Audience and language map
Map Belgium as relationships, not a country-name switch.
The team must identify which audiences, regions, languages, organisations, services, and authorities actually matter. A Dutch, French, German, or English journey enters scope only with real users and accountable human review.
| Studio question | Evidence to gather | Design response |
|---|---|---|
| Who needs a distinct journey? | Specific user role, task, region or location context, language, accessibility need, and support route. | Audience map and separate acceptance path where differences are material. |
| What should remain equivalent? | Approved service promise, eligibility, pricing logic, privacy choices, help, and outcome across language variants. | Parity matrix with deliberate, reviewed exceptions. |
| Who owns meaning? | Source-content author, translator or adapter, factual reviewer, professional reviewer, publisher, and freshness owner. | Editorial workflow and visible stale-content controls. |
| Which country rules matter? | Exact organisation, service, user, data, transaction, sector, date, official source, and qualified interpretation. | Requirement, exclusion, disclosure, or test attached to the affected journey. |
| How does the shared platform stay safe? | Identity, data, providers, analytics, permissions, release, monitoring, support, and rollback ownership. | Common controls with segment-specific verification. |
Variation test
A language label is not evidence of a distinct audience.
- Name the person and service task before selecting a language
- Assign a human owner for meaning and production review
- Compare important outcomes across related journeys
- Document regional or legal variation from qualified evidence
- Recheck source material and content freshness before release