Language Norming. Four of the alpha-tester participants provided suggestions for changing written terms or phrases at some point during the interview, particularly in the educational content. Two participants recognized problems with titling the testimonial video subsection of “About EcoFiltro” as “Experiences” (See Figure 4). Both suggested that this title be replaced with the word “Testimonials” (A1; A3). Three interviewees pointed out that noun articles should always be used in sentences and titles in Spanish (A2; A3; A5). One of them explained that “there are some little words that are eaten, right? So, articles like ‘los’ and ‘las,’ which are also important so that it [the noun] has a much more proper, stronger feeling” (A3). A participant also suggested that the word “EcoFiltro(s)” replace “filter(s)” wherever it is used in the application (A2). One interview resulted in the adding of the word “vomiting” along with “nausea” in the “Water and your health” infographic. The same interviewee also suggested that the same infographic “needs a correction at the top where it says 'Drinking or using dirty water [agua ensuciada].' The term 'ensuciada' is not correct. It can be ‘contaminated water’ or it can be ‘dirty water [agua sucia] with bacteria that can cause…’ either term but not ‘ensuciada’” (A3). This concern was echoed in another interview (A5). Discussion in one interview also led to the changing of the word “bacteria” to “microbes” wherever it was used in the application (A1).
Language Norming. An interviewee suggested that the volume specifications in the first part of the initial step in the water sampling and testing protocols should be removed (See Figure 8). They felt that directing users to use “one drop” for the glass slide was enough and that the volume specification would over-complicate matters, explaining that “people get all ‘No, there it says 100 milliliters.’ And how do you know what 100 milliliters are?” (B4). This can potentially come into conflict with how WHO drinking-water guidelines on microbiological quality are standardized for a 100 mL sample. This same interviewee also believed that the graphic used to show a contaminated result for the water quality test could be misinterpreted by community members (see Figure 7): “Here [in the ‘Positive Result’ graphic] it is a bit confusing because it says the ‘positive result’ and that means that, what, it is not suitable to drink? That is a bit confusing to me because let’s put it this way, remember that people in rural areas are barely accustomed to reading. So, for example, reading ‘positive result,’ [they could say] ‘Ah! I can drink it’ and that’s it… [The image] could maybe be a glass of contaminated water” (B4). While they did not provide any specific edits to make the title’s intent clearer beyond changing the image, the title is currently being edited to “Contaminated Result” in order to be more direct.
