Page MenuHomePhabricator

MPIC: Improve copy of risk acknowledgement checkbox
Open, MediumPublic1 Estimated Story Points

Description

Problem

Screenshot 2024-10-16 at 10.46.45.png (36×516 px, 6 KB)

The copy of the risks' checkbox that users are required to mark before submitting their configurations presents a set of problems:

  1. It currently only refers to "running an instrument", even in the context of the A/B test form. This is technically accurate, but might sound disconnected with the task at hand.
  1. It is quite broad: it refers to the generic action of "running an instrument", rather than clarifying its relationship with the Security and legal review associated with the data collection project, or any other documentation available. [See considerations section]
  1. The phrase "by proceeding" is usually used to gather implicit consent (i.e., simply continuing to use the tool or site constitutes agreement), while here users have to perform an action to input their explicit acknowledgement.
Suggested solution

Adjust the copy to (1) clarify to users that they're confirming they have read and understood the risks associated with the artifact they are configuring, as communicated to them by the Security and Legal department, and (2) align it with the demand of explicit consent.

Suggestions open for feedback and iteration:

A/B test form: "I acknowledge the risks associated with this experiment, as specified in the Security and Legal review."

Instrument form: "I acknowledge the risks associated with this instrument, as specified in the Security and Legal review."

Alternative copy that could apply to all scenarios:

"I confirm that I have read and understood the risks specified in the Security and Legal review"

New copy alternatives are just suggestions. Feel free to adjust if necessary.

Considerations

Will all data collection artifacts registered through MPIC require a legal review? If the answer is no, then probably the fields in the Regulation section should be made optional, and we should use an alternative copy for the checkbox that, in order to cover all scenarios, refers to the risks in a more generic way. Providing a link to an overview of the mentioned risks (if/whenever that documentation is available) is strongly recommended if we opt for a more generic option. An example of that message could be: "I confirm that I have read and understood the [[ URL | risks associated with data collection ]]"

Acceptance criteria
  • The checkbox copy makes clear and explicit to users that they are acknowledging and accepting the specific risks outlined to them by the Security and Legal department or any available documentation

Event Timeline

phuedx set the point value for this task to 1.Oct 24 2024, 2:36 PM
phuedx added subscribers: VirginiaPoundstone, phuedx.

@VirginiaPoundstone: We've estimated this as a 1 because the engineering effort is the same regardless of which message we choose. Do you have a preference for the message?

"I confirm that I have read and understood the risks specified in the Security and Legal review"

This is my preference as a universal message. But what is " the Security and Legal review"?

The workflow is:

  1. review the data publication guidelines and determine if your experiment or instrument is low, medium, or high risk.
  2. If you're if your experiment or instrument is low risk, no action necessary. If if your experiment or instrument is medium or high risk, submit a L3SC request for review prior to configuration.
  3. If an L3SC review is required, add a link to the results of the review in the "Security and Legal" field of the MPIC form (need to find out if legal reviews can be made public in the future). If a review is not required because the team determines that the experiment or instrument is low risk, then they write "low risk" in "Security and Legal" field.

@Sarai-WMF ( and @apaskulin ) given these step, what do you think about the following copy:

"I confirm that I have read and understood data publication guidelines. I have followed the risk assessment process and a have determined that the risk is low or I have followed the risk mitigation specified in the Security and Legal review."

Thanks so much for taking an in-depth look at this, @VirginiaPoundstone 🙏🏻 I think that checkbox copy is probably packing too many actions, though 🤔 Trying to simplify a bit more...:

"I confirm that I've followed the data publication guidelines and determined that this experiment/instrument is low risk, or that I have completed the necessary mitigations in case a Security and Legal review was required."

Alternatively (more costly), we could display a disabled checkbox next to the "Security and Legal" field that becomes active when users populate the field. This way, they could state that "I confirm that I have read and understood the Security and Legal review, and followed the specified risk mitigations.".

Hey, @VirginiaPoundstone. On the other hand, I was wondering why do users review Legal:Data publication guidelines instead of the Legal:Data collection guidelines. The latter sound more relevant. It's also what Alex shared with me when discussing which documentation would be helpful to link to from the risks' checkbox.

Change #1105431 had a related patch set uploaded (by Clare Ming; author: Clare Ming):

[operations/deployment-charts@master] Metrics Platform Instrument Configuration: Deploying to staging

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1105431

Change #1105433 had a related patch set uploaded (by Clare Ming; author: Clare Ming):

[operations/deployment-charts@master] Metrics Platform Instrument Configuration: Deploying to production

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1105433

Change #1105431 merged by jenkins-bot:

[operations/deployment-charts@master] Metrics Platform Instrument Configuration: Deploying to staging

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1105431

Change #1105433 merged by jenkins-bot:

[operations/deployment-charts@master] Metrics Platform Instrument Configuration: Deploying to production

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1105433