Website User Friendliness Q1 Job Portal Report

5,766
-1

Published on

The Website User Friendliness Job Portal Report studies, interprets, evaluates, measures and reports the ‘user-friendliness’ of a website taking into account both in its look factors as well as its usability factors. The study helps the online players measure, quantify and benchmark the ‘user friendliness’ and ‘usage satisfaction’ of their website vis-à-vis the key competing websites across six generic portals. The study is done among top five Job Search Portals .

Published in: Business, Technology
2 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
5,766
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
202
Comments
2
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Website User Friendliness Q1 Job Portal Report

  1. 1. Website User Friendliness Study
  2. 2. Job Portal Website User Friendliness Study Job Portals Report Jan-Mar ‘08 2
  3. 3. Website User Friendliness Study © copyright JuxtConsult
  4. 4. Job Portal 4
  5. 5. Website User Friendliness Study Table of content Introduction .............................................................. 1 Methodology.............................................................. 2 Category Websites Tested.............................................. 8 Findings: Website User Friendliness Aggregate Scores - Overall ............ 10 Website User Friendliness Sub Parameter Scores - Overall....... 11 Website User Friendliness Perceptual Map – Overall .............. 12 Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters - Overall.......... 13 Rating Dispersions by Individual Attributes ......................... 14 Relative Importance of the Individual Criteria ..................... 25 Website User Friendliness Aggregate Scores – Website Users .... 26 Website User Friendliness Sub Parameter Scores – Website Users ............................................................................ 27 Website User Friendliness Perceptual Map – Website Users ...... 28 Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters – Website Users . 29 Rating Dispersions by Individual Attributes ......................... 30 Relative Importance of the Individual Criteria ..................... 41 Website User Friendliness Aggregate Scores – Website Non Users ............................................................................ 42 Website User Friendliness Sub Parameter Scores – Website Non Users...................................................................... 43 Website User Friendliness Perceptual Map – Website Non Users 44 Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters – Website Non Users...................................................................... 45 Rating Dispersions by Individual Attributes ......................... 46 Relative Importance of the Individual Criteria ..................... 57 Respondent ProfileDemographic Profile............................. 58 Demographic Profile ................................................... 59 Socio Economic Profile................................................. 63 Economic Profile........................................................ 65 Net Usage Dynamics.................................................... 67 WUF Index Ranking of Websites by User Segments ................ 68 Sample Sizes............................................................. 75
  6. 6. Job Portal 6
  7. 7. Website User Friendliness Study Introduction Internet users rarely bother to complain about the poor quality or experience of a website. They just ‘switch’ to an alternative website. Yet most websites do little to track their user’s experience and perceptions about their websites on various critical parameters - be it the appeal of their user interface, ease of navigation and task completion, or the satisfaction derived from the actual usage experience. To precisely fill this gap JuxtConsult has introduced its ‘Website User Friendliness’ syndicated study. The study helps the online players measure, quantify and benchmark the ‘user friendliness’ and ‘usage satisfaction’ of their website vis-à-vis the key competing websites. The study is unique in its methodology as it takes the concept of ‘usability testing’ of a website online – it makes the users use a website and give the feedback on its usage experience in ‘live’ online environment. The user feedback is real time and based on actual usage of the website. In order to define and measure what really makes a website ‘user- friendly’, we looked at a simple and interesting parallel of what makes a person seem ‘friendly’. In human interaction, we identify someone as ‘friendly’ only when that person firstly ‘looks’ friendly to us and then ‘behaves’ friendly towards us. When it comes to our interaction with websites, our expectations and behaviors are no different. We identify or treat a website as ‘friendly’ only when it both looks pleasant and acceptable to us and is easy and convenient to use. That is, A User friendly website Looks friendly + Behaves friendly To ‘look’ friendly, a website must be identifiable, appealing, relevant, and pleasant in its appearance. On the other hand, to ‘behave’ friendly a website must enable the task a user has come to perform on the website in a convenient, smooth, orderly and satisfactory manner. Accordingly, this study interprets, evaluates, measures and reports the ‘user-friendliness’ of a website taking into account both in its look factors as well as its usability factors. 1
  8. 8. Job Portals Methodology The JuxtConsult ‘Website User Friendliness’ model Any comprehensive measure of ‘user-friendliness’ of a website must cover all key aspects that determine its ‘user-interface’ (looking friendly) as well as its ‘usage experience’ (behaving friendly). At a broad level, we at JuxtConsult defined these key aspects as follows: User Interface (look friendly) Usage Experience (behave friendly) Visually appealing Easy to access Distinctly identifiable Easy to locate relevant information Organized interface Easy to comprehend information Relevant content Easy to navigate and conduct a task Better quality of content Offer relevant and adequate solutions Facilitate satisfactory completion of task Consistent in performance Highly interactive and responsive In order to identify the precise and measurable attributes under each of these aspects, we carefully mapped the typical flow of the ‘interaction’ a user usually has with a website. In doing so we identified 6 typical stages of interaction a user has with a website (and therefore, 6 critical aspects that need to be measured to arrive at any comprehensive evaluation of ‘user-friendliness’ of a website): The user accesses the website (Accessibility) Finds the website appealing (Likeability) Finds the content relevant (Relatability) Is able to smoothly navigate on the website (Navigability) Finds the website responsive when needs assistance/help (Interactivity) Is able to complete the task/purpose for which he/she visited the website in the first place (Task accomplishment) Digging a little deeper in these 6 critical areas we identified 19 individual parameters that required to be measured to make the model a fairly comprehensive one. The parameters related to ‘e-commerce’ and ‘transactions’ were not included in the ‘generic model’ per se (to retain its universality), but have been considered separately as the 2
  9. 9. Website User Friendliness Study ‘seventh’ critical aspect of measuring user friendliness of the ‘e- commerce’ websites. The following graphics outline the precise ‘website user friendliness’ measuring and rating schema used in the JuxtConsult model and in bringing out these reports: © The Model The Website – User The Measures The User Friendliness Criteria Interaction Points Browser compatibility Accessibility Download time Is the website easy to access? Technical Distinctiveness (branding) Layout and interface Aesthetics (color, text, graphics) Likeability Does it look appealing? Identification with the website Design Ease of comprehension Relevance/Adequacy of content Relatability Is the content relevant and distinct? Content distinctiveness (quality) Content Ease of locating task info Ease of conducting the tasks Navigability Is it easy to use? Inter-page consistency in design Task Flow and flow Navigational cues and helps Error rate / error recovery Interactivity Is it able to assist the user when needed? Contacability (and responsiveness) Assistance Sense of security in using the site Level of task completion (success) Task Accomplishment Timeliness of task completion Is the user able to accomplish the task? Solution Adequacy of task compl. (satisfaction) 3
  10. 10. Job Portals © User Friendliness Measuring Schema 3. Distinctive in identity (branding) 4. Presentation of content (layout) 10. Ease of locating task info 5. Aesthetics (color, text, graphics) 11. Ease of conducting the task 6. User identification with the site 12. Navigation flow between pages 16. Timeliness of task completion 7. Ease of comprehension 13. Navigational cues and helps 17. Quality of usage experience 1. Browser Compatibility 8. Relevance of content 14. Error recovery 18. Perceived sense of security in usage 2. Download Time 9. Relative quality of content 15. Customer responsiveness 19. Brand preference creation Site is likeable and relevant Site is easily accessible Site is easy to use with hassle-free navigation Site delivers task accomplishment Design Appeal Ease of Access Ease of Usage Usage Satisfaction Appeal Index Accessibility Index Navigability Index Satisfaction Index User Friendly Experience User Friendly Interface User Friendly Interface Index (UFEX) User Friendly Experience Index (UZEX) Website User Friendliness Category Level Website User Friendliness Index (WUF) 4
  11. 11. Website User Friendliness Study As shown in the schema, the 19 individual parameters that determine the overall user friendliness of a website have been clustered together into 4 ‘sub index’ measuring the ‘accessibility’, ‘appeal’, ‘navigability’ and ‘usage satisfaction’ index of a website. Hereafter these are combined to arrive at two higher level ‘user interface’ and ‘user experience’ Index and eventually into the overall ‘website user friendliness’ (WUF) index of a website. The model thereby allows various websites in a category/vertical to be evaluated, compared, benchmarked and ranked on various aspects of their ‘user-friendliness’ in an objective manner (based on the index score derived from actual ‘ratings’ of these websites by their existing and potential users). The online survey To test and get the websites rated on these 19 parameters and some other identified aspects of ‘user friendliness’ by their existing and potential users, an online survey methodology based on ‘live’ usage and rating of websites was used. The online survey was conducted using JuxtConsult’s own online user panel (www.getcounted.net) as well as using a ‘survey ad campaign’ on Google Ad Sense (contextual search ads). The online survey was conducted using an e-questionnaire segmented into three sections. The first section had a ‘screener questionnaire’ that was used to identify the ‘users’ of an online category, and of the various websites being tested within that category. Then the identified ‘users’ and ‘non-users’ (taken as potential users) of the various websites were taken to the respective websites for ‘live’ usage. This was done by providing the ‘URL links’ of these websites within the questionnaires. Half the respondents (of both existing and potential users of the website) were asked to surf the ‘homepage’ and the other half to ‘complete a simple assigned task’ on the website1. This split was done to keep the length of the ‘live’ usage sessions within reasonable time limit, so that including the feedback-giving time (questionnaire filling), the whole session does not become too long for the respondent. In this way we tried to minimize the impact of any possible ‘response fatigue’ in the survey to the extent it is possible to do so in such surveys. To ensure a statistically healthy representation and calculation of the ratings (and indices) for each website in the study, a minimum sample quota of 120 ‘reported response’ per website was fixed. This is the sample size on which the user friendliness index calculations are based. 1 The tasks that the respondents of the Job Portal category were asked to perform were – 1) search for a job posting of your interest on the website, 2) upload your resume on to the website, and 3) check for career tips in your area of interest on the website. 5
  12. 12. Job Portals However, because of a break up of ‘live’ usage between the ‘only homepage surfing’ and ‘only an assigned task completion’, each respondent were to give only ‘part’ rating of the website. This meant that in practice it would take 2 respondents (one of homepage and one of task) to compete one rating of a website as per the JuxtConsult Model. Accordingly, in sample collection, the quota per website was doubled to 240 respondents per website. The eventual break up of the samples as ‘set’ per website and between its existing users and non- users (potential users) was as follows: Table 1: Sample size by websites Sample Base Users Non-users Total Monster Home page 60 60 120 Task 60 60 120 Jobstreet Home page 60 60 120 Task 60 60 120 Clickjobs Home page 60 60 120 Task 60 60 120 Timesjobs Home page 60 60 120 Task 60 60 120 Naukri Home page 60 60 120 Task 60 60 120 Total Category 600 600 1,200 Further to ensure that we report only those responses that are based on actual, and to an extent, sincere ‘live’ usage of the website, firstly the time taken to check/use the website was measured (from the time of clicking the URL link on the questionnaire to the time of answering the first feedback question). Thereafter, we decided to exclude from reporting those respondents who took less than 3 minutes to ‘surf the homepage’ and less than 5 minutes to ‘complete the assigned task’ on the website. For the 19 individual parameters, except for browser compatibility, the ratings for the rest 18 parameters were taken directly from the respondents. For rating on browser compatibility, websites were tested internally at JuxtConsult by its own technical team on various popular internet browsers and then rated accordingly. The browsers on which the website opening was tested were – Internet Explorer, Firefox, Netscape and Opera. For the rest 18 parameters where users’ gave the ratings directly, all ratings were taken on a ‘5 point qualitative scale’. For each parameter, respondents were asked to choose one of the five statements given as ‘options’. The five statements ranged from the most positive statement about that attribute on that website to the most negative statement about that attribute on that website. Of these 18 parameters, only one parameter’s response was taken from the respondents ‘past usage’ of the website (therefore asked only to the ‘users’). This parameter was customer responsiveness (measured as timeliness and appropriates of response to any query they may have made on the website in the past). On all the other 17 parameters the 6
  13. 13. Website User Friendliness Study respondents were asked to give their ratings basis the ‘live’ usage experience and in real time. Eventually, Index numbers were calculated and derived from the individual parameter level rating, with each level index having its own calculated scale (depending on the number of individual parameters included under that index). The sample bases of various websites were equalized while calculating their website user friendliness index to ensure that there are no sample size biases in the reported findings. In the online questionnaires, a response format of ‘clicking’ a single or multiple options among the various given options was used for most questions. Wherever relevant, it was also possible for a respondent to answer ‘none’, ‘not applicable’ or ‘any other’. To enlist complete and sincere responses, an incentive of a significant cash prize was also announced to be given to one randomly selected respondent at the end of the survey. The questionnaire were pre-tested and timed to take approximately 15- 20 minutes for a respondent to complete depending on the speed of comprehension and answering of the questions. The questionnaire was structured and designed to reduce the level of ‘respondent fatigue’ to an extent that was practically possible. Over 1,400 unduplicated and clean responses were collected from the online survey for the 5 websites being tested under the Job Portal category (in about 3 weeks of time for which the survey was ‘live’ online). After further cleaning of the data for the actual time spent on surfing the homepage/completing the task on the websites 1,160 responses were finally found to be valid and used in creating this report. The valid and usable data was then made representative of the entire online urban Indian population by using appropriate 'demographic multipliers’ using highly authentic Govt. of India population statistics. The weights used were derived from the JuxtConsult’s India Online 2007 study and are based on 3 highly relevant demographic parameters – SEC, town class and region. The end result is that the findings of this report possibly represent the ‘voice’ of over 24 million online urban Indians. Further, the findings represent and effectively cover internet users from all SEC groups, all age groups above 12 years, all income groups and all types of town classes (right down to 20,000 population size level towns)2 . 2 For more details on the demographic and socio-economic profile of the respondents see the ‘Respondent Profile’ section of this report. 7
  14. 14. Job Portals Category Websites Tested Naukri (www.naukri.com) Monster (www.monster.com) Timesjobs (www.timesjobs.com) Clickjobs (www.clickjobs.com) Jobstreet (www.jobstreet.com) 8
  15. 15. Website User Friendliness Study Findings 9
  16. 16. Job Portals Website User Friendliness Aggregate Scores - Overall Table 2: Website user friendliness index (WUF) - overall Brands WUF Index Relative Index Naukri 8.3 100% Clickjobs 7.9 95% Monster 7.8 95% Jobstreet 6.8 82% Timesjobs 6.5 79% Base: 1,160 Table 3: User friendly interface index (UFEX) - overall Brands UFEX Index Relative Index Naukri 4.7 100% Monster 4.5 95% Clickjobs 4.4 94% Jobstreet 3.9 81% Timesjobs 3.7 78% Base: 1,160 Table 4: User friendly usage experience index (UZEX) - overall Brands UZEX Index Relative Index Naukri 3.5 100% Clickjobs 3.4 97% Monster 3.4 95% Jobstreet 2.9 82% Timesjobs 2.8 79% Base: 1,160 10
  17. 17. Website User Friendliness Study Website User Friendliness Sub Parameter Scores - Overall Table 5: Accessibility index (overall) Brands Accessibility Index Relative Index Naukri 2.6 100% Monster 2.5 95% Clickjobs 2.4 92% Jobstreet 2.1 81% Timesjobs 2.0 78% Base: 1,160 Table 6: Appeal index (overall) Brands Appeal Index Relative Index Naukri 2.2 100% Clickjobs 2.1 95% Monster 2.0 94% Jobstreet 1.7 81% Timesjobs 1.7 78% Base: 1,160 Table 7: Navigability index (overall) Brands Navigability Index Relative Index Clickjobs 1.3 100% Monster 1.2 93% Naukri 1.2 92% Jobstreet 1.0 78% Timesjobs 1.0 77% Base: 1,160 Table 8: Usage satisfaction index (overall) Brands Satisfaction Index Relative Index Naukri 2.3 100% Monster 2.1 92% Clickjobs 2.1 91% Jobstreet 1.9 81% Timesjobs 1.8 77% Base: 1,160 11
  18. 18. Job Portals Website User Friendliness Perceptual Map – Overall .2 Monster .1 Ease of Access Timesjobs Ease of Usage 0.0 Jobstreet Design Appeal Naukri Clickjobs Attribute Usage Satisfaction -.1 -.3 -.2 -.1 -.0 .1 .2 .3 Brand 12
  19. 19. Website User Friendliness Study Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters - Overall Table 9: Summary table - overall Ratings (on a 5 point qualitative scale) Monster Jobstreet Clickjobs Timesjobs Naukri Browser Compatibility 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Download Time 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.3 Accessibility Index 2.5 2.1 2.4 2.0 2.6 Distinctive in identity (branding) 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.4 Presentation layout of the home page 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.4 Presentation layout of the task page 4.2 4.3 4.5 4.2 4.4 Aesthetics of graphics on the homepage 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 2.7 User identification with the site 4.1 4.0 4.2 4.2 3.7 Ease of comprehension 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.1 Relevance of content 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.5 4.3 Relative quality of content 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.4 4.3 Appeal Index 2.0 1.7 2.1 1.7 2.2 Ease of locating task info 4.0 4.3 4.4 4.1 4.3 Ease of conducting the task 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 4.1 Navigation flow between pages 4.1 4.4 4.4 4.1 4.3 Navigational cues and helps 4.1 4.4 4.4 4.1 4.3 Error recovery 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.2 Appropriateness of response to queries 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.5 4.8 Timeliness of response to queries 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.2 Satisfaction with query resolution 4.7 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Navigability Index 1.2 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.2 Timeliness of task completion 4.0 4.1 4.1 3.8 4.1 Quality of the usage experience 4.0 4.3 4.1 4.1 4.0 Perceived sense of security during usage 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 Creation of brand preference 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Satisfaction Index 2.1 1.9 2.1 1.8 2.3 UFEX Index 4.5 3.9 4.4 3.7 4.7 UZEX Index 3.4 2.9 3.4 2.8 3.5 WUF Index 7.8 6.8 7.9 6.5 8.3 Base: 1,160 Note – Individual ratings are based on a 5 point qualitative scale. For each parameter respondents were asked to choose 1 out of the 5 mentioned statements, which ranged from the most positive statement to the most negative statement. Index numbers are derived numbers from the ratings, with each level index having its own calculated scale and not adhering to any standard numeric scale. 13
  20. 20. Job Portals Rating Dispersions by Individual Attributes Chart 1: Download time (overall) JFM '08 Extremely slo w 0% 1% 1% 3% 2% 100% 4% 4% 4% 8% 1% 11% 11% 9% 7% 14% Fairly slo w 24% 75% 24% 25% 25% 32% Neither fast no r 50% slo w 64% Reaso nably fast 60% 60% 56% 52% 25% A dequately fast 0% M onst er Jobst reet Clickjobs Timesjobs Naukri Base: 598 Chart 2: Distinctive in identity (overall) Didn't no tice the lo go JFM '08 1% at all'. 2% 2% 100% 8% 10% 2% 6% 7% 9% 7% 10% 9% 6% I had to search fo r the 6% 6% lo go 75% 21% 35% 28% 25% 31% I spo tted it but o nly after a while 50% It was pro minent and I 62% spo tted it easily 55% 56% 52% 25% 47% It was the first thing that I no ticed o n the 0% page M o nster Jo bstreet Clickjo bs Timesjo bs Naukri Base: 598 14
  21. 21. Website User Friendliness Study Chart 3: Presentation of the home page (overall) JFM '08 Extremely haphazard 0% 1 0% 0% 0% and badly presented 2% 2% 100% % 4% 2% 9% 15% 1% 1 17% 1% 1 5% Fairly diso rganized and ill presented 75% 34% 37% 39% 38% 41% Just average in o rganizatio n and 50% presentatio n Fairly well o rganized and presented 51% 25% 48% 46% 46% 42% Extremely well o rganized and neatly 0% presented M o nster Jo bstreet Clickjo bs Timesjo bs Naukri Base: 598 Chart 4: Presentation of the task page (overall) JFM '08 Extremely untidy and 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 2% 3% 100% 4% 0% 4% 1% cluttered 17% 12% 22% 16% Fairly untidy 75% 43% 29% 35% 30% 33% A veragely presented 50% Fairly well presented 54% 53% 25% 50% 48% 44% Very well presented 0% M onster Jobst reet Clickjobs Timesjobs Naukri Base: 598 15
  22. 22. Job Portals Chart 5: Aesthetics of text (overall) JFM '08 It has to o little co ntent 100% 1% 2% 3% 8% 11% and lo o ks empty 24% 13% 28% 33% 75% 29% It has to o much text and lo o ks cluttered 50% 80% 75% 70% 64% 60% 25% It has just the right amo unt o f text and lo o ks fine 0% M onster Jobstreet Clickjobs Timesjobs Naukri Base: 598 Chart 6: Aesthetics of graphics (overall) JFM '08 100% 15% To o few 19% 19% 20% 28% 75% 42% Neither engage me 41% 50% 71% no r distract me 71% 73% 25% 44% To o many 31% 10% 10% 8% 0% M onst er Jobst reet Clickjobs Timesjobs Naukri Base: 237 16
  23. 23. Website User Friendliness Study Chart 7: User identification with the site (overall) JFM '08 Its just o ppo site o f my style and perso nality 1% 2% 100% 5% 4% 9% 3% 7% 2% 8% 14% 11% 8% I find it difficult to 10% 23% relate to it 15% 75% 25% 36% 39% I can live with it 27% 50% 42% I can relate to it to so me extent 53% 25% 47% 43% 42% 26% It matches my style and perso nality 0% co mpletely M onster Jobstreet Clickjobs Timesjobs Naukri Base: 598 Chart 8: Ease of comprehension (overall) JFM '08 Extremely difficult 1% 3% 100% 3% 4% 6% 3% 2% 10% 7% 3% 7% 8% 14% 21% Quite difficult 21% 75% 29% 40% 31% 31% 23% Neither easy no r 50% difficult Reaso nably easy 53% 25% 46% 47% 47% 42% Extremely easy 0% M onst er Jobst reet Clickjobs Timesjobs Naukri Base: 598 17
  24. 24. Job Portals Chart 9: Relevance of content (overall) JFM '08 A lmo st irrelevant 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 100% 5% 1% 2% 3% 1% 5% 12% 9% 21% 19% Lo w relevance 75% 34% 46% 45% 33% 38% A veragely 50% relevant Fairly relevant 58% 25% 45% 41% 40% 40% Highly relevant 0% M onst er Jobstreet Clickjobs Timesjobs Naukri Base: 598 Chart 10: Relative quality of content (overall) JFM '08 Significantly inferio r 0% 1% 1% than the o ther 4% 100% 4% 2% 3% 6% 5% 4% 1% websites 13% 13% 9% 13% Somewhat inferio r than the o ther 75% 40% 28% websites 32% 31% 31% Same as o ffered by the o ther websites 50% Somewhat better than 56% 53% 52% 52% the o ther websites 25% 50% Significantly better than the o ther 0% websites M onster Jobstreet Clickjobs Timesjobs Naukri Base: 598 18
  25. 25. Website User Friendliness Study Chart 11: Ease of locating task info (overall) JFM '08 Extremely difficult 0% 2% 3% 2% 100% 4% 2% 4% 3% 5% 4% 9% 16% 13% 18% 18% Fairly difficult 23% 75% 26% 29% 32% 33% Neither easy no r 50% difficult 63% Fairly easy 55% 53% 25% 42% 41% Very easy 0% M onster Jobst reet Clickjobs Timesjobs Naukri Base: 563 Chart 12: Ease of conducting the task info (overall) JFM '08 Faced lo ts o f difficulty 1% 2% 1% 3% 4% 100% 3% 5% 4% 5% 11% 18% 19% 19% Faced so me difficulty 37% 23% 75% but was able to co mplete the task 27% 36% 30% Neither easy no r 26% 50% 21% difficult Fairly easy with o nly 25% 46% 42% so me mino r irritants 40% 40% 39% Extremely easy and 0% hassle-free M onster Jobstreet Clickjobs Timesjobs Naukri Base: 563 19
  26. 26. Job Portals Chart 13: Navigation flow between pages (overall) JFM '08 Relevant page did no t 1% 2% 2% 100% 5% 6% 4% 6% o pen at all 6% 3% 3% 3% 6% 5% 16% 7% Faced lo t o f 22% 28% 75% pro blems 34% 35% 43% Neither freely no r with 50% difficulty 68% 61% M o re o r less freely 54% 25% 46% 37% Co mpletely freely 0% M onster Jobst reet Clickjobs Timesjobs Naukri Base: 563 Chart 14: Navigation clues and helps (overall) JFM '08 Relevant page did 1% 2% 2% 100% 5% 6% 4% 3% 6% no t o pen at all 3% 3% 6% 6% 5% 16% 7% 22% Faced lo t o f 75% 28% 34% pro blems 35% 43% Neither freely no r 50% with difficulty 68% 61% M o re o r less freely 54% 25% 46% 37% Co mpletely freely 0% M onst er Jobst reet Clickjobs Timesjobs Naukri Base: 563 20
  27. 27. Website User Friendliness Study Chart 15: Error recovery (overall) JFM '08 Co uldn't reso lve and 0% 2% 2% 3% 100% 5% 6% 2% failed to co mplete the 3% 1% 8% 8% 7% 6% task 9% 10% Reso lved with great 75% 35% 29% 31% difficulty 25% 22% Enco untered but 50% reso lved with website help instructio ns 59% 57% Enco untered erro r but 57% 57% 55% 25% reso lved o n my o wn Did no t enco unter any 0% erro r at all M onster Jobstreet Clickjobs Timesjobs Naukri Base: 563 Chart 16: Appropriateness of the response (overall) JFM '08 There was no 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 1% 100% 0% 1% 5% 2% 1% respo nse at all 3% 4% 6% 2% 17% 18% 10% 20% 32% Received o nly auto - 75% reply, no thing thereafter They respo nded but 50% did no t reso lve the 82% 82% 78% query 71% 64% Query was reso lved 25% o nly partially Query was reso lved 0% co mpletely M onster Jobstreet Clickjobs Timesjobs Naukri Base: 261 21
  28. 28. Job Portals Chart 17: Timeliness of response (overall) JFM '08 0% 0% 1% Did no t receive any 100% 1% 0% 6% 5% 1% 5% 1% 6% 1% 0% respo nse at all 9% 14% 26% 30% 29% Fairly late 75% 13% 37% Neither pro mptly no r 50% late 73% 67% 63% 64% M o re o r less in time 25% 48% Very pro mptly 0% M onster Jobstreet Clickjobs Timesjobs Naukri Base: 261 Chart 18: Satisfaction with response (overall) JFM '08 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 3% Highly dissatisfied 100% 2% 0% 4% 6% 4% 0% 9% 25% 27% M o derately 75% 38% 24% dissatisfied 53% 18% Neither satisfied no t 50% dissatisfied 71% 61% M o derately satisfied 56% 54% 25% 39% Highly satisfied 0% M onster Jobstreet Clickjobs Timesjobs Naukri Base: 261 22
  29. 29. Website User Friendliness Study Chart 19: Timeliness of task completion (overall) JFM '08 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% To o k significantly 100% 9% 7% 9% 7% lo nger than expected 15% 13% 22% 17% 22% To o k so mewhat mo re 75% 29% time than expected 20% 34% 27% 22% Co mpleted in as much 50% 15% time as expected Co mpleted marginally 50% 25% 46% 46% 44% faster than expected 40% Co mpleted a lo t faster 0% than expected M onster Jobstreet Clickjobs Timesjobs Naukri Base: 563 Chart 20: Quality of usage experience (overall) JFM '08 1% 2% 1% 2% 3% Do wnright painful 100% 2% 2% 1% 0% 5% 10% 13% 23% 23% 23% Fairly tro ubleso me 75% and irritating 36% 55% 36% 35% Just abo ut agreeable 45% 50% Fairly pleasant and 25% 47% satisfacto ry 38% 35% 32% 29% Extremely pleasant 0% and delightful M onster Jobstreet Clickjobs Timesjobs Naukri Base: 563 23
  30. 30. Job Portals Chart 21: Perceived sense of security in usage (overall) JFM '08 Co mpletely insecure 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 100% 1% 3% 1% 2% 7% 10% 14% 17% 15% 14% Fairly insecure 75% 42% 29% 27% 35% 37% No t sure if I can trust 50% the website Fairly secure 52% 53% 25% 49% 46% 41% A bso lutely secure 0% M onster Jobstreet Clickjobs Timesjobs Naukri Base: 1,157 Chart 22: Brand preference creation (overall) JFM '08 Very unlikely to visit 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 100% 2% 1% 3% 6% 3% it 10% 7% 10% 11% 8% Fairly unlikely to 18% 20% 75% 29% 29% 31% visit it No t sure, may o r 50% may no t visit it 69% 66% So mewhat likely to 60% 61% 55% 25% visit it Very likely to visit it 0% M onst er Jobstreet Clickjobs Timesjobs Naukri Base: 1,157 24
  31. 31. Website User Friendliness Study Relative Importance of the Individual Criteria Table 10: Importance ranking of the key individual criteria (overall) Brands Monster Jobstreet Clickjobs Timesjobs Naukri Overall Fastest to download 50% 54% 46% 55% 56% 52% Most responsive and prompt in customer 37% 36% 35% 38% 35% 36% service and support Provide the best help 35% 47% 36% 33% 24% 34% Simplest and most easy to understand 38% 34% 25% 41% 34% 34% language Brand image in the market place 29% 31% 30% 36% 35% 32% Gives best assurance on privacy of info 17% 21% 31% 20% 21% 22% provided Most neat looking design (aesthetics) 13% 19% 12% 20% 33% 20% Best assures safety against frauds & 21% 22% 18% 15% 20% 19% misuse of personal details & financial info Matches my personality and style the best 15% 15% 21% 17% 20% 18% Most logical structure and flow of info. / 17% 10% 14% 13% 12% 13% content Helps accomplish the task in least no. of clicks 17% 8% 20% 10% 7% 13% Most consistent design, look & feel across the page 11% 4% 12% 4% 4% 7% Overall Base: 1,160 25
  32. 32. Job Portals Website User Friendliness Aggregate Scores – Website Users Table 11: Website user friendliness index (WUF) - website users only Brands WUF Index Relative Index Clickjobs 4.3 100% Monster 4.1 96% Naukri 3.8 88% Jobstreet 3.3 76% Timesjobs 2.8 66% Base: 518 Table 12: User friendly interface index (UFEX) - website users only Brands UZEX Index Relative Index Clickjobs 1.9 100% Monster 1.8 93% Naukri 1.6 85% Jobstreet 1.4 74% Timesjobs 1.2 64% Base: 518 Table 13: User friendly usage experience index (UZEX) - website users only Brands UFEX Index Relative Index Clickjobs 2.4 100% Monster 2.3 97% Naukri 2.2 90% Jobstreet 1.9 78% Timesjobs 1.6 67% Base: 518 26
  33. 33. Website User Friendliness Study Website User Friendliness Sub Parameter Scores – Website Users Table 14: Accessibility index (website users only) Brands Accessibility Index Relative Index Monster 1.3 100% Clickjobs 1.3 100% Naukri 1.2 91% Jobstreet 1.0 79% Timesjobs 0.9 68% Base: 518 Table 15: Appeal index (website users only) Brands Appeal Index Relative Index Clickjobs 1.1 100% Monster 1.0 94% Naukri 1.0 88% Jobstreet 0.9 76% Timesjobs 0.7 66% Base: 518 Table 16: Navigability index (website users only) Brands Navigability Index Relative Index Clickjobs 0.7 100% Monster 0.6 86% Naukri 0.5 74% Jobstreet 0.5 62% Timesjobs 0.4 56% Base: 518 Table 17: Usage satisfaction index (website users only) Brands Satisfaction Index Relative Index Clickjobs 1.2 100% Monster 1.1 98% Naukri 1.1 92% Jobstreet 0.9 81% Timesjobs 0.8 69% Base: 518 27
  34. 34. Job Portals Website User Friendliness Perceptual Map – Website Users .2 Monster Ease of Access .1 Ease of Usage 0.0 Timesjobs Naukri Usage Satisfaction Jobstreet Clickjobs Design Appeal -.1 Attribute -.2 -.3 -.2 -.1 -.0 .1 .2 .3 .4 Brand 28
  35. 35. Website User Friendliness Study Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters – Website Users Table 18: Summary table (website users only) Ratings (on a 5 point qualitative scale) Monster Jobstreet Clickjobs Timesjobs Naukri Browser Compatibility 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 Download Time 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 Accessibility Index 1.3 1.0 1.3 0.9 1.2 Distinctive in identity (branding) 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.4 Presentation layout of the home page 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.4 Presentation layout of the task page 4.1 4.3 4.5 4.2 4.4 Aesthetics of graphics on the homepage 3.1 3.2 3.0 3.0 2.8 User identification with the site 4.0 4.1 4.3 4.1 3.4 Ease of comprehension 4.0 4.2 4.2 4.4 3.9 Relevance of content 4.3 4.1 4.0 4.4 4.5 Relative quality of content 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.5 Appeal Index 1.1 0.9 1.1 0.7 1.0 Ease of locating task info 4.1 4.5 4.6 4.1 4.3 Ease of conducting the task 4.1 3.9 3.8 3.9 4.1 Navigation flow between pages 4.1 4.3 4.5 4.1 4.4 Navigational cues and helps 4.1 4.3 4.5 4.1 4.4 Error recovery 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.1 4.1 Appropriateness of response to queries 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.9 Timeliness of response to queries 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.3 Satisfaction with query resolution 4.6 4.6 4.3 4.6 4.4 Navigability Index 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.5 Timeliness of task completion 3.8 4.1 4.3 3.7 4.0 Quality of the usage experience 4.0 4.4 4.2 4.1 3.7 Perceived sense of security during usage 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.2 Creation of brand preference 4.4 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.6 Satisfaction Index 1.1 0.9 1.2 0.8 1.1 UFEX Index 2.3 1.9 2.4 1.6 2.2 UZEX Index 1.8 1.4 1.9 1.2 1.6 WUF Index 4.1 3.3 4.3 2.8 3.8 Base: 518 29
  36. 36. Job Portals Rating Dispersions by Individual Attributes Chart 23: Download time (website users only) JFM '08 Extremely slo w 0% 0% 2% 3% 100% 2% 8% 4% 0% 9% 2% 9% 18% 9% 22% 8% Fairly slo w 75% 23% 23% 32% 17% 29% Neither fast no r slo w 50% Reaso nably fast 59% 58% 59% 54% 51% 25% A dequately fast 0% M onst er Jobstreet Clickjobs Timesjobs Naukri Base: 261 Chart 24: Distinctive in identity (website users only) JFM '08 Didn't notice the lo go 0% 1% 1% at all'. 100% 6% 7% 1% 5% 5% 12% 8% 11% 8% 9% I had to search fo r the 8% 9% lo go 75% 26% 25% 29% 27% 24% I spo tted it but o nly after a while 50% It was prominent and I 60% 60% 56% spo tted it easily 51% 50% 25% It was the first thing that I no ticed o n the 0% page M onster Jobstreet Clickjobs Timesjobs Naukri Base: 261 30

×