Your UX practices should reflect your D & I policies
Companies do business digitally, period. And for consumers, customers or talent to connect with you, users are all developing a password and login to your site, filling out applications or inbound content forms and engaging in preference centers. How a company represents themselves in these spaces can support or thwart policies and beliefs about diversity.
A recent Twitter debate tackled using “mother’s maiden name” as a security question. The discussion was about the presumptions in that prompt, including whether you’re a maiden at all, the concept of “keeping” something that was already yours and the security flaws in using a name that may match your own. Users also unpacked the assumptions “mother’s maiden name” makes about marrying at all.
But security prompts for user interfaces and password protections for using online services have many other problems, and these interfaces make a statement about how a company feels about diversity and inclusion. Customers and talent now demand more inclusive companies, yet companies often neglect the important first impression UX can offer.
Here are four UX considerations companies should explore to make their inbound digital spaces reflect the principles and values touted elsewhere on their website.
· Build form fills to reflect both longer and hyphenated names. People hyphenate their surnames for various reasons, yet, many form fills do not allow non-alpha characters. Users must abandon this very conscious choice about identity in order to “pass” the rules of the UX. Before users have even received a newsletter, finished an application or selected preferences, some companies’ UX has already excluded a piece of their identity. The increase in both hyphenated and dual surnames in culture also means longer character counts are required for many people to properly identify themselves. A company’s UX may restrict characters, further pigeon-holing identity to fit the company’s model.
· Offer security questions and reminders that don’t carry the baggage of gender or cultural politics. Like the Twitter debate, a mother’s maiden name is not necessarily a secure or culturally relevant reference as a security reminder. Many confessed they simply “name” their mother with an unrecognizable code of letters and numbers to give the system its answer without giving a name. Users hacking an outdated question may be a solution, but not one that shows the company is forward-thinking. Another user cited that her bank’s security question, one she can’t change, is “name of your first boyfriend.” Not only are the presumptions of that question heteronormative, but it’s also a regular reminder of someone no longer in her life. A character scramble could also apply here, but the outdated question would remain. The bank’s UX, however the user works with it, still represents a point of view from the company.
· If you’re looking for diverse talent, don’t trap them into reductive, conforming choices. Companies regularly tout their desire for the most unique thinkers and people from diverse backgrounds to join their family. Yet, many online talent hubs require very standardized form fills including restrictive drop-down menus of possible degree titles, areas of study or experience. Job seekers who may have created a unique degree path are forced to squeeze their experience into the closest fit. Reducing a calculated, complex experience path to simply “communication” may deny the nuance of an applicant’s knowledge and skills. Open ended choices may be harder to process or control, but how much diversity is filtered out when a company’s UX forces everyone to fit a singular set of conditions? Character counts in these categories also limit users’ ability to fully list past job titles, subtitles and the specific descriptors of their skills and experience.
· Create more form fill choices instead of relegating non-standard selections to “other.” Understanding and respecting identity politics is essential to any business that wants to practice diversity and inclusion. Often, form fills — especially in talent or newsletter registrations — offer a limited selection of lines of address. As a Ph.D., I specifically prefer to be called by my first name or “Dr.” yet I’m often faced with indicating if I’m a “Miss,” “Ms.,” or “Mrs.” only. None of those three titles are my identity preference. Further, when selecting gender for “internal purposes only” many forms offer only “male,” “female,” or “other.” If a company recognizes diversity, they could represent that by including selections like “transgender.” While many transgender individuals may choose the gender they identify with, others may choose to indicate their identity more specifically than “other” as an important recognition of identity. Finally, form fills could also request that users identify their preferred pronouns. This would benefit not only dynamic content for your email program, but also recruiters who will sort through this information in search of top talent and likely call or reach out to candidates. Being able to embrace the proper hail and line of address for a candidate gives the first impression that the company’s policies on inclusion are practiced, not just preached.
