Help Canadians report a cybercrime or fraud

Français

How to write questions

Learnings from designing the NCFRS

This guide was made into a presentation on how to write questions.

Adopting an approachable tone

If you ask clear, empathetic questions, you’ll get detailed, accurate answers. One way to do this is to write conversationally. Here are a few ideas:

  1. You can address people as “you”, as if you were talking directly to the reporter.
  2. You can mimic interview styles used by police and call takers by using direct instructions and ask clarifying questions.
  3. Show that you’re listening. Add logic to respond with more relevant subsequent questions.

Another thing you can do is to reframe the blame by:

  1. Shift the focus away from the reporter. Focus on asking about the event (or suspect) instead.
  2. Reduce feelings of judgement, shame, and stigma. Being exploited isn’t the victim’s fault. Reassure them.

Comfort and empower reporters by removing doubt and fear. A sense of safety leads reporters to have more confidence telling their story.

  1. Be flexible and supportive and avoid language that might escalate anxiety. Show people that they’re not alone.

Lastly, you want to coach reporters through the process:

  1. Guide people with prompts. Avoid form fields that leave room for interpretation. Show possible ways of answering with hints/examples.
  2. Be transparent about the context. Help reporters understand and feel in control. Tell them why something is being asked.

Writing in plain language

People do not read online content. They scan it quickly to get what they need. Here are a few things to keep in mind:

  1. Avoid acronyms and technical jargon
  2. Use short words and short sentences.
  3. Choose easy, non-technical, non-police words.
  4. Use familiar words that people use. The public doesn’t talk about crimes the way police do. Even words like “evidence” have varying definitions in the cybercrime realm.
  5. Use consistent language. Choose words that people understand, and use them consistently. Do not interchange or substitute words.

Be direct, with clear calls to action.

  1. Start call to actions with a verb. Make these 2 to 3 words if possible and place them close to the content they relate to. Use sentence case for readability.
  2. Make link text meaningful. Be specific in describing what comes next rather that saying “click here” or “learn more”. Provide links to content that reflects what the text previews.

Write helpful error messages that help people solve the issue.

  1. Be clear and concise. Tell people what happened and how they can fix it (or what they should expect next).
  2. Be direct and specific. Use positive language and get to the point. Make sure it makes sense out of context.

Structuring to reduce cognitive load

People have a limited and varying capacity to process difficult, traumatic scenarios. Answering questions takes energy. Don’t overtax reporters with complexity. Here are a few rules to follow in order to reduce cognitive load:

  1. Limit the number of questions per page. Make content digestible. When reporters are overwhelmed, they skim or skip questions altogether.
  2. Divide up the form. Only ask 1 to 2 questions at a time. Use short sections to group questions by topic. Prepare people for the next part of the form, so they know what’s expected.
  3. Take away as much ambiguity as possible. Be clear about which address we’re asking for and whose it is we’re asking about (victim vs. suspect)
  4. Make instructions precise and straightforward. When people are upset or confused, they struggle to recall and organize details.
  5. Use examples and hints. Use short lists and sample text to help people understand what the expectations are for a field.
  6. Match questions to circumstances. Tailor relevant questions to reporters. Use logic/conditions so that reporters ideally only see what is relevant to their experience.
  7. Accept a range of experiences, including new ones. Cybercrime will continue to evolve and each experience is unique. Some reporters have a lot to share, and some very little. Both are valuable.
  8. Give flexibility in how to answer. Use a combination of structured input and long-form narrative questions. Recognize that some people will not be able to provide all information with limited structure and might give more useful information in an open form field.
  9. Give the option to skip questions. Let people leave fields blank. In the end, let people know they can edit their answers before submitting.
  10. Limit the number mandatory fields. Victims may be unsure of what happened to them. They may be missing or unable to retrieve certain specific details.

Deciding what questions to add

Remember that every question has a cost. Each questions adds complexity to the reporting form and can potentially lengthen the ammount of time spent reporting, or more drastically scare people away. Here are a few ways you can calculate or justify the cost of adding a question:

  1. Share why questions are being asked.** Ask only for what is necessary and useful*. Explain *why specific details help. Show how it helps achieve a better understanding cybercrime in Canada. When reporters understand why certain fields are included, they are more motivated to share those details, and can provide more appropriate, specific details.

Also limit the collection of personal details:

  1. Asking for contact information creates an expectation of follow up. Avoid creating false hope if that’s not the case.
  2. Asking for demographic data could feel intrusive. Be mindful of choosing how and when to ask victims for this information.

Why we’re not asking for crime type

Asking reporters to self-identify crime types increases the cognitive load on victims and leads to relying on faulty data.

Research showed that victims cannot categorize crimes themselves (especially cybercrimes). This is especially true if they are experiencing a cybercrime for the first time.

Victims use very broad terms to describe cybercrimes, and often need to ask for clarification to understand pre-imposed categories as simple as scams and hackings. They often cannot distinguish between different cybercrimes. For reporters with low digital literacy, malware may appear the same as a phishing scam, or romance scam.

Surrounding questions with clarity

Answer the questions people have before they need to follow up and ask them.

  1. Set clear and realistic expectations. The golden rule of this service is to ensure people understand what will happen next, and what they can do next to protect themselves or seek justice. For more insights on setting expectations, refer to Police of Jurisdiction Research.
  2. Clarify where data is going (and to whom). Make it clear who “we” is. Be upfront about which entities will receive reports. In doing this, avoid acronyms and complicated details. Reporters across Canada have varying familiarity with the RCMP and its mission. Some have never heard of the RCMP, and others may not understand the difference between local police and the federal police.

Communicate what police will do and will not do.

  1. Specify the purpose of reporting and its outcomes. Do this multiple times, especially at the beginning and at the end.
  2. Be clear about what can and cannot be done. People expect the police to fix their computer and/or get their money back. Highlight the value of the data they are sharing and what can be done as a result.

Point people to clear and easy next steps.

  1. Manage expectations and be clear about whether follow-up will occur. Reporters need clarity. Without it, they may be confused and call or visit local police in person.
  2. Tell people what happens right after they report. If they will receive an email, explain when, and how it can be used. Give them options to seek help if they need to talk to someone, or get tech support.

Creating and iterating content

Checklist for adding content

  • Is there a strong and compelling reason for it?
  • How does it help meet a victim need?
  • Is it in the victim’s vocabulary?
  • Is it presented in the best format for the victim?
  • Is it in the right place for the victim at the right time?
  • Is it based on evidence and designed with user data?
  • Is it of the same quality in French and in English?
  • How can we test it bilingually?