2nd Service Design Guideline Revision Review Meeting

Overview

Date and time: December 17, 2024 (2024) (Tuesday) from 10:00 to 12:00
Location: online meetings
Agenda:
1. Explanation of the purpose of the event
2. Gathering opinions on the guidelines
3. Summary of Results

Material

References

Reference materials: "Draft Service Design Guidelines" * For members only

List of Attendees

Members (in the order of Japanese syllabary)

AKASAKA Bunya (Senior Researcher, Human Augmentation Research Center, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and
Masaya Ando (Professor, Department of Intelligent Media Engineering, Faculty of Advanced Engineering, Chiba Institute of Technology / Department of Intelligent Media Engineering, Graduate School of Advanced Engineering)
Yoshihiro Ito (President, NPO Information Gap Buster)
Tetsuya Uda (Director, Design Center, FUJITSU LIMITED)
Mikie Oi (Integrated Design Laboratory, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation)
Mayumi Saotome (UX/HCD Promotion Group, Quality Management Department, Sony Group Corporation)
TANAKA Yumiko (Head of ExperienceDesign, Innovation Center (KOEL), NTT Communications Corporation)
Atsushi HASEGAWA (Professor, Faculty of Design and Design, Musashino Fine Arts University, Representative Director, Consent Co.
Naoki HIRASAWA (Professor, Department of Social Informatics, Otaru University of Commerce)
Shinichi Fukuzumi (Deputy Team Leader, Research Center for Innovative Intelligence, RIKEN)
Rei Yamamoto
*Due to his absence on the day, Mr. Fukuzumi will hold an individual hearing on Tuesday, December 24, 2024.

Digital Agency (Secretariat)

Technical Review Meeting Service Design Task Force

Summary of proceedings

Main Comments from Members (Summary)

1. Explanation of the purpose of the meeting (Q & A)

Should issues arising from human factors and use errors be included in usability guidelines, or in security and procurement guidelines?
- (Answer: Digital Agency) We are promoting horizontal cooperation with teams that are working on security by design and privacy design so that we can develop as a trinity. Problems such as use errors will be responsible for both teams. This time, the usability guideline includes contents such as setting appropriate safety goals and identifying hazards.
GOJ requests USG to clarify the definition and scope of service design in the Study Group and the Guidelines. According to the Guidelines submitted to USG in advance, they cover specific matters such as website design and usability. GOJ requests USG to explain the meaning and significance of including such matters in service design.
- (Answer: Digital Agency) There are two types of subjects to be discussed in this study group. One is how to design complicated systems, and the other is how to approach from the domain of policy design. The former is guidelines and manuals for providing various services through websites and applications. The latter has various issues, and the Digital Administrative and Fiscal Reform Council is trying to formulate policies based on the service design method. The definition and scope of service design are not enough to be discussed in this fiscal year's study group, so we will continue to discuss it including next fiscal year and beyond.
Is there a consensus with each ministry and agency on the obligations and the obligations to make efforts? Also, since it was not possible to judge the obligations and the obligations to make efforts in the Guidelines, please explain.
- (Answer: Digital Agency) From January 2025, a consensus will be obtained through a meeting with each ministry and agency. Since it can be made mandatory only after considering the feasibility and agreeing with each ministry and agency, the focus will be on how to describe it in the context of limited resources.
- (Answer: Digital Agency) With regard to the distinction between obligations and obligations to make efforts, if it is written in a conclusive tone, such as "to do ● ●," it is an obligation, and if it is written, such as "to make efforts to ● ●," it is an obligation to make efforts.
The Human Centered Design Promotion Organization (hereinafter referred to as "HCD-Net") and the Dark Pattern Countermeasure Association have argued that it is necessary to examine the governance system itself because there is a limit to the examination of what can be seen as a phenomenon in the investigation and examination method of dark patterns. We believe that a governance system for security, usability, and accessibility is necessary. As the guidelines are developed in the future, will the guidelines include what kind of governance should be used when considering measures in conjunction with other ministries and agencies and local governments?
As for dark patterns, it is difficult for the government to consider them as malicious dark patterns. Therefore, it is necessary for the governance to consider how to take in external comments on how to deal with dark patterns as a result. It is sufficient if "2.1 Service Design and Ethics" in the Usability Introduction Guidebook mentions that dark patterns should be actively prevented.
- (Answer: Digital Agency) As for the service design as a whole, we would like to include governance and management. The first draft of the usability guideline included the topic of governance, but the scope of influence is large, and the DS-100 series of the Digital Society Promotion Standard Guideline stipulates how to proceed with the project. Based on the consistency, we decided not to include it in this guideline. Regarding the system development, instead of establishing a guideline and each ministry and agency following it, a team will be established in Digital Agency above the PJMO and PMO of each ministry and agency, and a trial of measures to spread service design, usability, and measures to prevent dark patterns will be carried out before the guideline.
- (Answer: Digital Agency) Dark patterns are described in the usability introduction guidebook, but how to write prevention measures as guidelines is still under consideration. We would like to make it while referring to dark pattern guidelines and rules such as HCD-Net.

2. Collection of opinions on the guideline revision policy, 3. Collection of opinions on each group's opinion

*Contains utterances for each document under development.

Entire guideline

Due to the large volume and number of books, it would be easier to read and understand if there were a guide to the overall structure, such as which documents cover what scope, and which tasks should be read by which people.
The actual content may differ from the content recalled from the title. There is a gap between the content written in the positioning of this book and the title.
It would be desirable to clarify the difference between guidelines and guidebooks, the positioning of Normative and Informative, and the difference between obligations and effort obligations.
It is better to specify the target of each document. It is easier to convey if the document for policy makers has specific examples and illustrations. If it is dealt with in words, it can be supplemented with checklists, etc. to reduce misinterpretation and omission.
This guideline is an important part of the standard process for usability and accessibility in Japan, and I would like you to be aware that the content is in line with international standards.
While I understand that it is necessary to take into account consistency with guidelines established in the past, I am concerned that it may be too closed to local customs. This initiative will also have an impact on the service design of companies, and I would like to see it included from the perspective of whether it can be a guideline to build a competitive advantage in the global market. Design in companies can exist not only with design but also with business and technology, and the point is whether it is described in a balanced manner.
I would like Japan to propose ISO rather than follow ISO.
Instead of a document format, I think it would be more efficient and productive to spit it out as a program that is all learned by a AI, which saves human reading time.
I believe that the next task for Digital Agency will be to use technology to reform the way people work and the way design is used. I hope we can discuss this point as well.
There should be guidelines, a guidebook with prerequisite information, and checklists and AI supporters to make it easier to understand. Since many people may not be able to follow the guidelines, it is desirable that peripheral information is in an easy-to-use form.
Although the current guidelines mention AI to some extent, there is a possibility that AI friendly content and information will be required in the future, and there is room to consider such points. There are ministries and agencies where the Committee's way of providing information is not sufficient. It is also possible to associate areas that cannot be covered by simple search with AI.
In general, the necessary items are covered, but it will be better if a little more minority perspectives are included.
If you are conscious of the explanation of the reasons, such as why the response is appropriate and why the response alone is not enough, it will be used more appropriately. In particular, if only the description of "to do ● ●" is used for the obligation, it will not be thought that it is good to do that much, and as a result, there is a possibility that it will be an inappropriate response with a wrong interpretation.
It is better to use words and expressions that match the literacy of the intended reader. When technical terms appear, it is not that the terms are difficult to understand, but that the overall impression is that they are difficult to understand. Care must be taken when using technical terms.

User Research Guidelines

The title does not match the content.
It is better to make the title clear that the overall contents are written in the form of a guideline of user research implementation summary.
If you especially want to say that you do research "safely", you should put a keyword in the title of the guideline.
I feel that the information is limited to considerations for informants. I feel that it is written on the assumption that there are people who have to use the service in "digital society where no one left behind", although there are other services that are used by people who want to use it.
In "1.2 Background and Issues" and "1.3 Target Audience," it can be read as a guideline for conducting user research "safely," but I think it would be better to explain the flow of "research is important, research must be conducted appropriately, and ensuring safety is especially important." I also think that the target audience should be "those who conduct user research." In addition, in the case of research in general, I felt that it would be good to talk about bias and pay attention to behavioral characteristics and physical characteristics in the case of children.
I think it is important to talk about when and what kind of research should be done, but I felt it was difficult to use because it was not mentioned there. It would be good if there was an explanation about what the goal is to know, when to do it, how to make a hypothesis, when to do research and when not to do it, etc.
If I have to refer to other guidelines on when to conduct research, I am concerned about whether the guidelines are coordinated.
2.3 The explanation of research is "the activity of assigning the informant to one or more interventions in a positive manner," and the activity of assigning is not research, and I think the explanation is insufficient.
The sections from "2.4.1 Requirements for the Formation of Consent" to "2.4.3 Omission of Written Consent" are not definitions of terms but descriptions of requirements, and I feel that it would be easier to understand if they were explained in Chapter 5.
There is room for improvement in "2.4.2 Measures for Persons Requiring Special Care" in the following three points.
- ① The expression "may be susceptible to coercion or undue influence" is vague and subjective, and may be interpreted differently by different readers. It may also give the impression that the subject is lumped together as a weak entity.
- ② The enumeration of subjects seems to emphasize certain attributes and neglect individual backgrounds and situations, and gives the impression that it excludes other possibilities.
- (iii) Regarding "measures to protect rights and welfare," the necessity of protection is stated, but specific guidelines on what kind of measures are necessary are lacking. It is difficult for readers to understand what to do.
2.4.3 "Consent 1" and "Consent 1-a" are described, but there is no description in that notation before that, and it is unclear which one they refer to.
In "3.1 Three Principles of Research," it is stated that "it should be helpful for informants," but it is not clear what it means, so it is better to have a specific statement.
Regarding "3.1 Three Principles of Research," there is room for improvement in the following three points.
- (1) Strengthening of Justice: It is important for research principles that advocate fairness to appropriately reflect the diversity of the target audience. Without a minority perspective, there is a risk that research results will be biased towards a certain majority and policies and services will be unequal for some.
- ② Ensuring research neutrality to prevent bias: Considering the representation of minorities is effective as a means to maintain neutrality. It is necessary to ensure diversity in the selection of subjects and to collect data not biased toward specific groups.
- ③ Improving the reliability of administrative services: Research that reflects the viewpoints of minorities has the effect of making diverse people feel that "the administration is listening to them," and increasing the reliability and acceptability of services as a whole.
It is strange that "3.2 Provision of Prototypes" is placed under "3. Ethical Principles of Research". It seems that it is not a matter of ethics but a matter of scope, so it should be described in 1.3 Scope of Description or 2 Terms / 2.3 Research.
Regarding the three items listed in "4.1 Matters to be Implemented," I feel that it would be easier to understand if they were linked to the three ethical principles on a one to-one basis.
Regarding the title of the chapter "5 Informed Consent," I think it is correct as an English meaning, but as a word it reminds me of consent in medical practice, so I feel that Japanese expressions such as "user's understanding and consent" rather than Katakana are more understandable.
It would be better to explain the term "rapport formation" in 5.3.

Usability Guidelines

I feel that the process of how to evaluate and respond to ensure usability is weak. It is better to include content such as evaluation and improvement before release, including accessibility check.
As a guideline for the ordering party, it is necessary to mention the process of acceptance inspection. In terms of usability, the CIF (Common Industry Format for Usability) requires testing. In terms of accessibility as well as usability, if the check at the acceptance inspection stage is not mentioned, it may be minimal or not implemented.
Regarding the acceptance inspection, I think that there will be fewer problems in the operation if the common points of what is expected and what should be confirmed are clearly stated for the people involved in the business. I felt that it was difficult to understand the use and content of terms at present.
Since you are running two different tasks for usability and accessibility, it would be nice to have a clear idea of what to do for each.
I think I have to mention governance and organizational structure. If each ministry has an information system department and there is no suggestion on how to operate and manage usability, it will be difficult to understand and may result in not doing it.
One of the difficulties with usability in procurement is that it is difficult to indicate the actual interaction image at the ordering stage. How to do this is a challenge.
The fail-safe and foolproof described in "4.2 Planning and Implementation of Measures" can be divided into problems that can be solved by replacement and problems that can be solved only by creative jump because ideas are needed. Since it is not something that can be easily done by administrative officials, it is necessary for experts to deal with it. However, it is desirable to include examples that can easily give an image of what will be done in it, development processes when fail-safe and foolproof are applied, what insights can be gained, etc. This point may be included in the guidebook because it is a highly specialized story.
With regard to "3.1.2 Identification of Accessibility Needs," I could not understand it well even after reading the "Web Accessibility Implementation Guidebook," so it would be easier to understand if I gave specific examples here, such as specifying the evaluation method.
There are many "assumptions" such as "terminals to be used," "sensory modalities," and "user characteristics," and there may be a lack of guidelines on how to specifically identify them. In addition, it is important to incorporate the perspectives of persons with disabilities and other stakeholders into projects in order to improve accessibility, but I would like to see a description of the participation of stakeholders in this wording.
I felt that the use of the term "use error" was a little rough, so I would like to convey it so that it can be understood properly because it is an important concept.
With regard to the description of "2.1.1 Use Error," it is not clear whether it is an example of someone from each ministry and agency operating the information system or an example of the public using the service.
I would like to know the source of the data quoted in "1.2 Background and Problems."
Regarding "3.2.1 Implementation of Fact-Finding Survey (Design Research)," I have a question about the use of words. Design Research often looks at a wide range of services as a whole, but here it mentions checking the status of devices and touch points. Design Research gives the impression that it is hard work.
Usability refers to the standard for both designers who are planning activities and those who are related to software. The word "quality of use" comes out suddenly and seems to be mixed with usability, so it is better to have them all together.

Usability Implementation Guidebook

The book is voluminous and informative, but it needs to be easy to read and easy to understand. For example, there should be more illustrations and examples, it should be possible to read as needed without reading everything, and it should be divided into sections that should be read at least and those who are willing to read them.
I have the impression that the level of the "two principles" varies, but the content is interesting. It is better to source it for those who want deeper information.
In "2.1 Service Design and Ethics", it is better to mention dark patterns. I don't think it is a premise that a malicious dark pattern will be included in the administration, but there are cases where a dark pattern design will result due to the designer's lack of consideration and the desire to obtain information from the user or to have it written by the user. It is better to mention the resulting dark pattern because it may cause unintended results for the user and it is becoming a problem in society.
In "2.2 Principles of Usability Design," accessibility first, principles of dialogue, principles of information presentation, and human-centered principles are listed. However, I feel that dialogue and information presentation are difficult to see in the overall structure, and it is difficult to change the structure, so it would be good if a table of contents and illustrations can be used.
With regard to "3.1 Human-Centered Design," the HCD-Net uses the term "human-centered design" instead of "human-centered design," and I would like the HCD-Net to consider the term "human-centered design" so that it does not sound rigid or pro-engineering.
The SQuaRE series (ISO/IEC 250 xx) is mentioned in "3.3.1 Adapting to Challenges in Personal Activities and Operations", but this is an unfamiliar term for someone from a Web background.

General accessibility

There are various references to accessibility in the text, and there is a risk that it will function as a "Don't Do" collection.
By covering specific references in the design system and clarifying what can and cannot be done in the design system, I feel that it will be easier for ministries and agencies to consider.
I would like to see a discussion of accessibility and minorities from the perspective of what the people concerned think, what is inconvenient, and what can be done to improve the situation. There is an increasing number of cases where engineers, developers, and designers talk about accessibility in the absence of the people concerned, saying, "It seems good to do this," and I would like to aim for a form that avoids such things as much as possible.

Web Accessibility Implementation Guidebook

Sign language should be added as one of the alternative contents in "3.3 Matters to be checked depending on the situation (individual response)" for the following reasons.
- (1) Sign language is a language and a means to reduce cognitive load
- ② Provision of highly accessible information
- (iii) Improving accessibility as a responsibility of public institutions
- Meeting the diverse needs of the hearing-impaired
- (v) Development and dissemination of standards through accumulated practice
In relation to "4. Practical Process of Web Accessibility", "Significance of Diverse Users' Participation in the Process" should be added. Since a lack of a minority perspective in society may prioritize the needs of the majority and lead to unequal results, research should be targeted at people from diverse backgrounds and care should be taken to ensure that they are appropriately represented. Specifically, "Significance of Diverse Users' Participation in the Process" should be added after "4. 1 Development of Services in Information Systems".

Web Accessibility Introduction Publicity Guidebook

In "1.1 Background and Issues," there is an example of a case where a video with subtitles is released later than a video without subtitles, and it is better to describe this point as a corresponding matter in the text.
For policy-makers and others who tend to be more visual than verbal, illustrations and specific examples are easier to understand.
In "2.1 Characteristics of Users," the user environments that require consideration are listed, but I felt that it would be difficult to understand why consideration is necessary and what should be considered in the current explanation, and it would be better to explain more specific examples such as why there is a problem.
As it is an introduction guidebook, I think the content is for beginners, but the terminology is difficult and there are some parts that beginners do not understand, so it is better to add an explanation.
P. 9 It is better to briefly explain that the "Audio Guide" is different from the general narration. The introductory guidebook includes "Audio Description" on P. 33, and this guidebook includes "Audio Guide (Audio Description)" on P. 34. It is better to have the introductory guidebook and this guidebook read the Audio Guide (Audio Description) based on the premise of understanding at the beginning. In addition, it is better to use the same notation because the terms are different.
P. 28 "Closed Captioning" does not seem to be explained anywhere, including in the Introductory Guidebook. It is better to define or explain the terminology.

Design system

It may be easier to understand if there is an explanation of the reasons and specific examples. For example, in order to ensure readability and visibility of typographic fonts, the numbers 3 and 8, and P and Ba in Katakana look the same.

Web Content Guidelines

I feel that the content of both the Web Content Guidelines and the Web Site Guidelines is appropriate.
While I understand that it is necessary to take into account consistency with guidelines established in the past, I am concerned that it is too closed to local customs. I would like to see it included from the perspective of whether it can be a guideline to build a competitive advantage in the global market.
In "9.3.3 Gender and Sexuality," it is stated that "information on gender is not obtained through questionnaires, etc., unless there is a reasonable necessity." However, I felt that there should be examples of responses in cases where there is a necessity and information is desired to be obtained. Since the UI checklist includes such a description, it would be easier to understand if it is also included here.
In "15 Lifecycle Management of Public Information", the lifecycle of web content is described. I would like to see content continue to remain in the web space, and I would like to see web design based on the assumption that content will continue to remain.
There is a tendency to exclude operating systems and browsers that are not known to work, and to encourage people to install operating systems and browsers that are known to work. This is a matter of accessibility and connection, and there are people who usually use the web with screen readers and extensions, as well as elderly people who cannot use anything other than what they are familiar with, so please do not exclude anything other than those that are known to work.
On government websites, there is a tendency to assume responsibility as long as the correct information is posted, and the reader is responsible for the rest. I feel that it is necessary to present an awareness of the problem that there is too much information and it is not read completely, and that it is impossible to discover where the information is. It is necessary to mention the trade-off that it becomes difficult to understand because the pursuit of accuracy requires strictness, and that an appropriate route is necessary because in many cases on the web, information exists but the route to the information is not presented.
Since there are many users of government systems, it is important to decide what kind of voice and tone to use for the users as a whole. It would be good if there is a description that it is better to implement UX writing because administrative officials can expect effects by understanding the basics of UX writing.

Guidelines for Provision and Promotion of Use of Administrative Information via Websites, etc.

Promotion of use is a necessary perspective. These guidelines are intended to maintain and disclose administrative information, but I think it would be interesting to discuss whether it is possible to promote use other than initiatives and guidelines that promote use by the public and granting points according to use.
If the information is provided in the form of text such as markup, the reusability of the information is enhanced. Therefore, I would like to state that "disclosure of markup information, not PDF, is necessary". However, I would like you to decide whether to respond or not based on whether it is in line with the policies of Digital Agency.