Overview
Title
Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Department of Defense wants to know if people like their money-help website, so they’re asking some people in the military to tell them what they think about it. They’ll use this information to try to make the website better.
Summary AI
The Department of Defense (DoD) has submitted a proposal to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to conduct a study on user satisfaction with the Financial Readiness (FINRED) website. The study will gather feedback from 480 respondents within the military community to evaluate the website's content, layout, and navigation. This research aims to improve the website based on user opinions, and participation is voluntary. Comments on this proposed information collection will be accepted until January 29, 2025.
Abstract
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document in question is an official notice from the Department of Defense (DoD) submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The notice announces a proposed study aimed at improving the Financial Readiness (FINRED) website based on user feedback from the military community. This proposal is made under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Feedback from the public is invited until January 29, 2025.
General Summary of the Document
The core objective of this study is to gather insights from military personnel regarding their satisfaction with the FINRED website, specifically its content, design, and ease of navigation. The intent is to utilize collected feedback to make evidence-based improvements to the site, thereby enhancing its utility and user-friendliness. The process includes four different usability tests, gathering responses from a total of 480 individuals.
Significant Issues or Concerns
A few key issues arise within this document. Primarily, the use of specific acronyms like OUSD(P&R), DoD, and OMB without prior explanation may confuse readers unfamiliar with these terms. Similarly, terms such as "taxonomy" and "DOD Instruction (DoDI) 1322.34" are introduced without context, potentially alienating readers not versed in military directives or technical website terminology.
Moreover, the document mentions the research will be conducted on a relatively small sample size of 480 respondents. While appropriate given certain contexts, this number may not be sufficient to represent the full spectrum of diverse opinions within the broader military community. Furthermore, the document lacks details on how participants are selected for the study, which could raise potential concerns about the fairness and representativeness of respondent sampling.
Impact on the Public Broadly
The proposal, through its call for public comments, offers a channel for engagement and transparency, illustrating the government's commitment to refining a service critical to military personnel. The use of public feedback in governmental projects is a positive indicator of a responsive and adaptive governance system, aiming to optimize resources and support based on user needs.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For stakeholders within the military community, the study promises potential improvements to the FINRED website, a platform offering essential financial information and resources. The study presents an opportunity to voice opinions that could directly influence website enhancements, making it more efficient and user-centric. However, the lack of detailed methodological transparency might lead to skepticism about how representative and impactful the feedback collection will be.
Further, those involved in website development and design could see this initiative as a case study for employing user feedback in practical improvements. However, if the communication strategy encompassing the results and subsequent changes is not clear and evidence-based, there may be missed opportunities for showcasing best practices in user-centered design.
In conclusion, while this document reflects a positive step towards user-driven improvements in public resources, careful consideration should be applied to clarify and expand upon technical terms and the procedural aspects of the study to fully engage and benefit stakeholders.
Issues
• The document uses acronyms like OUSD(P&R), DoD, and OMB without prior explanation, which may be unclear to readers not familiar with these terms.
• The document does not provide detailed information on how the feedback collected will specifically lead to improvements on the FINRED website, leading to potential ambiguity regarding the study's impact.
• The overall number of respondents (480) and annual burden hours (118) may indicate a relatively small sample size, which might not fully capture the diverse range of opinions within the military community.
• There is no explanation on how participants for the user testing are selected, which could raise concerns about the potential for bias in respondent selection.
• The use of terms such as 'taxonomy' might be complex or difficult for some readers, especially those not familiar with website design or information architecture.
• The term 'DOD Instruction (DoDI) 1322.34' is used without explanation or context, which could make it difficult for readers not familiar with DoD directives to understand the full context of the study.