Revisiting Gendered Web Forms: An Evaluation of Gender Inputs with (Non-)Binary People

Title of the Paper

Revisiting Gendered Web Forms: An Evaluation of Gender Inputs with (Non-)Binary People

Paper Information

• Research Area: Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), Social Computing, Gender Studies
• Keywords: Gender input forms, gender inclusivity, HCI design, non-binary gender, web form design, user experience, socio-technical systems, gender form evaluation, gender and data infrastructure, gender identity

Research Background and Problem

• Problem or Challenge:

  • Gender options in current web forms (e.g., medical, social media, dating applications) often fail to be inclusive of non-binary individuals.
  • Non-binary users frequently face challenges such as "inaccurate gender selection" or "inaccessibility to services," which negatively impacts user experience and reduces the quality of data collection.
  • The design and use of gender input forms directly affect users' comfort, inclusivity, and willingness to engage with the platform.

• Why It Matters:

  • Gender is a core element of social and personal identity; designing inclusive forms helps reduce discriminatory experiences for non-binary users.
  • Improving gender input form design can enhance user experience, increase the platform's social responsibility and credibility, and improve data quality.

• Research Motivation and Related Work:

  • Previous studies have criticized the binary representation of gender in technical infrastructures, but few have focused on the design of gender input forms and their impact on users.
  • This study aims to expand existing theoretical guidelines by conducting targeted surveys to evaluate how different types of form options affect gender inclusivity and users' subjective experiences.

Solution

• Proposed Method/Solution:

  • The study investigates five different gender form options: binary choice, binary choice + "other," binary choice + "other" with an open text field, open text field only, and multi-select options.
  • Survey participants are divided into three contexts: medical forms, social media registration forms, and dating application forms.

• Innovative Aspects:

  • Combines quantitative and qualitative data to systematically evaluate existing untested form options.
  • Examines the impact of gender form options on user inclusivity and comfort across different socio-technical contexts.
  • Highlights the importance of "context relevance" and language choices in gender input form design based on user feedback.

• Implementation Steps/Techniques:

  • Participants are randomly assigned to test five form options across three contexts, with feedback collected using a Likert scale.
  • Quantitative metrics include inclusivity, misgendering, comfort, and willingness to access.
  • Qualitative analysis of participants' open-text feedback on form options using interpretive thematic analysis.

Research Findings

• Specific Findings:

  • Open text fields and multi-select options are considered the most inclusive, significantly reducing misgendering and user discomfort.
  • Participants generally disliked the binary "male/female" option (Option 1) and options with "other" or "some other" descriptions, perceiving them as "othering."
  • Different contexts require different form design approaches; for instance, dating applications may benefit from multi-select forms due to algorithmic matching needs, while social media forms often do not require mandatory gender input.

• Advantages Over Existing Solutions:

  • Provides empirical data to support theoretical guidelines for untested form options.
  • Offers design recommendations to minimize harm from gender categorization for non-binary individuals while enhancing inclusivity for all groups.

• Experiment/Evaluation Results:

  • Non-binary participants expressed significant aversion to exclusive forms and were unwilling to access platforms using such forms.
  • Open text field options were rated as the best across all contexts, while fixed binary options were widely regarded as the worst.

• Limitations and Future Directions:

  • Limitations:
    • Study participants were primarily from Western countries, potentially limiting global representativeness.
    • Surveys were conducted in virtual contexts, lacking real-world online interaction experiences.
  • Future Directions:
    • Investigate gender form needs across different cultures and regions.
    • Expand research contexts to include other digital platforms and services.
    • Further explore how the underlying data infrastructure can support more flexible gender input options.

Design Recommendations Summary

• Avoid binary gender options and "othering" language whenever possible.
• Encourage the use of open text fields to provide flexibility and space for self-definition.
• When explicit categorization is necessary, improve existing multi-select form language, such as combining "male/female (including transgender)" expressions.
• Tailor form design to contextual needs and consider whether gender information is necessary (e.g., using pronouns or anatomical information instead of gender classification).