Usability Evaluation

337 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Design
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
337
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
20
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Usability Evaluation

  1. 1. Usability Evaluation of IC2 Global Commercialization Group's Website Emily Coleman and Sadie Hawkins
  2. 2. Introduction Who? IC2 Institute's Global Commercialization Group (GCG). What do they do? Partner with companies and governments to design and deliver technology commercialization programs. What does that mean? They assist entrepreneurs in developing an idea and creating wealth from it.
  3. 3. Introduction Site Audience: - Entrepreneurs - Partners (governments, companies) - UT community members - Curious parties - Potential employees Site Contents: - About - Past projects - News - Employment opportunities - Contact - Mission and values
  4. 4. Heuristic Evaluation - Method •Used a heuristic checklist: A Detailed, General Purpose Checklist (Brinck, Gergle & Wood 2001) (http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/Usability+Heuristic+checklists+to+ponder) - Excluded Form Interaction and Error Tolerance •Conducted two separate evaluations •Summarized our findings
  5. 5. Architecture and Navigation Unclear and confusing navigation: - Too many options
  6. 6. 12
  7. 7. 14
  8. 8. Architecture and Navigation Unclear and confusing navigation: - Too many options - Titles don’t have standard/common meaning
  9. 9. Architecture and Navigation Unclear and confusing navigation: - Too many options - Titles don’t have standard/common meaning - Some discrepancy in menu names and page titles
  10. 10. Architecture and Navigation Unclear and confusing navigation: - Too many options - Titles don’t have standard/common meaning - Some discrepancy in menu names and page titles - Menu items change unpredictably - No breadcrumbs to alert the user where they are No sitemap or search Consistent branding throughout the site
  11. 11. Layout and Design - Consistent and aligned - Clear template, professional but not exciting
  12. 12. Layout and Design - Consistent and aligned - Clear template, professional but not exciting - Poor placement of “What’s New” section
  13. 13. Layout and Design - Consistent and aligned - Clear template, professional but not exciting - Poor placement of “What’s New” section - Large portion of screen real estate is left unused
  14. 14. Layout and Design - Consistent and aligned - Clear template, professional but not exciting - Poor placement of “What’s New” section - Large portion of screen real estate is left unused - The focal point is often large sections of text
  15. 15. Color and Typography - Color fits with UT branding - Consistent color pallet and font usage - Heading color does not complement burnt orange
  16. 16. Color and Typography - Color fits with UT branding - Consistent color pallet and font usage - Heading color does not complement burnt orange - Text is too small - Words per line is well above 10-12
  17. 17. Content Website text: - Clearly written - Free of spelling/grammar errors - NOT concise - Contains industry jargon  innovative product solutions  technology commercialization  knowledge transfer
  18. 18. Graphics and Platform/Implementation Images: - Very small number - Small, clicking does not zoom/link - Main image is the globe
  19. 19. Graphics and Platform/ImplementationImages: - Very small number - Small, clicking does not zoom/link - Main image is the globe No notable problems with: - Load time - Browser compatibility - Broken links/images - Search engine discoverability
  20. 20. Usability Testing Five subjects: two male, three female All between the ages of 21 and 30 All reported a high degree of comfort accessing the Internet and locating information online Only one participant had previous knowledge of the Global Commercialization Group
  21. 21. Tasks used Find a phone number to contact GCG Identify three entities with whom GCG has partnered in the past Locate information about what GCG has done in Malaysia Find the purpose and values of the Global Commercialization Group Download a description of a technology that GCG has supported Download the form to apply to be a technology commercialization author
  22. 22. Locating Purpose and Values
  23. 23. Sources of Difficulty The left menu containing the "At a Glance" information is often overlooked by users. This could be due to: -Placement on the page -Small size/low contrast -Title is not what is expected Users appeared to expect "At a Glance" type information to be the default, and did not search for additional menu items.
  24. 24. Download a Description of Technology
  25. 25. ?
  26. 26. Participant Video Participant 5 has already navigated away from the home page and is now not going to find the technology briefs. He is searching through information about countries looking for links:
  27. 27. Sources of Difficulty Inconsistency in link placement makes it difficult to access technology briefs if not on the home page. Technology briefs are isolated; no other pages link to the briefs. Users expected links where there were none. The layout, links, and titles on the correct page did not stand out to users as the material they were seeking.
  28. 28. Download the form to apply to be a technology commercialization author
  29. 29. Sources of Difficulty Menu item labelled "Opportunities" does not catch users' attention for two reasons: -Small size -Users are using words like "apply" or "participate" to guide their search; "opportunities" does not ring a bell. Both subsequent pages are text-heavy; links that lead toward the form are at the very bottom of the pages.
  30. 30. Post-Survey Results -3/5 participants gave a relatively accurate description of what the GCG does. -The most common words used to describe the site were "Verbose/Wordy," "Global," and "Technology" -Zero users reported that finding information was 'very easy' -Problems centered around text size and amount, menu structure and labelling
  31. 31. Conclusions and Recommendations Problem: Menu titles and general navigation Recommendation: Limit menu items, determine meaningful titles Problem: Inconsistencies Recommendation: Create sitemap, fix problematic instances
  32. 32. Conclusions and Recommendations Problem: Small, dense text Recommendation: Increase font size, create concise/scannable sections Problem: Limited graphics or varied content Recommendation: New template that includes quality images, blog format for "What's New" section
  33. 33. Lessons Learned/Future Directions Procedural Decisions we didn't anticipate: -Should users return to the homepage for each task? -What if a user THINKS they finished the task, but didn't actually find the information? In retrospect, we might have included more tasks (10?) Using a representative user group would help to determine how problematic things like jargon actually are; would help to name menu items.

×