an investment proposal”)  Has heard of and understands the meaning of ‘Crown copyright’  Has heard of but does not understand the meaning of ‘PSI Licence’  Has never heard of ‘Click-Use Licence’  Has not applied for a ‘Click-Use Licence’ Interested Party – Central Government  Female, aged 32  Secretary  Has visited the DoH, NHS Direct and Businesslink websites for work purposes  Has visited the DirectGov website for personal purposes  Has had to copy/re-use information – for both work and personal purposes (“retrieving and sending the relevant data to work colleagues, also use data for presentations”)  Has heard of but does not understand the meaning of ‘Crown Copyright’, ‘PSI Licence’ and ‘Click Use Licence’  Has not applied for a Click-Use Licence Interested Party – Publishing / Media and Copywriting  Male, aged 39  Graphic Designer  Has visited the DirectGov and Businesslink websites for work purposes  Has had to copy/re-use information – for work purposes (“XXXXX”)  Has heard of and understands the meaning of ‘Crown copyright’  Has heard of but does not understand the meaning of ‘PSI Licence’ and ‘Click-Use Licence’  Has not applied for a Click-Use Licence Joe Public  Male, aged 37  Senior Software Engineer  Has visited the DirectGov, NHS Direct and DEFRA websites for personal purposes  Has had to copy/reuse information - for personal purposes (“downloaded Helium vapor pressure data from reference sources, also tax information for use in personal spreadsheets”)  Has heard of and understands the meaning of ‘Crown copyright’  Has never heard of ‘PSI Licence’ or ‘Click-Use Licence’  Has not applied for a ‘Click-Use Licence’

63 Participant schedule (2 of 5) 63 Description Interested Party - Marketing  Female, aged 35  Marketing Coordinator  Has visited the DirectGov and Businesslink websites for work purposes  Has visited the NHS Direct website for personal purposes  Has had to copy/re-use information – for both work and personal purposes (“for case studies, using quotes and/or information already written”)  Has never head of ‘Crown copyright’, ‘PSI Licence’ or ‘Click-Use Licence’  Has not applied for a ‘Click-Use Licence’ Joe Public  Female, aged 49  Receptionist  Has visited the DirectGov, NHS Direct and DEFRA websites for personal purposes  Has had to copy/re-use information – for personal purposes (“For research on my family tree”)  Has never heard of ‘Crown copyright’, ‘PSI Licence’ or ‘Click-Use Licence’  Has not applied for a ‘Click-Use Licence’ Interested Party – Local Government  Male, aged 31  Police Officer  Has visited the DirectGov, NHS Direct and DEFRA websites for personal use  Has had to copy/re-use information – for both work and personal purposes (“Police Sergeants exam”)  Has heard of and understands the meaning of ‘Crown copyright’  Is not sure if he’s heard of ‘PSI Licence’ or ‘Click-Use Licence’  Has not applied for a ‘-se Licence’ Interested Party - Publishing  Female, aged 47  Typesetter  Has visited the DoH and Businesslink websites for work purposes  Has visited the DirectGov, ONS and NHS Direct websites for personal purposes  Has had to copy/re-use information – for both work and personal purposes (“Buying images from stockimage sites, check spelling of drug and illness names, check citations from medical publications, source copyright free images from web for re-use on websites”)  Has heard of but does not understand the meaning of ‘Crown copyright’ and ‘PSI Licence’  Has never heard of ‘Click-Use Licence’  Has not applied for a ‘Click-Use Licence’

64 Participant schedule (3 of 5) 64 Description Licensing Policy - Science  Male, aged 48  Has visited the DirectGov website for personal purposes  Has had to copy/re-use information – for both work and personal purposes (“family history for personal research air quality statistics for work”)  Has heard of and understands the meaning of ‘Crown copyright’  Has never heard of ‘PSI Licence’ or ‘Click-Use Licence’  Has not applied for a ‘Click-Use Licence’ Licensing Policy – Advertising  Female, aged 31-40  Has visited the DoH and DEFRA websites for work purposes  Has visited the NHS Direct website for personal purposes  Has had to copy/re-use information – for both work and personal purposes (“archival photography for a history book “)  Has heard of but does not know the meaning of ‘Crown copyright’  Has not know the meaning of ‘PSI Licence’  Has applied for a ‘Click Use Licence’ (but didn’t know that that was what it was called, as she indicated in her survey response that she did not know what this was!! Joe Public  Male, aged 46  Has visited the ONS, DoH, NHS Direct and Businesslink websites for personal purposes  Has visited the DirectGov website for both work and personal purposes  Has had to copy/re-use information – for both work and personal purposes (“I use it for coursework and seminars”)  Has heard of and understands the meaning of ‘Crown copyright’  Has heard of but does not know the meaning of ‘PSI Licence’  Has never heard of ‘Click-Use Licence’  Has not applied for a ‘Click-Use Licence’ Interested Party – Healthcare and Voluntary Sector  Female, aged 41  Adviser to Healthcare Panels  Has visited the DirectGov and Businesslink websites for work purposes  Has visited the ONS and DoH websites for both work and personal purposes  Has had to copy/re-use information – for work and purposes (“I have quoted from websites, cut and pasted into reports occasionally and also passed on links to people making enquiries on a specific topic, as well as making links to our own website”)  Has heard of but does not understand the meaning of ‘Crown copyright’  Has never heard of ‘PSI Licence’ or ‘Click-Use Licence’  Has not applied for a ‘Click-Use Licence’

65 Participant schedule (4 of 5) 65 Description Joe Public  Female, aged 46  Laboratory Technician  Has visited the DirectGov, DoH and NHS Direct websites for personal purposes  Has had to copy/re-use information – for personal purposes (“for looking up information for school home work, on holiday entitlement and medical information”)  Is not sure if she’s heard of ‘Crown copyright’, ‘PSI Licence’ and ‘Click-Use Licence’  Has not applied for a ‘Click-Use Licence’ Joe Public  Male, aged 19  Sales Advisor  Has visited the NHS Direct website for personal purposes  Has had to copy/re-use information – for both work and personal purposes (“for school work, research and to research legal information”)  Has heard of but does not know the meaning of ‘Crown copyright’  Has not heard of ‘PSI Licence’ and ‘Click-Use Licence’  Has not applied for a ‘Click-Use Licence’ Interested Party – Local Government  Male, aged 59  Assistant Director  Has visited the ONS, DoH, NHS Direct, DEFRA and Businesslink websites for work purposes  Has had to copy/re-use information – for work purposes (“I've used copy and stats from websites in the content of formal reports presented to Local Authorities”)  Has heard of and understands ‘Crown copyright’  Has heard of but does not understand ‘PSI Licence’  Is not sure if he’s heard of ‘Click-Use Licence’  Has not applied for a ‘Click-Use Licence’ Interested Party – Local Government  Female, aged 28  Town Planner  Has visited the ONS and DEFRA websites for work purposes  Has had to copy/re-use information – for both work and personal purposes (“production of planning advice based on central and local government planning legislation”)  Has heard of but does not understand the meaning of ‘Crown copyright’  Has never heard of ‘PSI Licence’ or ‘Click-Use Licence’  Has not applied for a ‘Click-Use Licence’

66 Participant schedule (5 of 5) 66 Description Interested Party – Education  Male, aged 28  Teacher  Has visited the DirectGov, NHS Direct and Businesslink websites for personal purposes  Has visited the DoH website for both work and personal purposes  Has had to copy/re-use information – for both work and personal purposes (“teaching health and fitness at GCSE level used NHS and copied information about heart attacks etc“)  Has heard of but does not know the meaning of ‘Crown copyright’  Is not sure if she’s heard of ‘PSI Licence’ or ‘Click-Use Licence’  Has not applied for a ‘Click-Use Licence’ Interested Party – Local Government  Female, aged 36  Senior Investigation Officer  Has visited the OPSI, DirectGov and DEFRA websites for work purposes  Has visited the NHS Direct website for personal purposes  Has had to copy/re-use information – for both work and personal purposes (“referred to reports/stats and publications in policies or articles written for work”)  Has heard of and understands the meaning of ‘Crown copyright’  Is not sure if she’s heard of ‘PSI Licence’ or ‘Click-Use Licence’  Has not applied for a ‘Click-Use Licence’


Download ppt "OPSI – Crown Copyright User Testing Report 30 th March 2009 Rebecca Gill and Poppy James."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google