Canadian Biotechnology Strategy BioPortal Focus Group

Key Findings

Circumstances for Searching for Biotechnology Information

For the most part, participants in the sessions do not search for information about biotechnology. For them, the key driver for researching information on the Internet is if it's something that they are directly affected by or genuinely interested in. And, for the most part, biotechnology does not fall into either of these categories. Additionally, even if they saw something on the news that was interesting related to biotechnology, few said they would go and seek more information.

To further illustrate this point, while conducting the sessions in Winnipeg and Vancouver, a large news piece appeared in the local and national newspapers, as well as on television about a new method for extracting embryos for stem cell research. About half of the participants in each session saw or read this article, and few (if any) sought more information in response to something they learned about biotechnology in the media. Therefore, the driver for searching for information is participants' level of interest in a subject. Moreover, if they are seeking information on a subject that may have a biotechnology application (e.g. Diabetes), they are most likely to search for information on that subject and not biotechnology's role in that area.

Based on this, it is not surprising that none of the participants had heard of the BioPortal prior to the discussion groups. This lack of awareness is related to the fact that biotechnology is not an area that participants regularly look for information about and is not a reflection of the Portal.

One of the largest complaints among participants searching for information online is assessing the credibility of the information found. One way that participants determine the credibility of a website is the site author. For instance, most in the sessions are reluctant to consider information about pharmaceutical products from the manufacturer. Consequently, participants generally search for sites with a government extension on them (i.e. sites ending with .gc.ca). For them, information on Government of Canada websites is generally credible.

Most participants have visited a Government of Canada website at some point, and most agree that the information they find is credible. They believe that the information provided on a Government of Canada website has been verified and validated internally prior to being posted for public use. As a result of this perception, there is a sense that Government of Canada websites are more credible than other sources.

Moreover, they will also go to websites from universities, as well as associations of formal organizations for information. This is most often the case when searching for health information. Some will use multiple sources to determine if the information is credible. Specifically, they are seeking information that is consistent. Again, this is most often the case when seeking health-related information.

Although they believe Government of Canada websites are very credible, their initial starting point is always a search engine, such as Google. They will then initially scan the listings and decide where to go. If they are seeking health information, participants say they are most likely to go to a health association website. Participants say they will also follow the links provided on their initial website for more information. For them, it is a short-cut to additional information on the same subject area.

Overall Impressions of the BioPortal

Participants were generally positive about the BioPortal website. Specifically, they were impressed with the amount of information that was available through the BioPortal. In a sense, they were surprised by how much information was actually at their disposal. They were also surprised — and impressed — by how current the information on the Portal is. Indeed, some of the pages visited throughout the sessions had been updated that very day. Some expected that because this was a government website, the information contained on it may not be as up-to-date as that found on non-government sponsored sites.

Most participants thought the Portal was targeted to industry or a professional audience and not to the general public. This was for two reasons: the first is that they felt a majority of the information contained on the site was not relevant to them, particularly regulatory information. While they did not object to this information on the Portal, it led them to believe that the primary purpose of the Portal was for those directly involved in biotechnology. The second reason cited is that there was no definition of what biotechnology is on the main page. Because of this, they believe that there is an expectation to have some basic knowledge about what biotechnology is before visiting the BioPortal. We would suggest including a broad definition of biotechnology on the main page.

To a lesser degree, the use of acronyms throughout the site led participants to believe that the site was targeted to an audience that regularly researches issues related to biotechnology. In many cases, participants noticed the term "R&D" used throughout the Portal. However, at least one person in each group did not know what that acronym stood for. Therefore, it conveyed a sense that the portal was targeted to a specific knowledge-base. Our recommendation would be to include a glossary of terms for acronyms used.

Compounding this is the fact that the majority of those in the sessions had limited knowledge of biotechnology. This finding is consistent with other research that we have done in this area. Biotechnology is not a top-of-mind "new technology" for most, and when asked specifically about biotechnology, it is most commonly associated with GM foods, and stem cell research. For most then, their starting point with biotechnology is quite limited. Therefore, there needs to be a preface on the site to introduce the subject area before navigating the site to find information.

While they were generally complimentary of the portal, they did have some recommendations on how the main page could be improved to make it easier for them to use. It should be noted that these are minor modifications to the site and do not require a major overhaul of the Portal.

A majority of participants would prefer to have the home page on one screen without having to scroll down to see all of the information in that section. They feel that they could be missing important information if they don't notice the scroll bar. We would suggest, to the extent possible, compressing the site so the complete main page does not require scrolling down.

Some participants felt there was too much white space on the side of the page. For some, they were not sure if they were missing information or if the page had not loaded properly. While a few recognized that this was likely related to monitor size, most agree that it was a distraction. They recommend widening the screen to reduce the amount of white space on the right hand side.

The search box is a key benefit to the site. Indeed, a majority in the sessions say they use this feature on a site regularly, and to some extent, this is their starting point when visiting a website for the first time. They do note however, that the placement of the search box changes when navigating throughout the site. They recognize that the placement changes because it follows the sub-folders for each page on the site, but they still find it confusing. To alleviate this, they suggest moving the search box to the top left corner, so it appears in the same place regardless of what part of the portal they are in.

There was strong reaction from participants about the image shown on the main page — both positive and negative. Those who liked the image liked the reference to DNA, which they related back to biotechnology. They also liked the colours used on the site and the image of the globe within the illustration.

Those who reacted negatively to the graphic did so because they were not sure what it was supposed to represent. Some thought it was a profile shot of either a man or woman. They could not link the image to the information on the site, which led to confusion. While they liked the image of the globe on the main page, this group felt it should focus on North America, as opposed to the southern hemisphere.

Participants invited to sessions in Winnipeg and Vancouver were asked to review the portal before the groups, so they would have some familiarity with the portal before discussing it. This was useful as almost all of the participants had spent some time navigating the portal and were able to provide some valuable feedback about it.

Participants most often navigated through the site by the order of the sections and a majority visited the BioGateway section first. Intuitively however, they felt the BioBasics section makes the most sense to visit first. Their initial expectation from the name is that they would find basic information about biotechnology in this section. They felt this way because they believe BioBasics is an excellent section to get a "primer" about biotechnology. Instead, by visiting the BioGateway section first, they struggled with some of the information presented. This relates back to the fact that awareness and familiarity with biotechnology in general is limited. They believe that they would understand the site and content better if they had at least a working definition of what biotechnology is.

Some suggested that the main page include a user's guide to help those who had never been to the website before guide them through the site. They recommend having a tab with a user manual of sorts for first time visitors. Ideally, this part of the site would guide visitors where to find various pieces of information, and also outline the purpose of the Portal. The purpose of this is two-fold: First, it would provide a resource for those unfamiliar with the site to introduce the Portal and its layout. Second, it would reinforce that the Portal was created for the general public.

Another tool that they believe would help them navigate through the site is providing more clear language about what they can expect to find in each subsection and that this needs to be on the main page. Few noticed the mouse-over feature on the main page when highlighting any of the tabs. What's more, those who did notice felt that the text flashed too quickly, and that it did not provide a good enough description to allow them to decide if that is where they would find the information they were searching for. Consequently, few were able to read the description and make a decision if they would visit that section of the site. Their default was to skip that section altogether.

Additionally, some of the section names did not clearly indicate what that section of the website would contain. This was most evident with the BioGov and BioGateway sections. For most in the sessions, they did not make the connection that Government of Canada biotechnology information would be found under BioGateway. Instead, their initial reaction was that this information would be found under BioGov. Further discussions reveal that most would expect the information under BioGateway to be included under BioGov, and that the BioGov section should be renamed "BioWorld", to emphasize the fact that this information is international in scope. Our recommendation would be to rename BioGov to BioWorld, and rename BioGateway to BioGov.

Participants did like the sentences that were provided once they entered that selection. In most cases, they felt the language was clear and easy to read and understand. They also felt the paragraphs accurately described what they could expect to find in that section of the Portal. They suggest moving the paragraphs next to the titles on the main page as they provided a clear description of what they could expect to find in each section.

A majority of participants felt there was a duplication in the information on the main page. Specifically, the same menu items on the right of the page, appear as well on the left. Participants were then confused where the link was, not realizing that both would direct them to the same page. This finding was consistent throughout each section of the site explored. To this end, they suggest keeping the toolbar on the left as this is more intuitive to them, and incorporating the descriptions included in each section where the current file folder tabs are.

Having said that, participants do like the fact that the main page menu consistently appears in the bottom left of the page they are visiting. They felt that this allows them to easily navigate through different sections of the Portal.

Section-Specific Findings

Due to the number of sections on the website, not all groups explored each section. The general public groups evaluated the BioBasics and BioGateway sections, while the Involved Canadians sessions assessed the BioRegulations and BioGov sections of the BioPortal. All sections of the Portal were tested in each of the four cities.

While a majority of the findings can be generalized to the overall Portal, there were some findings and recommendations that are specific to one section of the site. These findings are presented below.

BioBasics. As mentioned above, participants were very positive about this section of the website. Particularly, they felt this section gave a comprehensive overview of the areas of biotechnology from the division of tabs in the site. They also liked how the site was organized once they selected a section. For example, they liked how when selecting the health tab, an alphabetical list of topics appeared. For most, this was a logical way of organizing the subjects and content of the site.

Participants also felt the language used in this section was appropriate and easy to understand. They thought that the language in this section was less technical than in other sections. Indeed, they imagined this section would be extremely useful especially among high school students and in fact would recommend students use this site.

While comments were generally positive, participants did point to a couple of areas for improvement. Most notable is the number of "clicks" required to reach an actual definition of biotechnology. In the groups, it took three clicks to get a definition of biotechnology. For most that are not familiar with the subject, they felt that they had to go too deep into the site before getting an overview of what biotechnology is. They felt that a definition of biotechnology was required on the main page in the site rather than where it is currently located, particularly given that few understood what biotechnology was before going to the website. We recommend that the definition be moved to the home page.

BioGov. From the home page, participants were initially unclear about what they could expect to find in this section of the Portal. Once explained that this section would provide information about biotechnology in other countries, their reaction was positive. As suggested above, they suggest re-naming this section "BioWorld" as it would be more intuitive and a better description of what they can expect to find in this section of the Portal.

When navigating through the major subject areas, they related the term "links" to information outside of the Portal. Indeed, most believe that links take you outside of a website; therefore they were unclear where they would be directed. They also felt that having the term "link" under the heading was redundant. Instead, they recommend making the heading the link itself and removing the word "links". For them, this would lessen confusion about where they were being directed to and would eliminate redundancy.

When selecting the link, they like the alphabetical organization of the site. For most, this is the most logical way of organizing the large amount of information. Moreover, when delving deeper into the site, the abstracts were helpful in determining whether this was the information they were looking for or not. They also liked the fact that they could view either all the information in that section, or click on a tab for specific types of information (i.e. regulatory). However, they did find that the sheer volume of information provided was a bit overwhelming, depending on the information they were looking for.

When looking at information in BioGov from other countries, it was unclear to participants that the information presented is from government sources only. It was important for participants to know where they were being directed to for this information from other countries. This is critical for them to determine if the information provided is credible. Once it was explained that they would be directed to government websites only, they were more comfortable with the information provided in BioGov. Our recommendation is to include this information in the introduction of this section of the site.

A related topic discussed in the groups is the appropriateness of providing links to external information. There was a divide on whether it was appropriate for a government website to link to resources that are not monitored by the Government of Canada. While virtually everyone agreed that links to external corporate sites, particularly those involved in biotechnology is inappropriate, there was debate on the merits of linking to media and organizational-type resources. The most common example would be linking to news media sources such as the Globe and Mail or similar sites.

Those who are in favour of providing external links say they want to be presented with all sides of the story in order to form their own opinions on the subject. This group of people is seeking information from a variety of sources in one site. The underlying assumption is that the information presented on the Portal is an opinion and may not be perceived as factual in their eyes. For this group, it makes the Portal more credible because it is presenting the arguments that led to the decisions/policies, etc.

Those who are against the provision of external links say that it is outside the scope of the Portal, and to a certain extent inappropriate to link to resources that have not been verified by the government. The sense is that with information that is not verified, the credibility of the information and of the government is compromised. Therefore, while it might be useful to provide external links, the potential risk for linking to information that is not credible outweighs its usefulness for this group. Moreover, they understood that the government has no control over the content of the sites linked externally and their credibility may be compromised.

Few noticed the link above the information allowing participants to toggle between Canadian and international information. While they liked the idea of this capability, few said they would actually use this feature on the Portal. Primarily, as with regulations, participants are not generally looking for this kind of information when searching about biotechnology. Again, they thought this would be most useful for those in the biotechnology industry.

They believe that this feature could help promote the Canadian biotechnology industry by highlighting the advancements made in Canada compared to those in other countries. Therefore, while few noticed this feature, they could see a potential use for it.

BioGateway. As noted earlier, participants were largely unclear about what they could expect to find in this section of the BioPortal. When delving deeper into this section, participants consistently noted the index of topics as an area that was well organized. Particularly, it was intuitive to most that this section was organized alphabetically. They also appreciated that the alphabetical list remained at the top of the page when browsing through.

As was the case with BioGov, few participants noticed the link at the top connecting them to information from outside of Canada. Indeed, it wasn't until they were prompted about the link that they noticed it. They were positive about the concept of comparing documents and information from other countries; however they do have some recommendations on how to improve this feature. The criticisms centered on the format of the comparison feature. Specifically, they felt there were too many windows on the screen to scroll through. This led to confusion as to where they needed to scroll down for information.

While they liked that the Canadian flag made it easy to identify the Canadian content on the site, participants would like a similar feature added for the international content. Currently, they had difficulty identifying where the information was from. What's more, it was not clear to participants that they would be leaving the BioPortal if they selected information from another country. They recommend a mechanism informing visitors if they are leaving the website.

BioRegulations. On the whole, participants spent a limited amount of time in this section of the site. For most in the sessions, they did not feel that they would need regulatory information. Instead, they believe this would be most useful for industry stakeholders and those directly involved in biotechnology. Reasons for this impression include the fact that this section of the site includes regulatory forms and documents, which they believe they are very unlikely to use.

Moreover, on the whole, participants found the language in this section of the site targeted to those with some background in biotechnology. Again, they felt the language was more technical than that in other sections of the site, leading to the conclusion that this particular aspect of the site was not intended for the general public.