User comments:

• Would want a horizontal timeline with an overall estimate of how long the overall process would take
• not intuitive - wanted a count back clock

User comment:
It’s not as clear as an example as the others” - payment and delivery of an item under “don’t need PRA clearance”

In the Do I need clearance section bullets don’t align with the headings making it more difficult to find the information

Create new subpage in /clearance-process/ folder for the Supporting Statement content. Page title: Supporting Statement

Provide clear, real-life examples of when agencies choose one clearance type over another, and why it was appropriate. Added bonus if we can provide a decision tree / question set that helps users determine which clearance type is appropriate for them.

Proposed home under /clearance-types

It's lowercase in some places. It should be in all caps throughout the site.

Based on 4/8 github training

Swap current example with one that's easily understood by someone with no knowledge of the PRA.

We heard from users on both the contact and the home page that they were unclear about OIRA's relationship to the PRA.

We need to make sure users know that Desk Officers exist and they understand their role

Make punctuation consistent throughout the site. Bulleted lists are especially inconsistently punctuated.

This content is ready for the web: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qqFMr9ZfGKIe2ZFx8UD2g9X6wR8YWnEgX876Asxhtlw/edit?usp=sharing

It's a plain language summary of the 18 questions in Part A of the supporting statement. Originally, it was made to be included at the bottom of the clearance-process/supporting-statement/

But that makes the page SO LONG!

Could this be another page in the approval process? A sub page under Supporting Statement (already a sub page)? Would love extra thoughts on this!

Under managing information, add something about the cost of doing the information collection. Stewards of public times, but also calculating labor costs.

in the Burden Activities "Technology and Systems" h2, there was conversation about including info here about infosec rules/guidance. Decided to hold off for this launch, but a good candidate for Phase 2.

Also can connect to Chief Data Officer PRA responsibility update.

Plain language content explaining Supporting Statement B.

Suggested location: /clearance-process/supporting-statement/

Users wanted to know where to go for help for their specific question or stage of the process. Point them to the appropriate point of contact based on where they are in the clearance process.

I noticed today that if I click desk officer on the "Get help with the PRA" page, it calls the flyout but does not provide a definition.

Information at public meetings - should be listed more clearly under exemptions

If you click on the underlined "PRA," then look in the glossary, the text appears as "pra." Can it be PRA instead?

Need to add anchor-linked page navigation for H2s

pra.gov/_pages/clearance-types/index.md

The word "post" is an inaccurate description of the public's what the public does in step 4.

In the PRA officer search, currently a result is shown as you type. However, this could become confusing if a user's query matches multiple listings (eg. "Department").

Per this invision mockup, let's add a filtered dropdown that shows matching results as a user types.

The user can submit a query by:

• clicking / entering on a item from the filtered list
• Hitting enter on a query that does not have a matching listing.

Once a query is submitted, a listing result or a no result card will show.

Per convo this morning, we'll do a pass and make "PRA approval" and "PRA clearance" consistent.

@amandacostello can you update with what term you'd like to use?

We're only including verified contact information here.

Users struggled to find information on burden during testing.

We should provide a write up that includes:

• how to add / remove sub pages within a section
• how to find links that need to be updated
• how to test your edits

A user should be able to use the sidenav to determine:

• where they are
• what other content exists on the page they are on
• that there are separate, related pages they can navigate to

We have a few visual styles under consideration, and also have some open questions like:

• How should current place be shown? What is most effective?
• Do we need breadcrumbs / a section header?
• Does the "overview" title work when it is different from the title of the page?

Work related task/duty clarification, this was a bit unclear to a user. An explanation and/or example is needed.

According to an OIRA desk officer:

There could be some niche situations where privacy is an issue even if no PII is collected.
We could point people in the direction of privacy experts at their agency.

Based on the cloze test, the bolded words are the terms/concepts users struggled with.

• Federal contractors count as members of the public
• Why you're collecting the info
• Majority of a sector
• Mandatory/Voluntary collections treated the same

User comment:
“Forms” is more self explanatory, “program evaluations”, “research studies, focus groups” are not - would want more information here.

Rename /estimating-burden/ to /burden/
New page: /burden/activities
New page: /burden/estimation

Talk about the agencies mission instead of goals.

Provide documentation on basic site styles and links to helpful resources like

• USWDS basics
• Accessibility basics
• Color contrast checker

Currently we have CIO and GC offices. A couple of users pointed out that their agency's PRA experts are in Regulatory offices.

We spoke to the head of CAPRA. They do not want to be contacted because of infrastructure and workload issues.

Our top question during the design workshop was "Is there official PRA training?"

We should provide information about PRA training opportunities, both official and unofficial, on PRA.gov. Candidates include:

• Contacting OIRA for a one-off training
• Recording a "PRA primer" and hosting it on the site
• Providing links to CAPRA training (e.g. the CAPRA conference)
• ROCIS training

Proposed home as a subpage under /additional-resources/

Denote that OIRA and OMB are the same organization or use one or the other consistently throughout the site. Going back and forth between the two was confusing to users during testing.

Currently uses term "identifying".

Users asked for examples of the materials created during the Information Collection request process to understand what they will need to prepare and see examples of how others work. These resources are available online on the Federal Registrar and RegInfo.

The goals of this content would be users can find..:

• Federal Registrar and RegInfo, and know how to search them
• Examples of federal registrar notices for information collection requests
• Completed ICRs via reginfo
• Examples of various kinds of completed ICRs (statistical methodology, common forms, small scale forms)

Starter content here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10q4BU-5ls0XD1_4EcpB8ZOtw7gmXVvOXV36V8a2ieO4/edit#

Managing information agencies request of the public reads strangely. One user commented that it sounded like we were referring to "information agencies".

Users cited often that they wanted examples of supporting statements or when to use a certain clearance type.

Proposed home as a subpage under /additional-resources/

Something that has tripped us up a couple of times!

We should provide a place for the link syntax for adding a relative link to other pra.gov pages. Possibly we should have a "common syntax" section of the most commonly used syntax helpers.

Depending on how the PRA interprets foreign groups, we may need to change the content from the "American public" to something more appropriate.

Based on 3/29 check in, we should add this footer language for the April review.

https://gsa.invisionapp.com/share/WJR9YRO8EGZ#/screens/355168734_Footer-Language

• On the homepage we use an acronym for OIRA in the first mention. It should be written out completely the first time.
• On the "Do I need clearance?" page we write out Paperwork Reduction Act at the first mention.
• In general, all acronyms should be written out in full at their first mention on each page.

Users didn't get a clear view of the overall length of time the clearance process would take.
They also felt the current estimates (with the exception of the 30 day and 60 day public comment period) were inaccurate.

Federal investigations should live under a more appropriate heading. It's currently under "Public Meetings".

Two categories

• Non-recurring or capital cost: one-time investments to fulfill a collection request
• Recurring or annualized cost:

This doesn't match my understanding, so would be great to check this with one of our CAPRA experts.