Basic Access Service: Concept Assessment and Usability Testing

Prepared for the:
Public Affairs Branch
Canada Revenue Agency
FINAL REPORT
November 2007
POR# 178-07
Contract #46558-083562

Prepared by:
Phoenix Strategic Perspectives Inc

Le rapport complet en français sera fourni sur demande.

To request a full copy of this report, please contact Library and Archives Canada at:
613-996-5115 or 1-866-578-7777 or www.collectionscanada.ca

Media Enquiries:
Media Relations
Canada Revenue Agency
4th Floor 555 MacKenzie Avenue
Ottawa ON K1A 0L5
media.relations@cra-arc.gc.ca

---

Executive Summary

The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) commissioned Phoenix Strategic Perspectives Inc. to conduct qualitative research related to a potential online service the agency is considering offering, provisionally entitled Basic Access. The main objectives were to assess the concept and test the usability of the proposed service. The target audiences consisted of a mix of taxpayers drawn from the general public, particularly those with demographic characteristics corresponding to the type of information that could be obtained through the new service (i.e. parents with young children, lower-income Canadians, and employed Canadians).

A total of eight focus groups and 16 one-on-one interviews were conducted October 9-18, 2007. The focus groups were used primarily to assess the service concept, while the one-on-one interviews were used primarily to test the usability of the proposed service. Two focus groups and four interviews were conducted in each of the following four cities: Halifax, Quebec City (French), Toronto, and Vancouver. The research was conducted over a two-day period in each city.

In order to clarify which issues or topics were explored with which audiences, the following designations have been used:

• The term 'research participants' will be used when reporting on issues explored with all participants in the research project.
• The term 'focus group participants' will be used when reporting on issues explored exclusively with participants in the focus groups.
• The term 'one-on-one interviewees' will be used when reporting on issues explored exclusively with participants in the one-on-one interviews.

Review of Basic Access Service

Most focus group participants reacted positively to the idea of this service. Positive reactions were typically based on impressions that such a service is convenient, useful, and seems easy to use. Neutral and critical reaction tended to focus on the perceived value of information available through this service. Specifically, there was a sense that since the service provides information that tax filers will ultimately learn anyway it is of limited value. Relatively few concerns or perceived drawbacks were identified, and only one was identified routinely: the inability to access the amount of refunds and/or benefit payments. Indeed, research participants routinely identified this as information they would like to be able to access through the new service.

Feedback on specific aspects of the service was primarily positive. This included the following:

• Authentication process: The authentication process was widely viewed as acceptable or appropriate, with most focus group participants having no problems regarding the authentication information required or having to provide it each time they would use the service. Critical feedback was relatively limited and focused on issues of convenience (primarily the need to enter the amount from line 150 of one's tax return each time one accesses the service) or security (the requirement to enter one's SIN). For their part, one-on-one interviewees described the information they were asked to provide as clear and straightforward.
  
  
• Security measures: Most research participants were satisfied with the security measures in place. Moreover, most said they saw no need for added security for the additional information they would like to be able to access, even when this involved gaining access to the amounts of their returns and/or benefits.
  
  
• Terms and Conditions of Use page: There was a virtual consensus among research participants that the information on the 'Terms and Conditions of Use' page is clear, with the exception of the final clause absolving the CRA of responsibility for losses or damages incurred under certain circumstances. This clause was unclear to almost all participants.

Most research participants said that they would use or probably use this new service. The main reason would be to check the status of their tax return. Those who said they would not use the service, or did not think they would, were most likely to refer to one of the following reasons to explain why: inability to access the amounts of returns/benefits, the perceived lack of importance of the information available, and the limited information available in relation to the information one must provide in order to access the service.

Review of My Account Service

Awareness of the My Account service among focus group participants prior to this study was relatively limited. Following an introduction to the My Account service focus group participants said that the CRA site makes clear the differences between this service and Basic Access. Routinely-identified differences included the impression that My Account provides much more/more detailed information, allows one both to view information and to do things, and involves more security measures. 

Focus group participants were almost equally divided about which of these two services they would be more likely to use given their personal situation. Those more likely to use Basic Access emphasized its speed, convenience, and the limited information they are interested in accessing. Those more likely to use My Account focused mainly on the type and number of things one could do through this service. Despite this difference, there was a virtual consensus among focus group participants that the CRA should make both services available.

Most research participants rated the Basic Access service as useful to themselves personally. Using a 7-point scale (7 = very useful; 1 = not at all useful) most provided scores of five or higher. Among those who did not rate the service positively, focus group participants were more likely to provide negative ratings while one-on-one interviewees were more likely to provide scores towards the middle of the scale.

Review of Basic Access Service Name

The name Basic Access did not elicit a strongly positive reaction, but all research participants felt that it was appropriate. Most could not suggest a more appropriate name on their own, and the most commonly emphasized theme in names that were proposed was what the service gives access to (e.g. 'information', 'service'). Asked to choose from a list of possible names, three stood out as top choices. Leading the way was the current name, 'Basic Access', followed at some distance, by 'Basic Information Service' and 'Quick Info'.

Usability Testing

Overall, the Basic Access service tested well in terms of usability. Most one-on-one interviewees were able to complete the exercises with relatively little or no difficulty at all. However, the following were identified as things that should be addressed to improve the user-friendliness of the service:

• Difficulty finding starting point: Many had difficulty finding the starting point for completing these exercises, taking considerable time finding the link at the bottom of the introductory page labelled 'Start using Basic Access'.
  
  
• Confusion regarding 'personal information' link under 'Online check list' heading: The description of information behind this link confused some Anglophone participants because they assumed that it gave access to the personal information they were seeking instead of the personal information they need to provide in order to begin using the service. There was no similar confusion among Francophone participants.
  
  
• Confusion about link between line 150 and tax year: When entering information on the authentication page, some did not understand that they are being asked to enter the amount from line 150 for one of two tax years for identification purposes only. Instead, they thought that the year chosen was the year for which they wanted information.
  
  
• Information on status of return sometimes not noticed: When looking for the status of their return on the Welcome page, many did not immediately notice the yellow box containing this information. This was more likely to be the case with those who began by completing scenarios which had them looking for other information (e.g. status of CCTB, UCCB). The reason was that the latter information is included under links in the middle of the Welcome page, which is where they also expected to find information about the status of their return.
  
  
• Confusion regarding presentation of information on CCTB and UCCB: Nearly everyone was confused by the layout and labelling of information regarding the status of their CCTB and UCCB. It was not clear that the information identified the date of the last payment and the date of the next payment.
  
  
• Confusion regarding statement on status regarding GST/HST credit: Many were confused by the English version of the statement regarding their status in relation to the GST/HST credit (i.e. 'According to our records, you do not receive the GST/HST credit'.) They did not understand that this meant they do not qualify for this benefit. Instead, they interpreted this as meaning that, so far as CRA knows, they do not currently receive the benefit, but that if they apply, they might qualify.

Many research participants felt that more could be done to attract attention to the service on the CRA site and give a clearer idea of what it offers. Many suggested that the content and display of information on the My Account page do not highlight the Basic Access service but focus instead to the registration process for My Account. Moreover, it was suggested that even if one notices the Basic Access link, it is not clear what it gives access to because the reference to 'limited' information is vague.

Suggestions for Improvement

Research participants offered numerous suggestions for improving the Basic Access service but only two were identified frequently: providing access to the amounts of tax refunds and benefits, and clarifying the terms of the final clause on the 'Terms and Conditions of Use' page. Other suggestions included adding information, adding, reducing, or replacing specific security-related measures, and improving the user-friendliness of the service.

Conclusions and Implications

Overall reaction to the new service was positive, both in relation to the concept itself and its usability. This was underscored by the fact that most research participants said they would use the service and rated it as at least moderately useful to themselves personally. The main perceived drawback to the service, and the only one identified with any frequency, was the inability to access the amounts of refunds and/or benefit payments.

Comparatively speaking, the service tested better in terms of usability than in terms of accessibility, with one-on-one interviewees having more difficulty navigating their way into the service (i.e. being drawn to it) than navigating their way through it (i.e. actually using it). This is an important point given the perceived usefulness of the service. In short, it is important to ensure that potential users are aware of the service and what it offers.

A number of research participants indicated that while acceptable, the current name is somewhat vague because it does not identify what the service gives access to. Moreover, a few one-on-one interviewees suggested that they might have been more likely to notice reference to the new service on the My Account page had it had a name that focused on 'information' or 'basic information' instead of 'access'. In this regard, it is worth noting that the two most popular options among proposed names following 'Basic Access' include a reference to 'information'.

Suggestions to improve the service involved fine-tuning as opposed to a major overhaul. Particular attention should be given to the most frequently identified suggestion: providing access to the amounts of tax refunds and benefits. Clearly most research participants would like this addition, and the value-added to the service through this addition would appear to be significant to many. It would render the service more useful to some who already consider it so, and render it useful to some who currently consider it not useful. Moreover, most saw no security-related implications to this measure.