Caroline's Corner: How to write good FAQs

FAQs don’t have that great a reputation, but recently, I’ve been working on FAQs for a client. Their computer help desk was annoyed about answering the same things again and again. Why not divert potential callers to a FAQ instead?

Sounded reasonable, so we did the usual: created a prototype, ran some usability tests, did the necessary pile of changes and launched the revised version, rather quietly. And bingo: a modest success. Calls to the help desk are down 10% and users are rating the FAQ answers highly, on the whole.

So what distinguishes a good set of FAQs from a dreadful set?

FREQUENTLY ASKED, NOT EASILY ANSWERED
I’ve seen many sites where they fall into the trap of providing a set of easily answered questions (EAQ) rather than frequently asked questions (FAQ). For example, The Undevelopment Blog has a typical one at http://blog.phpbb.cc/2006/11/23/bad-faq/ “Q: How can I use Glorbosoft XYZ to maximize team productivity?”.

No-one asks that type of question. You have to do the hard work: find out what questions really are frequently asked. And by your customers – not by insiders.

Try all of these:
- listening to calls to your help desk
- reviewing search logs to see what people are searching for
- reading emails

You don’t have to look back very far. If the question is genuinely frequent, it will come up at least once a day. But I think it’s worth reviewing a month’s worth of data just to be sure you’ve covered things that only happen at specific times e.g. at month end.

FREQUENTLY ASKED, NOT FREQUENTLY VISITED
Another trap is to confuse frequently visited answers with frequently asked questions. It works in one direction: if you have found a genuinely frequently asked question, then you’d expect it to be frequently visited. If no-one is visiting it, then maybe no-one is asking that question.

Getting lots of visitors to an answer doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s the question your visitors want to ask. As well as using an answer to figure out how the service works, I’ve seen people choosing an answer because it was the least worst answer and they were desperate. I’ve also seen people choosing an answer because they already know it, and they’re checking it out to find out whether your answer is correct to establish whether they can trust you.

So check your logs to prune out answers that are getting a low level of visitors – but don’t rely on them as your source of questions.

QUESTIONS, NOT STATEMENTS
The new www.usa.gov has a frequently asked questions section. So I clicked on it and got this as the top item in the list: “FirstGov.gov is Now USA.gov - New Name; Same Great Services!” Yes indeedy, that’s supposed to be a question. Well, sorry guys: it’s a blatant piece of marketing fluff which diminishes the credibility of the whole FAQ. But it would be so easy to rewrite: “Why have you changed your name from FirstGov.gov to USA.gov?” Or even: “Is USA.gov the same as FirstGov.gov?” Which is shorter, easier to read, and doesn’t have any claims about the quality of service. Make sure you write your questions as questions, briefly, and in plain language.

FORMAT THE FAQS INTO SECTIONS
Break your FAQs into groups – maybe by doing a bit of card-sorting on them. Think about some sort of organising principle: by topic, by time of the month, even by alphabetical order. Anything to help people find their way to the one that’s relevant to them.

OFFER A WAY TO GET SPECIFIC ANSWERS
Provide easy ways for your users to get their precise question dealt with, preferably through a choice of email, phone and snail mail. And if you put a feedback box about the quality of the answer right there on the FAQ answer page, then rest assured that at least half the people who use it will treat it as a way of asking their specific question. So make sure that those feedback emails go first of all to your regular help staff, and only later to your FAQ development people.

GET RATINGS FROM YOUR USERS
It’s polite to allow users to rate your answers. Give them a way to say whether the question was helpful, partly helpful, or unhelpful. Ideally, offer a follow-up box for comments on a separate page after the rating. I was quite impressed with the way www.usa.gov does this. Then make sure that you frequently check the ratings (and any follow-up comments). Work rapidly to fix unhelpful answers – or delete the question altogether if you can’t improve it.

REVIEW YOUR CONTENT
And finally, check back to see whether your main content areas could embed the answers – rather than forcing people into the FAQs.


If you have any comments or suggestions about this article then please contact Caroline at: Caroline.Jarrett@Effortmark.co.uk

Caroline Jarrett is a usability consultant specialising in forms, questionnaires and data capture.

© 2007 Caroline Jarrett, all rights reserved.

Associated Link: Effortmark website

'Internet addiction' linked to Depression
Source: BBC, 9 February 2010
 
There is a strong link between heavy internet use and depression, UK psychologists have said.

Could *You* be more Usable?
Source: UN, 8 February 2010
 
Bet you could.

Stowe Boyd on 'Steampunk' thinking about the Future of Computing
Source: Stowe Boyd's blog via Experientia, 6 February 2010
 
Are established metaphors of user experience holding us back from new ways of structuring our interaction through computers?

Nokia's User Experience Programme
Source: UN, 5 February 2010
 
Nokia has put together a rich and informative website covering the key elements of user experience.

Interfaces magazine: latest issue available now
Source: HCI News Service, 4 February 2010
 
The latest issue of Interfaces is now available in pdf format, free from the Interaction Website.

A Lighter Brigade of Chargers
Source: UN, 3 February 2010
 
Lots of gadgets, one charger. At last.

Mobile Touch Screens could soon Feel the Pressure
Source: MIT Technology Review, 2 February 2010
 
A quantum switch could add pressure sensing to mobile screens.

Usability, Usability, Usability: why the iPad will Succeed
Source: Econsultancy, 1 February 2010
 
The tech critics love it, hate it, love it again, shrug it off. What do usability experts say?

British Airways - at last some good news
Source: Loop11, 30 January 2010
 
In a recent website usability study for the world's leading airlines, the British Airways website proved to be the most user friendly, with Malaysia Airlines and Virgin Atlantic having the lowest user experience rating.

Computation of Emotions in Man and Machine
Source: Royal Society, 29 January 2010
 
Advances in computer technology now allow machines to recognise and express emotions, paving the way for improved human-computer and human-human communications.