Website Presentation

745 views

Published on

A Powerpoint I created for a presentation for my office to go over the website problems and future goals.

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
745
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
98
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 83% visit once. Brings up one fundamental question: How to we get users back? Also this forms a similar question: How do we get more users? In part OPA, in part TRG Understand traffic source: Half come from search engine. More than half land on a page other than the RC portal and Home page portal.  will influence need for structure. Navigation helps set up a context of the user. Navigation in't just about where you are, but also about the meaning of the content.
  • Website Presentation

    1. 1. Office of the Patient Advocate Website: Present state and future goals
    2. 2. Contents <ul><li>OPA Demographics </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Where is everyone going? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Current Problems with opa.ca.gov </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Solutions: Now and for future development </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Content Design Basics </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Scan-ability, interactive, sharing. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Driving in Users </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Content, the Social Web. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>PBGH Proposal </li></ul>
    3. 3. OPA Demographics <ul><li>83% new traffic. </li></ul><ul><li>83% visit one time. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>8% visit two times. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>3% visit three times. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>3% visit 4-8 times </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>3% visit 9+ times </li></ul></ul><ul><li>49% search traffic </li></ul><ul><ul><li>24% referrals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>22% direct </li></ul></ul><ul><li>21% OPA Home </li></ul><ul><ul><li>18% RC portal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>61% other </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Data from 1-year of web metrics) </li></ul></ul>
    4. 4. Current Problems with OPA.CA.GOV <ul><li>(1) Structure: The Foundation. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>OPA.gov sits on three separate “foundations.” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(1) About OPA, How To Use.., RC Portal </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Use of difference style sheets, navigation structures, page layouts, page dynamics… All need to be combined to one. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>How To Use.. Being globalized, one step. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“About OPA” section still needs to be globalized. But, needs revisions/reorganization before doing so. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>HEROIC group page, more usable materials gallery/order form, image gallery, home page redesign, calendar widgets, other redesigns/updates. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A non-globalized site without templates is harder to maintain. </li></ul></ul>
    5. 5. Current Problems with OPA.CA.GOV Cont… <ul><li>(2) Navigation: The floor plans. </li></ul><ul><li>OPA lacks consistent navigation. </li></ul><ul><li>Expectations not met. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ I am looking for…” does not work. Users are expecting structured navigation on left-side. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Confused . Difference between sub-navigation and side-navigation. </li></ul><ul><li>Confused . Misleading/Non-intuitive link labeling </li></ul><ul><li>Confused. Keyword boxes. </li></ul><ul><li>Content easy to understand/good , but hard to find: So users who navigate leave, likely to problems with navigation. </li></ul>
    6. 6. Problems with OPA.CA.GOV Cont… <ul><li>(2) Navigation: The floor plans. </li></ul><ul><li>Fixing the problem, general overview: </li></ul><ul><li>Site-wide consistency </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Consistency between Sub-nav, side-nav. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Constant visual feed-back to show the user where they are at. RC </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Change link color when visited </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Link Labeling . </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Confusing “action”-items and Non-intuitive links. Need rephrasing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Compare Plans </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Select the Right Plan </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Consistent navigation and proper link labeling keeps user on the path for their desired outcome. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Repetition of same navigation structure reinforces site layout and structure to user. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Keyword boxes: Remove/Redesign; confused for navigation = confused user </li></ul>
    7. 7. Designing for Users Basic Page Design Principles <ul><li>Two-way Design: Interactive Page development </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Scan-ability: Facilitate the will to stay and explore. COBRA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>20-28% of content is read during a page visit and decide in 2 to 3 seconds whether to stay on the page or not. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>More words = less content read; Too much information “ scares” people. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Design with this in mind: The Funnel . </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Create scannable/concise text (for everyone) (static one-way page) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Offer options to explore more content (for those desiring more information) ( dynamic two-way page) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    8. 8. Designing for Users Basic Page Design Principles <ul><li>Two-way Design: Interactive Page development Cont… </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Engage Users: Give them what they want, allow them to interact </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Web users are often selfish . Want two things: </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Information now: Scan-ability </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Information catered to them: Dynamic/interactive content </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Design focus: What are users doing. Designing for use rather than for users is a way to focus design more sharply. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Users want maximum benefit for minimum effort. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Create structure that allows user to progress rapidly through content. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Induce curiosity . Keep them on the page(s), provide interaction. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Find the balance : usability. Too complicated/cluttered, users can’t figure out how to use it. Too simple, doesn’t do what they want/need. ( TopMG ) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>PBGH: Compare Plan/Quality Functions. Health 2.0 search. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>TRG: Medical Groups/Google Maps Mash-up ? Georgia Health Mashup </li></ul></ul></ul>
    9. 9. Designing for Users Basic Design Principles <ul><li>Two-way Design: Interaction Page development Cont… </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Facilitate return visits: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Bookmarking and Sharing </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Allows users to easily save certain pages for returning. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Allow users to share information with friends and social networking sites. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>OPA: Add widget on every page. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Sample . </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>RSS Feed/News Letter </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Allow users to subscribe to content updates. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Content arrives in email or their feed/reader service . Sample </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>OPA : No Content to Support features. Need to provide messages frequently over time: Consumer Alerts, Media Releases, a blog with OPA produced “featurettes” </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    10. 10. Driving in Users Content Content Content <ul><li>Fresh Content – Websites today need to be in the content publishing business. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>OPA is static. There’s no reason to come back (except every year at Launch). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Content needs to be relevant. “Include hard data and real results rather than lofty concepts” ( PHR ). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Know your audience. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Be timely. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>OPA needs to be more active , not just relying on outside consultants to facilitate content. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A Process: meetings, suggestions. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Examples: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Health Care Alerts : Taking laws relevant to OPA’s mission and (1) creating media/press release, and (2) creating content on the web. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Media Releases: Tying in relevant holidays and events with OPA’s mission/content. Tell California’s what OPA is doing for them (meetings) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>OPA Blog, Themed Featurettes: “The More you know…”, “Interesting statistics,” “Tips…” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Will house Media Releases, and most Health Care Alerts. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    11. 11. Driving in Users The Social Web <ul><li>The “Contribution Revolution” - User Contribution System / User Generated Content – The Social Web </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Users want to share, rate, relate, and read experiences. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Two benefits: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Company “X” sees what users are discussing directly and can gauge what users want without having to do marketing studies. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Company “X” users create content that other users want. Content that drives users: Problem/Solutions, Ratings, feedback on products. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Most popular sites are user driven (or have some component): Amazon , Yelp , Facebook, Yahoo! Answers , Craigslist, Twitter, Empowher , Buzzillions , Reddit . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Gives users a reason to come back : See answers to their questions, look at user comments and/or ratings, check for similar experiences. </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. <ul><li>The “Contribution Revolution” PROBLEM </li></ul><ul><ul><li>OPA has nothing to offer = OPA missing out on large potential in reaching consumers, knowing what they want, and promoting it’s mission. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>PBGH proposes to link people to sites that rate health plans, that share personal experiences. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Fine for non-opa related topics (disease management/health problems) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>But problematic, two reasons: </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>For topics in OPA’s realm, and </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Content doesn’t keep users on page/coming back to OPA. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Solution </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Focus : What is not being addressed, what doesn’t already have a pre-existing community, where is OPA’s niche. </li></ul></ul>Driving in Users The Social Web
    13. 13. <ul><li>The “Contribution Revolution” Solution </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Problems with Health Plan Forum ( Empowher ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Share personal experiences. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Get answers to questions: From “experts,” from peers. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Search past questions. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Community rates the value of each contribution. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>User Ratings of Health Plans/Medical Groups (OPA niche) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Rate option for each plan (ex: on plan profile pages). </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Start small: Allow them to rate on scale a of 1-4. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Plan for user comments on their rating ( Yelp ). </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Health Care Community Outreach Forum . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Meeting place for HEROIC other CBOs. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Discuss outreach tactics, share resources. </li></ul></ul></ul>Driving in Users The Social Web
    14. 14. <ul><li>Take a step back: Project Management/Goals </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Create consistency among foundations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Create page templates for new content </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Force page consistency, reduce new page implementation time </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Information Architecture: A Process. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Be Informed: What do users want from OPA? What is current/possible user behavior? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>TRG focus group testing results </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>PBGH Proposal ½ of OPA equation, missing patient empowerment </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Problematic terminology. “Find a doctor…”, “Find a Health Plan” </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Website Organization: Structure and Schema </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Content Inventory (current and proposed) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Create hieracrchy/taxamony, the sitemap (rough sample About OPA ) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Develop proposed workflow based on user profiles. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Wireframe if necessary </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Develop within style guide. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other OPA IT projects. </li></ul></ul>PBGH Organization Proposal

    ×