INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025

Page 557

www.rsisinternational.org

The Impact Of UI/UX Design on User Trust and Task Completion in

Civic Tech Platforms

Vodiboina Yuvaraj

Student, Department of Computer Science, Avanthi Institute of Engineering and Technology,

Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.120800047

Received: 29 July 2025; Accepted: 03 August 2025; Published: 02 September 2025

ABSTRACT

Civic technology (Civic Tech) aims to bridge the gap between citizens and government through digital

services, yet many platforms are undermined by poor usability and a lack of accessibility, eroding public trust.

This paper investigates the impact of user interface (UI) and user experience (UX) design on user trust, task

completion, and digital inclusion within the context of a municipal service portal. Through a mixed-methods

study involving A/B testing of two interactive prototypes—a baseline model mirroring typical government

websites and an enhanced, user-centric, and accessible model—this research explores how specific design

interventions influence user behavior and perception. The findings reveal statistically significant improvements

in task success rates (p<.01), reduced time on task (p<.001), and higher perceived trust (p<.001) for the

enhanced prototype. The results suggest that a deliberate investment in user-centric and accessible design is

not merely an aesthetic choice but a crucial mechanism for improving operational efficiency, fostering a more

positive citizen-state relationship, and ensuring equitable access to digital public services. This paper

contributes an empirically validated conceptual model that links tangible UI/UX elements to the psychological

mediators of trust and inclusion, providing a clear framework for public administrators and developers.

Keywords: Civic Technology, Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), User Trust, UX/UI Design, Accessibility,

Technology Acceptance, Digital Government, Digital Divide

INTRODUCTION

The Imperative for Usable and Trustworthy Digital Government

The 21st century has witnessed a profound transformation in public administration, with government services

migrating from physical offices to digital platforms.

This digitization, often categorized under the umbrella of

"Civic Technology," holds the promise of a more efficient, accessible, and transparent relationship between

citizens and the state.

From filing taxes to accessing healthcare information, digital interfaces have become

the primary point of contact for countless civic interactions.

Citizen expectations have evolved in tandem with

technological advancements; a majority of residents now prefer to access state and local services through

websites and mobile applications, expecting a level of usability and convenience on par with leading

commercial platforms.

The successful adoption and utilization of these e-government services are, therefore,

fundamentally contingent on public acceptance and trust in the digital infrastructure provided.

The "Trust Deficit" and the Role of Poor Digital Experiences

Despite the clear demand for digital services, the potential of many civic tech platforms is frequently

undermined by a critical flaw: a systemic lack of user-centric design. Unlike their commercial counterparts,

which are relentlessly optimized by market pressures, government websites are often characterized by

convoluted navigation, bureaucratic language, and opaque processes.

These poor digital experiences are

particularly acute in stressful or punitive interactions, such as resolving a parking ticket or applying for

essential benefits. For the user, a process initiated with anxiety can be amplified by a frustrating interface,

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025

Page 558

www.rsisinternational.org

transforming a simple civic duty into a complex and demoralizing ordeal.

This design deficit leads to more than just high rates of task abandonment and increased operational costs for

government agencies; it actively cultivates a "trust deficit".

When citizens cannot easily find information,

understand fees, or confirm a transaction, they are left feeling powerless and suspicious. A clunky,

dysfunctional site can signal incompetence, inaccessibility, and a fundamental disrespect for citizens' time.

this study's preliminary data indicates, such interfaces can generate alarmingly low levels of user trust,

fostering a perception that the platform—and by extension, the institution it represents—is either incompetent

or intentionally deceptive.

This erosion of trust has significant implications, as a majority of local government

leaders recognize that web accessibility and usability are important for fostering public confidence.

Bridging the Digital and Accessibility Divides in Civic Engagement

The challenge of poor usability is deeply intertwined with the broader societal issue of the digital divide.

Initially conceptualized as the gap between those with and without physical access to technology

, the

understanding of this divide has evolved. Researchers now identify a "new digital divide," which describes

disparities in how digital technologies are used, influenced by factors like digital literacy, income, and

education.

A poorly designed government website creates usability divide, a functional barrier that

disenfranchises citizens even if they possess a stable internet connection. This barrier disproportionately

affects individuals with lower digital literacy, older adults, and those with cognitive disabilities, who may lack

the technical savvy or patience to navigate labyrinthine systems.

At its most extreme, this usability divide manifests as a complete lack of accessibility, effectively excluding

the significant portion of the population living with disabilities.

Digital accessibility—the design of products

and services to be usable by all people, regardless of ability—is not merely a matter of legal compliance with

standards like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.

It is a

moral imperative for equitable governance and a fundamental precondition for inclusive civic engagement.

An inaccessible platform sends a powerful message that the government does not serve all its constituents,

deepening social isolation and marginalization.

Conversely, a commitment to accessibility signals a

commitment to equity, which can foster trust across the entire populace.

Problem Statement, Research Questions, and Hypotheses

The central problem this research addresses is that government agencies frequently deploy digital platforms

that fail to meet basic usability and accessibility standards, thereby impeding the completion of essential civic

tasks and actively eroding citizen trust. To investigate this issue, this study is guided by the following research

questions:

How do specific user-centric UI/UX design elements (e.g., progress indicators, simplified forms, transparent

fee breakdowns) influence user task performance (success rate, time on task) on a civic tech platform?

What is the impact of these design elements on users' perceived trust in the platform and, by extension, the

governing institution?

How does the integration of accessibility principles contribute to both usability and trust?

Based on these questions, this study tests the following central hypothesis:

H1: An enhanced interface, designed with user-centric and accessibility principles, will lead to statistically

significant improvements in task success, time on task, and perceived user trust when compared to a baseline,

legacy-style interface.

By empirically testing this hypothesis, this paper aims to provide a clear, data-driven argument for prioritizing

user-centric and accessible design as a core tenet of modern digital governance.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025

Page 559

www.rsisinternational.org

Theoretical Framework and Related Work

The Civic Technology Paradox: Promises vs. Pitfalls

Civic Technology is broadly defined as the use of technology to enhance the relationship between citizens and

government, with goals of increasing efficiency, transparency, and public participation.

The field has grown

rapidly, with a surge in technological solutions promising to revolutionize government-citizen interactions.

However, a significant paradox has emerged: while the promise is one of seamless engagement, the reality

often falls short.

Many government platforms are built with an "inside-out" logic, meaning the digital

interface is a mere reflection of the government's internal bureaucratic structure, replete with departmental

silos and esoteric jargon unintelligible to the average citizen.

This approach stands in stark contrast to the user-focused design that drives the commercial sector. The

consequence is a digital public sphere where citizens are often treated as subjects of a process rather than as

valued users. Research on municipal civic tech implementations reveals that even when tools are successful in

improving one aspect of a service, they can inadvertently highlight the inefficiencies of other parts of the

government apparatus, creating new points of friction.

This paradox underscores the need for a holistic, user-

centered approach that considers the entire citizen journey, not just isolated digital touchpoints.

Models of Technology Acceptance in a Public Sector Context

To understand the factors that drive the successful adoption and use of civic technology, this study draws upon

established theoretical models from the field of Information Systems.

The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) provides a foundational framework, postulating that a user's

intention to use a system is determined primarily by two core beliefs: Perceived Usefulness (PU) and

Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU).

PU is the degree to which an individual believes using the system will

enhance their performance, while PEOU is the degree to which they believe using it will be free of effort.

TAM suggests that PEOU has a direct positive effect on PU; a system that is easy to use is more likely to be

perceived as useful.

This model is highly relevant to the public sector, where systems that are difficult to use

(low PEOU) can prevent citizens from completing essential tasks, thereby rendering the system useless (low

PU) from their perspective.

The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) extends TAM by integrating constructs

from several other models to provide a more comprehensive view.

UTAUT identifies four key determinants

of usage intention and behavior: Performance Expectancy (akin to PU), Effort Expectancy (akin to PEOU),

Social Influence, and Facilitating Conditions.

Crucially, UTAUT also introduces moderators such as age,

gender, experience, and the voluntariness of use. In the context of this study—resolving a parking ticket—the

interaction is mandatory, not voluntary. In such settings, the theory suggests that Effort Expectancy (ease of

use) becomes a particularly critical determinant of user attitude and acceptance.

A difficult-to-use mandatory

system does not simply lead to non-use; it leads to frustration, dissatisfaction, and a negative perception of the

institution imposing its use.

The Architecture of Digital Trust

Trust is the bedrock of any successful digital transaction, whether commercial or civic. In the context of

Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), trust is often defined as a user's willingness to be vulnerable to the

actions of a system, based on the expectation that it will perform as expected and act in the user's best interest.

In e-government research, it is useful to distinguish between trust in the internet (TOI) and trust in government

(TOG), as both positively affect citizens' adoption of digital services.

A poorly designed platform can damage

both, by making the internet seem like an unsafe place for transactions and by reinforcing negative perceptions

of government competence.

Research on trust in online environments has identified several key antecedents that inform a user's willingness

to engage with a system. A model developed for trust in online health information identifies factors such as

credibility, impartiality, privacy, and familiarity as crucial determinants.

These abstract concepts can be

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025

Page 560

www.rsisinternational.org

directly mapped to tangible UI/UX design elements:

Transparency and Impartiality: A system that provides a clear, itemized breakdown of fees, as in this

study's enhanced prototype, demonstrates transparency. This directly counters user suspicion of hidden charges

or unfair penalties, fostering a perception of honesty and impartiality.

System Feedback and Credibility: Following Jakob Nielsen's heuristic of "visibility of system status," a

progress indicator provides constant feedback, reassuring the user that the process is functioning correctly and

predictably.

This builds confidence in the system's reliability and, by extension, its credibility.

Professionalism and Competence: A clean, modern, and consistent design that aligns with user expectations

from other high-quality websites signals professionalism and competence.

Conversely, an outdated or

confusing interface can signal apathy or a lack of capability, diminishing trust before an interaction even

begins.

Accessibility as a Precondition for Trust and Equity

This study posits that digital accessibility is not a peripheral concern or a mere compliance checkbox but is, in

fact, a foundational precondition for building widespread citizen trust and ensuring social equity. While federal

laws like Section 508 and international guidelines like the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)

provide a technical framework, the true importance of accessibility transcends legal requirements.

An accessible design philosophy is fundamentally a user-centric one. Many principles that improve the

experience for users with disabilities also enhance usability for everyone—a concept known as the "curb-cut

effect".

For instance, clear and simple language benefits users with cognitive disabilities, but also those who

are stressed, multitasking, or simply unfamiliar with bureaucratic terminology. A logical, single-column layout

is essential for screen reader navigation but also reduces the cognitive load for all sighted users.

Therefore, a commitment to accessibility is a powerful and visible signal of a government's commitment to

inclusivity and equity. When a government entity invests in making its digital services usable by all citizens, it

demonstrates a fundamental respect for the public it serves.

This act fosters trust not only among the

community of people with disabilities but across the entire population, as it reflects a governing ethos of

responsibility, care, and competence.

Conversely, inaccessible platforms create digital barriers that are

functionally equivalent to physical ones, hindering civic participation and reinforcing the marginalization of

already underserved communities.

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

To investigate the proposed research questions and hypothesis, this study employed a mixed-methods

experimental design. This approach integrates quantitative A/B testing with qualitative survey data and

observational feedback, allowing for a robust analysis that captures both objective user performance metrics

and the subjective nuances of user perception and sentiment. The combination of "what" users did (quantitative

data) and "why" they felt a certain way (qualitative data) provides a more holistic understanding of the impact

of UI/UX design.

Prototype Development

Two interactive, high-fidelity prototypes of a fictional "City of Metropolis Parking Portal" were developed

using the design tool Figma. Both prototypes were designed to be fully interactive for the specific tasks

required in the study.

Prototype A (Baseline Design): This prototype was intentionally designed to reflect the common usability

and accessibility flaws prevalent in many existing municipal websites. Its key features included: dense blocks

of text using bureaucratic language; multi-column form fields that disrupt natural reading flow; ambiguous

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025

Page 561

www.rsisinternational.org

navigation labels (e.g., using "Submit Inquiry" for the dispute process); a lack of progress indicators during the

multi-step payment flow; and a final payment amount presented as a single lump sum without an itemized

breakdown of fines and fees.

Prototype B (Enhanced Design): This prototype was meticulously designed using established user-centric

and accessibility principles. It directly addressed the flaws of the baseline model by featuring: a clean, single-

column layout to reduce cognitive load and improve screen reader compatibility; large, clearly labeled buttons

with high color contrast; simplified form fields with inline validation to provide immediate feedback; a

prominent step-by-step progress indicator at the top of the screen (e.g., 1. Find Ticket -> 2. Select Action -> 3.

Payment -> 4. Confirmation), consistent with Nielsen's heuristic for system status visibility

; and a transparent

fee breakdown that clearly itemized the base fine, late fees, and processing fees before the final payment step.

Participant Recruitment and Demographics

A total of 40 participants were recruited through a digital panel service. Participants were screened to ensure

they met the following criteria: aged 18–65; resided in urban or suburban areas; were licensed drivers who

parked in public spaces regularly; were comfortable with online payments; and had received at least one

parking ticket in the past year. The final sample was balanced for gender and included a diverse range of

professional backgrounds (e.g., students, office professionals, delivery drivers) to capture a variety of user

perspectives. In line with the study's focus on inclusive design, the sample also included participants who self-

reported disabilities (e.g., color blindness, reliance on screen readers). While this does not constitute rigorous

accessibility testing, it was a deliberate choice to begin exploring this critical dimension.

Experimental Procedure and Task Scenario

The study was conducted remotely via moderated video calls. Participants were randomly assigned to one of

the two prototype groups (n=20 for each group). After a brief introduction and obtaining informed consent,

participants were presented with a realistic, emotionally-valenced scenario: "You have received a $75 parking

ticket. Please use this website to first find your ticket, and then pay it in full." A second task was also assigned

to test a different user journey: "Imagine you believed this ticket was issued in error. Please find and begin the

process for disputing the ticket." Participants shared their screens as they interacted with their assigned

prototype, allowing for direct observation of their behavior and any verbalized thoughts or frustrations.

Data Collection and Measures

A combination of quantitative and qualitative data was collected during and after the task-based sessions.

Quantitative Performance Metrics:

Task Success Rate: A binary measure (1 for success, 0 for failure) was recorded for each of the two primary

tasks (payment and dispute initiation).

Time on Task: The time elapsed in seconds from the start of the task to its successful completion was

recorded.

Standardized and Custom Questionnaires:

System Usability Scale (SUS): Immediately following the interaction, participants completed the SUS, a

widely validated 10-item questionnaire that yields a global score of system usability ranging from 0 to 100.

Custom Trust Questionnaire: Participants also completed a 5-item questionnaire developed for this study to

measure perceived trust. Using a 5-point Likert scale (1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree), it included

statements such as: "I trust this website to handle my payment securely," "I believe the fee information was

presented honestly and clearly," and "I felt the website was designed with my best interests in mind."

Data Analysis Strategy

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025

Page 562

www.rsisinternational.org

The collected data were analyzed using appropriate statistical and qualitative methods. Quantitative data from

the two groups (Prototype A vs. Prototype B) were compared using independent-samples t-tests for continuous

variables (Time on Task, SUS scores, Trust scores). A chi-square test for independence was used to analyze

the difference in the categorical variable of task completion. A significance level of p<.05 was used for all

statistical tests. Qualitative feedback gathered from open-ended survey questions and think-aloud comments

during the moderated sessions was analyzed to identify recurring patterns, themes, and representative user

sentiments.

RESULTS

The empirical results reveal a stark and statistically significant difference in user performance, usability, and

perception between the baseline and enhanced prototypes. The data provides robust support for the central

hypothesis that a user-centric and accessible design dramatically improves both task efficacy and user trust.

Quantitative Analysis of User Performance and Perception

The enhanced prototype (Prototype B) demonstrated superior outcomes across every quantitative metric

measured. Users interacting with Prototype B were significantly more successful in completing their tasks, did

so in a fraction of the time, and reported substantially higher levels of usability and trust compared to those

using the baseline prototype (Prototype A). A comprehensive summary of these findings is presented in Table

Table 1: A Comparative Summary of Performance and Perception Metrics Across Prototypes

Metric

Prototype A

(Baseline)

Prototype B

(Enhanced)

Statistical

Significance

Task Success Rate

(Pay)

70% (14/20)

95% (19/20)

χ2(1)=4.27,p<.05

Task Success Rate

(Dispute)

55% (11/20)

95% (19/20)

χ2(1)=7.62,p<.01

Avg. Time on Task

(Pay)

188 seconds

62 seconds

t(38)=8.14,p<.001

Avg. SUS Score¹

45.2 ("Poor")

88.5 ("Excellent")

t(38)=12.5,p<.001

Avg. Trust Score²

2.1 ("Low Trust")

4.6 ("High Trust")

t(38)=15.2,p<.001

System Usability Scale (SUS) score is calculated on a scale of 0-100.

Trust Score is the average rating on a 5-point Likert scale.

The data in Table 1 clearly illustrates the practical impact of the design differences. The task success rate for

initiating a dispute, a more complex navigational task, plummeted to just 55% on the baseline prototype, while

it remained at 95% for the enhanced version. Users of Prototype B completed the payment task, on average,

three times faster than their counterparts. The difference in perceived usability was equally pronounced:

Prototype A's average SUS score of 45.2 falls well within the "Poor" range, while Prototype B's score of 88.5

is considered "Excellent." Perhaps the most compelling finding is the dramatic chasm in perceived trust, where

the enhanced prototype scored more than double that of the baseline, indicating a fundamental shift in the

user's perception of the platform's credibility and integrity.

Thematic Analysis of Qualitative Feedback

The qualitative data gathered from user comments and open-ended survey responses strongly reinforces and

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025

Page 563

www.rsisinternational.org

helps explain the quantitative findings. Thematic analysis revealed two distinct clusters of user experience,

corresponding directly to the two prototypes.

Theme 1: Frustration, Confusion, and Suspicion (Prototype A)

Participants interacting with the baseline prototype consistently expressed negative emotions. The dominant

themes were frustration, confusion, and suspicion. The convoluted navigation and ambiguous labeling led to

feelings of disorientation. As one participant described the experience, "I felt like I was going in circles. I

wasn't sure what 'Submit Inquiry' meant—was I asking a question or starting a dispute?" This confusion

directly contributed to task failure for several users.

The lack of transparency in the payment process was a significant source of mistrust. The presentation of a

single lump-sum fee without an itemized breakdown was frequently interpreted not as a mere design oversight,

but as a potentially deliberate act of obfuscation. One user commented, "It just shows me a total. It feels like

they could be adding anything in there and I wouldn't know. It feels dishonest." Furthermore, the absence of a

progress indicator during the payment flow induced anxiety and uncertainty. A participant voiced this concern,

asking, "Okay, I clicked next... am I paying now? Or is there another step? I don't want to be charged twice."

These comments reveal that poor design does more than inconvenience users; it actively fosters an adversarial

perception of the system.

Theme 2: Clarity, Confidence, and Control (Prototype B)

In stark contrast, feedback for the enhanced prototype was overwhelmingly positive. The recurring themes

were ease, clarity, and confidence. Participants frequently used words like "easy," "clear," and

"straightforward" to describe their experience. The design elements intended to improve usability were

explicitly praised by users as sources of confidence and control.

The step-by-step progress indicator was repeatedly highlighted as a key positive feature. "I loved that I could

see exactly where I was in the process," one participant noted. "It made me feel in control and knew what to

expect next." This sense of predictability eliminated the anxiety observed in the baseline group. The

transparent fee breakdown was the single most powerful driver of trust. As one user articulated, "Seeing the

fine, the late fee, and the tiny credit card fee all listed out makes me trust the system. They aren't hiding

anything." This comment encapsulates the shift from a suspicious to a cooperative mindset. By presenting

information clearly and honestly, the enhanced prototype was perceived not as an obstacle, but as a helpful

tool designed to facilitate task completion.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this study provide strong empirical support for the hypothesis that a user-centric and accessible

design approach drastically improves usability and significantly enhances user trust in a civic tech platform.

The results not only align with established HCI principles but also offer new insights into the intricate

relationship between digital design, citizen trust, and social inclusion.

Interpretation of Findings through Theoretical Lenses

The dramatic improvements in task success and time on task for Prototype B are consistent with decades of

HCI research and can be directly interpreted through the lenses of technology acceptance models. The

simplicity and clarity of the enhanced design significantly increased its Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU), a core

construct of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM).

By making the tasks feel effortless, the design also

boosted Perceived Usefulness (PU), as participants were able to successfully achieve their goals.

However, in a mandatory-use context like resolving a fine, these constructs take on a deeper meaning. When

use is not voluntary, a system with low PEOU, like Prototype A, is perceived not merely as "not useful" but as

actively obstructive or incompetent. This perception shifts the user's cognitive and affective response from

simple dissatisfaction to active distrust. Conversely, the high PEOU of Prototype B was interpreted by users as

a sign of respect for their time and intelligence, a perception that directly fosters trust. This suggests that in the

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025

Page 564

www.rsisinternational.org

public sector, PEOU functions not just as a predictor of adoption but as a powerful mediator of the citizen's

affective relationship with the governing institution itself.

The profound impact on the Trust Score further validates this interpretation. The design elements of Prototype

B map directly onto the antecedents of trust identified in the literature.

The itemized fee breakdown fostered

transparency and impartiality. The progress bar provided predictable system feedback, enhancing credibility.

The clean, modern aesthetic signaled professionalism and competence, aligning with user expectations and

building confidence.

The low trust score for Prototype A demonstrates the alternative: an opaque, confusing

interface breeds suspicion and damages the credibility of the institution it represents.

Design for Trust is Design for Inclusion

A central argument advanced by this paper is that the principles of designing for trust are deeply synergistic

with the principles of designing for accessibility. The very interventions that built confidence and clarity for

the general user population in this study are foundational to creating an inclusive digital experience for users

with disabilities. For example:

Simplified Language and Forms: Using plain language and single-column layouts reduces cognitive load for

all users, but it is essential for individuals with cognitive disabilities or those using screen magnification

software.

Clear Navigation and Feedback: Logical navigation and visible system status (like a progress bar) help all

users maintain their orientation, but they are critical for users of screen readers who navigate content linearly

and rely on such cues to understand the structure and state of a page.

High-Contrast, Legible Design: Large fonts and high color contrast benefit everyone, especially on mobile

devices or in poor lighting, but they are a prerequisite for users with low vision.

This synthesis reveals that accessibility should not be treated as a separate, niche requirement to be addressed

after the core design is complete. Instead, it should be viewed as a universal design strategy that enhances

usability for the widest possible audience. By embedding accessibility into the design process from the outset,

governments can create platforms that are not only compliant but also more effective and trustworthy for

everyone. An accessible platform is an unambiguous signal that the government is committed to serving all its

citizens, a message that builds a broad-based foundation of public trust.

A Conceptual Model for Building Trust and Inclusion in Civic Tech

Based on the empirical findings and the theoretical framework, this study proposes a conceptual model that

illustrates the causal pathway from tangible design interventions to positive psychological and behavioral

outcomes in a civic tech context. This model, presented in Figure 1, provides a practical and theoretical

roadmap for developers and public administrators.

The model delineates this pathway by first identifying foundational UI/UX elements, such as simplified

language, logical navigation, and transparent process indicators. Crucially, it also integrates principles of

inclusive design, positing that features like WCAG-compliant color contrast, screen reader compatibility, and

clear error messaging are not peripheral but core to the user experience. These tangible elements are theorized

to directly influence psychological mediators by reducing cognitive load, enhancing perceived fairness, and

fostering a sense of control and predictability for all users, including those with disabilities.

Ultimately, these positive psychological states are shown to culminate in measurable behavioral outcomes:

higher task success rates, reduced user error, and, most significantly, an increase in the citizen’s stated trust in

the platform and its parent institution. By operationalizing these connections, the model provides

administrators with a compelling, evidence-based argument for allocating resources toward design excellence.

It reframes the development of civic technology not as a routine IT project, but as a strategic investment in

institutional legitimacy and a more equitable, positive relationship with the public it serves.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025

Page 565

www.rsisinternational.org

Figure 1: A Conceptual Model Illustrating the Path from Accessible UI/UX Elements to Citizen Trust and

Task Success

The model posits that specific, concrete Tangible Design Interventions (e.g., simplified forms, progress bars,

transparent fee breakdowns, and adherence to accessibility standards) directly influence a set of Psychological

Mediators. These are the user's internal cognitive and affective states, such as a reduced cognitive load, a sense

of control, and perceptions of honesty and equity. These positive psychological states, in turn, produce

desirable behavioral and attitudinal Outcomes, including enhanced citizen trust, improved task success, and

greater efficiency. Ultimately, the cumulative effect of these positive digital interactions is a strengthened,

more cooperative relationship between the citizen and the state.

Implications for Public Administration and Civic Tech Development

The implications of this research are both clear and urgent. For government agencies and the developers who

build their digital platforms, this study demonstrates that investing in high-quality, accessible UX design is not

an optional expense but a core component of effective public service delivery. The current state of many

government websites suggests a prevailing mindset focused on technical functionality over human experience.

This approach is counterproductive, leading to higher support costs, lower task completion rates, and, most

importantly, a steady erosion of public trust.

Public administrators should champion a shift from a compliance-only mentality toward a culture of human-

centered design.

This involves allocating resources for user research, usability testing, and accessibility

audits. It means empowering design teams to simplify bureaucratic processes and translate jargon into plain

language. As this study shows, simple acts like providing a progress bar or itemizing fees can have a

transformative impact on the citizen experience, shifting the dynamic from adversarial to cooperative.

Ultimately, an investment in good design is a direct and highly effective investment in public trust.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This study, while providing clear results, has several limitations that offer avenues for future research. First,

the use of interactive prototypes in a simulated environment, while allowing for controlled comparison, does

not fully replicate the emotional stress and real-world consequences of receiving and paying a ticket with one's

own money. Future studies could explore these dynamics in a live environment.

Second, while our participant sample was intentionally diverse and included individuals with self-reported

disabilities, it was not large enough for rigorous, disaggregated analysis of accessibility outcomes. A critical

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025

Page 566

www.rsisinternational.org

next step is to conduct dedicated accessibility testing with users who rely on various assistive technologies

(e.g., screen readers, voice controls, switch devices) to validate and expand upon our findings regarding

inclusion.

Third, this research focused on a single, transactional civic task. Further research is needed to test the

generalizability of our conceptual model across other civic tech domains, such as applying for social services,

filing taxes, or participating in online public consultations.

Finally, longitudinal studies would be invaluable

for understanding the long-term effects of digital experiences. A single positive interaction may build trust in

the moment, but does a sustained pattern of high-quality digital services lead to a measurable improvement in a

citizen's overall perception of government competence and legitimacy over time? Answering this question is

key to fully understanding the role of technology in shaping the future of governance

CONCLUSION

Good design is not a luxury; in the digital age, it is a fundamental component of effective, equitable, and

democratic governance. This research provides compelling empirical evidence that specific, deliberate UI/UX

interventions—grounded in principles of simplicity, transparency, and accessibility—can transform a

frustrating, trust-damaging civic interaction into one that is straightforward, efficient, and positive. The chasm

in performance and perception between the two prototypes in this study demonstrates that the design of public-

facing digital infrastructure has profound consequences.

For government agencies, civic tech developers, and public policy makers, the message is unequivocal:

investing in user experience is a direct and powerful investment in public trust. By moving beyond a narrow

focus on technical compliance and instead embracing a truly human-centered design ethos, we can begin to

mitigate the digital divide, foster inclusion, and build more resilient citizen-state relationships. By treating

citizens as valued users whose time and trust are paramount, we can finally start to realize the full potential of

technology to create a more efficient, transparent, and collaborative public sphere for all.

REFERENCES

In accordance with the reviewer's suggestion, this manuscript has been screened using plagiarism detection

software to ensure it meets the journal's similarity index requirements and adheres to all standards of

publication ethics.

1. Baruch, A., May, A., & Yu, D. (2016). The motivations, enablers and barriers for voluntary

participation in an online crowdsourcing platform. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 923–931.

2. Belanger, F., & Carter, L. (2010). Trust and risk in e-government adoption. The Journal of Strategic

Information Systems, 19(2), 165-176.

3. Bhanye, J., & Shayemunda, R. (2024). The Promise of Civic-Tech: Digital Technologies and

Transparent, Accountable Governance. In Digital Transformation for Good Governance in Africa (pp.

71-92). Springer.

4. Carter, L., Shaupp, L. C., Hobbs, J., & Campbell, R. (2016). The role of security and trust in the

adoption of e-government services: An empirical study. Journal of Organizational and End User

Computing, 28(1), 89-107.

5. Center for Civic Design. (n.d.). Accessibility. Retrieved from

https://civicdesign.org/topics/accessibility/

6. CivicPulse. (2025, March 17). Web Accessibility in Local Government: A National Survey. Retrieved

from https://www.civicpulse.org/research/technology-and-innovation/web-accessibility-local-

government-survey

7. Corritore, C. L., Kracher, B., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2007). On-line trust: concepts, evolving themes, a

model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(8), 707-730.

8. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information

technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.

9. Harris, P. R., Sillence, E., & Briggs, P. (2019). A Revised Model of Trust in Internet-Based Health

Information and Advice: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research,

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025

Page 567

www.rsisinternational.org

21(11), e13529.

10. Kelton, K., Fleischmann, K. R., & Wallace, W. A. (2008). Trust in digital information: A

multidisciplinary review and integration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and

Technology, 59(9), 1406-1420.

11. Lathrop, D., & Ruma, L. (Eds.). (2010). Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and

Participation in Practice. O'Reilly Media.

12. Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human

Factors, 46(1), 50-80.

13. Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a novel paradigm for citizen

engagement in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 446-454.

14. May, A., & Hobbs, M. (2017). The design of civic technology: factors that influence public

participation and impact. Ergonomics, 60(10), 1331-1345.

15. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (2006). An integrative model of organizational trust.

Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.

16. McGuinness, T. (2022, October 12). Can Human-Centered Design Help Rebuild Trust in Government?

GovTech. Retrieved from https://www.govtech.com/gov-experience/can-human-centered-design-help-

rebuild-trust-in-government

17. Nielsen, J. (1994). Usability Engineering. Morgan Kaufmann.

18. Norman, D. (2013). The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition. Basic Books.

19. Norris, P. (2001). Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide.

Cambridge University Press.

20. OECD. (2017). OECD Guidelines on Measuring Trust. OECD Publishing.

21. Quesenbery, W., & Horton, S. (2013). A Web for Everyone: Designing Accessible User Experiences.

Rosenfeld Media.

22. Shaw, E. D. (2018). Can Civic Technology "Skip Ahead" to E-Government's Promise? Findings from

an "Interaction-First" Approach. JeDEM - eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 10(2), 74-

96.

23. U.S. General Services Administration. (n.d.). Accessibility. Digital.gov. Retrieved from

https://digital.gov/topics/accessibility/

24. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information

technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.

25. Wang, Y., & Chen, Y. (2024). Understanding Public Trust and Continuous Use Intention in E-

Government: An Expectation-Confirmation Perspective. Sustainability, 16(24), 11068.

26. Wihartati, L., & Hidayanto, A. N. (2020). Technology Acceptance Model in Government Context: A

Systematic Review on the Implementation of IT Governance in a Government Institution. 2020

International Conference on ICT for Smart Society (ICISS), 1-6.

27. Wirtz, B. W., Weyerer, J. C., & Rösch, M. (2018). Citizen and government communication in the

public sector: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Public Administration, 41(15),

1251-1266.

28. Zhang, W., Lim, G., Perrault, S., & Wang, C. (2022). A Review of Research on Civic Technology:

Definitions, Theories, History and Insights. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.11461.

29. Zoonen, L. V., & van der Meer, T. (2015). The downside of online political communication: How the

online political environment increases the gap between politically interested and uninterested citizens.

Information, Communication & Society, 18(10), 1177-1193.

Works cited

30. A Review of Research on Civic Technology: Definitions ... - arXiv, accessed July 31, 2025,

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2204.11461

31. The Promise of Civic-Tech: Digital Technologies and Transparent, Accountable Governance, accessed

July 31, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388770782_The_Promise_of_Civic-

Tech_Digital_Technologies_and_Transparent_Accountable_Governance

32. The Digital Divide's Civic Impact - Number Analytics, accessed July 31, 2025,

https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/digital-divide-civic-impact

33. User Experience in E-Government App Development | MoldStud, accessed July 31, 2025,

https://moldstud.com/articles/p-the-importance-of-user-experience-in-e-government-app-development-

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI) 
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025 
Page 568 
www.rsisinternational.org 
   
    
enhancing-citizen-engagement-and-service-efficiency 
34. Why  UX  Design  Matters  for  Government  Websites  -  New  Target,  Inc.,  accessed  July  31,  2025, 
https://www.newtarget.com/web-insights-blog/ux-design/ 
35. Exploring  Satisfaction and Trust  as  Key  Drivers  of  e-Government  Continuance  Intention: Evidence 
from  China  for  Sustainable  Digital  Governance  -  MDPI,  accessed  July  31,  2025, 
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/24/11068 
36. The  Role  of  Trust  and  Risk  in  Citizens'  E-Government  Services  Adoption:  A  Perspective  of  the 
Extended  UTAUT  Model  -  MDPI,  accessed  July  31,  2025,  https://www.mdpi.com/2071-
1050/13/14/7671 
37. 12IJ08SIN12118.doc 
38. Web  Accessibility  in  Local  Government  -  CivicPulse,  accessed  July  31,  2025, 
https://www.civicpulse.org/research/technology-and-innovation/web-accessibility-local-government-
survey 
39. Digital  Divide:  Civic  Engagement,  Information  Poverty,  and  the  Internet  Worldwide  -  Canadian 
Journal  of  Communication  (CJC),  accessed  July  31,  2025, 
https://cjc.utppublishing.com/doi/10.22230/cjc.2003v28n1a1352 
40. The  New  Digital  Divide  -  Internet  Society  Pulse,  accessed  July  31,  2025, 
https://pulse.internetsociety.org/blog/the-new-digital-divide 
41. The Digital Divide: Tackling Inequality in Access to Tech - UK Tech Week, accessed July 31, 2025, 
https://uktechweek.org/2024/12/18/the-digital-divide-tackling-inequality-in-access-to-tech/ 
42. Accessibility - Digital.gov, accessed July 31, 2025, https://digital.gov/topics/accessibility 
43. Accessibility  |  Center  for  civic  design,  accessed  July  31,  2025, 
https://civicdesign.org/topics/accessibility/ 
44. How  Local  Governments  Build  Trust  Through  Accessibility  -  CivicPlus,  accessed  July  31,  2025, 
https://www.civicplus.com/blog/wa/how-local-governments-build-trust-through-accessibility/ 
45. 7  Citizen  Engagement  Tips  to  Help  Build More  Inclusive  Smart  Cities  ...,  accessed July  31,  2025, 
https://blog.austinstartups.com/7-citizen-engagement-tips-to-help-build-sustainable-and-inclusive-
smart-cities-c84a703d64c6 
46. Skipping  Ahead  to  the  Good  Part:  The  Role  of  Civic  Technology  in  ...,  accessed  July  31,  2025, 
https://jedem.org/index.php/jedem/article/view/455/455 
47. Technology  Acceptance  Model  -  TheoryHub  -  Academic  theories  ...,  accessed  July  31,  2025, 
https://open.ncl.ac.uk/theories/1/technology-acceptance-model/ 
48. (PDF)  Technology  Acceptance  Model  in  Government  Context:  A  Systematic  Review  on  the 
Implementation of IT Governance in a Government Institution - ResearchGate, accessed July 31, 2025, 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364048180_Technology_Acceptance_Model_in_Government
_Context_A_Systematic_Review_on_the_Implementation_of_IT_Governance_in_a_Government_Insti
tution 
49. Technology acceptance in public sector: an empirical study of a Knowledge Management System in 
Kaohsiung  City  Government  -  ResearchGate,  accessed  July  31,  2025, 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240295461_Technology_acceptance_in_public_sector_an_e
mpirical_study_of_a_Knowledge_Management_System_in_Kaohsiung_City_Government 
50. Unified  Theory  of  Acceptance  and  Use  of  Technology  -  TheoryHub  ...,  accessed  July  31,  2025, 
https://open.ncl.ac.uk/theories/2/unified-theory-of-acceptance-and-use-of-technology/ 
51. A  Systematic  Literature  Review  of  User  Trust  in  AI-Enabled  Systems  ...,  accessed  July  31,  2025, 
https://ehealthresearch.no/files/documents/Undersider/KIN-A-Systematic-Literature-Review-of-User-
Trust-in-AI-Enabled-Systems-An-HCI-Perspective.pdf 
52. A Systematic Literature Review of User Trust in AI-Enabled Systems: An HCI Perspective, accessed 
July 31, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10447318.2022.2138826 
53. A  Revised  Model  of  Trust  in  Internet-Based  Health  Information  and  ...,  accessed  July  31,  2025, 
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6878106/ 
54. Can Human-Centered Design Help Rebuild Trust in Government? - GovTech, accessed July 31, 2025, 
https://www.govtech.com/gov-experience/can-human-centered-design-help-rebuild-trust-in-
government 
55. Full  article:  The  design  of  civic  technology:  factors  that  influence  ...,  accessed  July  31,  2025, 

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025

Page 569

www.rsisinternational.org

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00140139.2017.1349939

56. OECD Guidelines on Measuring Trust | OECD, accessed July 31, 2025,

https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-guidelines-on-measuring-trust_9789264278219-en.html