Ehs final presentation


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Based on these tests we had several findings
  • On websites people don't read everything, they scan for the information they need. Heat map-eyetracking-we discussed in a report but wasn't part of our tests
  • Write more concisely, but do not cut down on content
  • That will help users scan
  • According to our survey we found out that the Admission and Financial Aid pages was used by both Current and Prospective students.   We hypothesized that Current students use the page for Financial Aid and not admissions.   However, Financial Aid is at the bottom of the page, so current students have to navigate through the page to get there.   Our Usability tests showed that users also wanted to know more specific information about who qualifies for what Financial aid.
  • During our interviews current studetns said they get innundated with listserv announcements and would use the website to find out about seminars/events that would get lost in their inboxes.
  • Portals-like SPH and Berkeley
  • This is a problem because users might miss important information or make faulty assumptions about the website
  • For example when you click the Faculty link in Human Nutrition you get only the Human Nutrition Faculty.     Whe you do the same for Risk Sciences you get a list of all faculty.  In the usability test, no users noticed this fact.   The same applies to Careers pages.
  • Most of the layout between the two sites looks similar, but the left navigation changes.   In the usability test, users were thrown off by this.
  • Survey-prospective students used left navigation most Usability test-one user mentioned that the left navigation shows the structure of the website
  • 3 of 5 users in usability test couldn't find this resource and all of them had trouble finding it
  • Ehs final presentation

    1. 1. University of Michigan Environmental Health Sciences Website Evaluation Emily Alinder - Gaya Balasubramanian - Steve Cherry - Ellie Schuhmann
    2. 2. Introduction <ul><li>The Environmental Health Sciences (EHS) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Department in the School of Public Health at the University of Michigan.  </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>150 current students pursuing masters and doctoral degrees </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Environmental Quality and Health </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Hazardous Substances </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Human Nutrition </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Industrial Hygiene </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Risk Sciences </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Toxicology </li></ul></ul></ul>
    3. 3. EHS Website <ul><li>Website contains information for prospective and current students </li></ul>
    4. 4. Methods: Interaction Map <ul><ul><li>Screen shots for every user action possible in the website and made a layout indicating the next web page, for each action </li></ul></ul>
    5. 5. Methods: Interviews/Personas & Scenarios <ul><ul><li>Five interviews </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>     four current students </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>     one alumna </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consolidated the information gathered from these interviews and created three personas and scenarios </li></ul></ul>
    6. 6. Methods: Comparative Evaluation <ul><li>Compared the EHS website to other direct and partial competitor sites: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Harvard University </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>University of Minnesota </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>University of Washington </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>University of California-Berkeley </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>University of Michigan Medical School ( partial competitor) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Features evaluated included: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>degree programs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>faculty listings </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ease of use </li></ul></ul>
    7. 7. Methods: Survey <ul><ul><li>39 current students and 41 prospective students </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Addressed Three Research Questions:  </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>What information do students find it hard and easy to find? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>How does computer proficiency affect users' perceptions of the website?  </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>What types of information are most valuable to different types of users: current versus prospective students, and Masters versus PhD students? </li></ul></ul></ul>
    8. 8. Methods: Heuristic Evaluation <ul><li>Evaluated the website on 7 heuristics:  </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Feedback </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Metaphor </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Navigation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consistency </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Memory </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Efficiency </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Design </li></ul></ul>
    9. 9. Methods: Usability Tests <ul><ul><li>Performed Usability test with 5 participants, all graduate students with biology backgrounds, none in the EHS </li></ul></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Participants were given 3 tasks to perform </li></ul></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Pre & Post Questionnaires  </li></ul></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Testing was done in the usability lab in the Duderstadt and sessions were recorded via Camtasia </li></ul></ul>
    10. 10. Finding 1: Content <ul><li>Many pages on the website have a lot of useful content that is not read </li></ul>
    11. 11. Finding 1: Content <ul><li>Evidence </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Users scan rather than read </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. Finding 1: Content <ul><li>Evidence </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Use of CTRL-F </li></ul></ul>
    13. 13. Finding 1: Content <ul><li>Recommendation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cut down on block text </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Write more concisely </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Do not cut down on content </li></ul></ul></ul>
    14. 14. Finding 1: Content <ul><li>Recommendation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Incorporate visual/navigational cues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Use formatting such as headers and bullet points </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>In-page navigation </li></ul></ul></ul>
    15. 15. Finding 2: Audience <ul><li>Not all the information on the website is targeted to what different groups of users want or need to know </li></ul>
    16. 16. Finding 2: Audience <ul><li>Evidence </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Admissions & Financial Aid used by both current and prospective students  </li></ul></ul>
    17. 17. Finding 2: Audience <ul><li>Evidence </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Current students would use Current Events page if regularly updated </li></ul></ul>
    18. 18. Finding 2: Audience <ul><li>Recommendations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Make separate Current & Prospective Student portals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Split or redesign Admissions and Financial Aid </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Make news/events box on front page </li></ul></ul>
    19. 19. Finding 3: Consistency <ul><li>The website is generally consistent and users may not perceive times when it is inconsistent </li></ul>
    20. 20. Finding 3: Consistency <ul><li>Evidence </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Similarly named links within each program section do not always link to the same place </li></ul></ul>
    21. 21. Finding 3: Consistency <ul><li>Evidence </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The change in left navigation between EHS and SPH can confuse users </li></ul></ul>
    22. 22. Finding 3: Consistency <ul><li>Recommendation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Same links in each program section </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>When links go off the EHS site have them pop-up in another window and or use a signal </li></ul></ul>
    23. 23. Finding 4: Navigation <ul><li>The left navigation bar is an important resource to help users navigate the website </li></ul>
    24. 24. Finding 4: Navigation <ul><li>Evidence </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Users used left navigation most and said they liked it because it showed the structure of the website </li></ul></ul>
    25. 25. Finding 4:Navigation <ul><li>Evidence </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Information and Resources label is not clear </li></ul></ul>
    26. 26. Finding 4: Navigation <ul><li>Recommendation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Add more links to the left navigation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Change name of Information and Resources </li></ul></ul>
    27. 27. Conclusion <ul><ul><li>Website would benefit from improvements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Necessary information is on the website but takes students longer to find </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Navigation needs more work than content </li></ul></ul>