This morning, NPR reported on the United States’ Centers for Disease Control (CDC)’s difficulties with helping people understand how to care for family members who are sick with H1N1 flu, while also protecting themselves from illness. The NPR story chronicled the efforts of a mother in Portland, ME who visited the CDC’s website to learn more about treatment and precautions. Her experience is sadly typical of what users often encounter online – messages that do not understand or appreciate the recipient’s perspective run the risk of communicating nothing.
The CDC’s website lists several important steps than can be taken to prevent the further spread of H1N1, including hand washing, the use of hand sanitizer and having the sick person use a separate bathroom, if possible. However, many of the guidelines are simply not realistic in a home setting. The mom in the NPR story concluded that the author of the guidelines must not have kids; otherwise, how could he or she suggest staying six feet away from the sick individual, or wearing a facemask or respirator when providing care? Anyone with children, she feels, would know that caregiving means cuddling, reassuring, holding hands and being close, and that a mom who only approaches when wearing a respirator would be making things worse rather than better.
Where did the CDC go wrong with its message? Certainly these precautions are true: staying six feet away and wearing a respirator will provide better protection against illness. However, the CDC’s current approach does not recognize that communication is an interaction between the communicator and the recipient. As human beings we do not simply absorb messages, we actively construct meaning by incorporating information from our own situations and experiences.
When a fundamental disconnect between the communicator and recipient is revealed, the credibility of the entire message may be undermined. The risk is that good advice may be disregarded when the user concludes that the site does not understand his or her perspective. In effect, a message that misses the mark runs the risk of communicating nothing at all.
Understanding user scenarios is critical for designing effective communication. A scenario outlines a type of user attempting to accomplish a concrete goal, including their prior knowledge, attitudes, assumptions and situational characteristics that will impact how a message is received. A range of scenarios can help us design messages that anticipate the meanings that recipients will construct from them, and therefore speak to them more directly and effectively.
In the case of the CDC, we concur with the advice of Peter Sandman, a New Jersey risk communication consultant quoted in the NPR story, who suggested that the site provide users with options: best, good and good enough. This approach would illustrate that the CDC understands a range of user scenarios. Users are less likely to be alienated because they can identify with one of the options provided, and make the right choice for their situation.
We were also encouraged to hear the CDC describe its website as a work in progress, constantly being updated based on feedback regarding what people do and do not understand. Communication is an interaction; continually adjusting the message to better match its recipients’ needs will help it become more and more effective.