Website User Friendliness Q1 Financial Info Report

Website User Friendliness Study

Financial Info

Website User
Friendliness Study

Financial Info Report
Jan-Mar ‘08


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 ....................... 13
Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters - Overall .................. 13
Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters - Overall .................. 14
Rating Dispersions by Individual Attributes .................................. 15
Relative Importance of the Individual Criteria.............................. 27
Website User Friendliness Aggregate Scores - Website Users Only ...... 28
Website User Friendliness Sub Parameter Scores - Website Users Only 29
Website User Friendliness Perceptual Map – Website Users Only ........ 31
Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters - Website Users Only ... 31
Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters - Website Users Only ... 32
Website User Friendliness Aggregate Scores - Website Non Users Only 45
Website User Friendliness Sub Parameter Scores - Website Non Users
Only ................................................................................. 46
Website User Friendliness Perceptual Map – Website Non Users Only .. 48
Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters - Website Non Users Only
....................................................................................... 48
Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters - Website Non Users Only
....................................................................................... 49
Demographic Profile ............................................................. 63
Socio Economic Profile .......................................................... 67
Economic Profile.................................................................. 69
Net Usage Dynamics.............................................................. 71
WUF Index Ranking of Websites by User Segments......................... 72

Sample Sizes....................................................................... 79


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

Financial Info

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
‘seventh’ critical aspect of measuring user friendliness of the ‘e-
commerce’ websites.

2


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

Financial Info

©
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


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.

However, because of a break up of ‘live’ usage between the ‘only
homepage surfing’ and ‘only an assigned task completion’, each

1
The tasks that the respondents of the Online Financial Info category were asked to
perform were – 1) check for a specific stock quote of your choice, 2) check for a mutual
fund NAV of your choice, and 3) check for the latest IPO.

5

Financial Info

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
Moneycontrol Home page 60 60 120
Task 60 60 120
ICICI Direct Home page 60 60 120
Task 60 60 120
Sharekhan Home page 60 60 120
Task 60 60 120
Religare Home page 60 60 120
Task 60 60 120
Myiris 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

6


made on the website in the past). On all the other 17 parameters the
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 1,457 unduplicated and clean responses were collected from the
online survey for the 5 websites being tested under the Online Financial
Info 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 1,256
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 23 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

Financial Info

Category Websites
Tested
My Iris (www.myiris.com)

Religare Online (www.religareonline.com)

Sharekhan (www.sharekhan.com)

ICICIDirect (www.icicidirect.com)

Moneycontrol (www.moneycontrol.com)

8


Findings

9

Financial Info

Website User
Friendliness
Aggregate Scores -
Overall
Table 2: Website user friendliness index (WUF) - overall

Brands WUF Index Relative Index
Religare 8.6 100%
Moneycontrol 7.8 90%
Sharekhan 7.2 83%
Icicidirect 6.4 74%
Myiris 6.1 70%
Base: 1,256

Table 3: Friendly interface index (UFEX) - overall

Brands UFEX Index Relative Index
Religare 4.9 100%
Sharekhan 4.2 85%
Icicidirect 3.6 74%
Myiris 3.5 71%
Base: 1,256

Table 4: User friendly usage experience index (UZEX) - overall

Brands UZEX Index Relative Index
Religare 3.8 100%
Sharekhan 3.0 81%
Icicidirect 2.8 74%
Myiris 2.6 69%
Base: 1,256

10


Website User
Friendliness Sub
Parameter Scores -
Overall
Table 5: Accessibility index (overall)

Brands Accessibility Index Relative Index
Religare 2.6 100%
Sharekhan 2.3 87%
Icicidirect 2.0 75%
Myiris 1.9 73%
Base: 1,256

Table 6: Appeal index (overall)

Brands Appeal Index Relative Index
Religare 2.3 100%
Sharekhan 1.9 83%
Icicidirect 1.7 73%
Myiris 1.6 69%
Base: 1,256

11

Financial Info

Table 7: Navigability index (overall)
Navigability
Brands Relative Index
Index
Religare 1.5 100%
Sharekhan 1.1 73%
Icicidirect 1.0 71%
Myiris 0.9 62%

Base: 1,256

Table 8: Usage satisfaction index (overall)
Brands Satisfaction Index Relative Index
Religare 2.3 100%
Sharekhan 2.0 86%
Icicidirect 1.7 75%
Myiris 1.7 73%

Base: 1,256

12


Website User
Friendliness
Perceptual Map –
Overall
.2
Moneycontrol

Ease of Access

.1

Ease of Usage
0.0
Myiris
Sharekhan
Icicidirect
Usage Satisfaction

-.1
Religare
Design Appeal
Attribute

-.2

-.3 -.2 -.1 -.0 .1 .2 .3

Brand

13

Financial Info

Average Ratings on
the Individual
Parameters - Overall
Table 9: Summary table – overall
Ratings (on a 5 point qualitative scale) Myiris Religare Sharekhan Icicidirect Moneycontrol
Browser Compatibility 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Download Time 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.5
Accessibility Index 1.9 2.6 2.3 2.0 2.5
Distinctive in identity (branding) 3.4 3.2 3.4 3.8 3.3
Presentation layout of the home page 3.4 3.2 3.4 3.8 3.3
Presentation layout of the task page 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.1
Aesthetics of text on the homepage 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.7
Aesthetics of graphics on the homepage 3.4 3.4 2.7 3.1 3.1
User identification with the site 2.2 1.7 2.1 2.0 2.4
Ease of comprehension 4.3 4.0 4.0 4.4 4.1
Relevance of content 4.4 4.6 4.0 4.1 4.1
Relative quality of content 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2
Appeal Index 1.6 2.3 1.9 1.7 2.0
Ease of locating task info 4.5 4.2 4.3 4.4 3.9
Ease of conducting the task 4.2 4.5 4.1 4.1 4.3
Navigation flow between pages 4.5 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.2
Navigational cues and helps 2.5 2.6 2.7 3.0 2.9
Error recovery 4.5 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.5
Appropriateness of response to queries 4.6 4.3 4.3 4.6 4.5
Timeliness of response to queries 4.6 4.2 4.2 4.6 4.6
Satisfaction with query resolution 4.4 4.0 4.2 4.5 4.4
Navigability Index 0.9 1.5 1.1 1.0 1.3
Timeliness of task completion 4.2 4.3 4.1 4.0 3.9
Quality of the usage experience 4.1 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.1
Perceived sense of security during
4.0 4.1 4.1 4.3 4.1
usage
Creation of brand preference 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.2
Satisfaction Index 1.7 2.3 2.0 1.7 2.1
UFEX Index 3.5 4.9 4.2 3.6 4.4
UZEX Index 2.6 3.8 3.0 2.8 3.4
WUF Index 6.1 8.6 7.2 6.4 7.8
Base: 1,256

14


Rating Dispersions by
Individual Attributes
Chart 1: Download time (overall)

JFM '08
0% 0% 0% 1% 1%
100% 0% 0%
2% 1% 0%
2% Extremely
7% 10%
14% slow
23%
25%
75% 20%
47% Fairly slow
45%
18%

50% Neither fast
nor slow
65% 64%
58%
25% 49% 47% Reasonably
fast

0% Adequately
fast
Myiris Religare Sharekhan Icicidirect Moneycontrol

Base: 634

Chart 2: Distinctive in identity (overall)

JFM '08
Didn't notice the
0%
1%
100% 0% 6% logo at all'.
7% 7%
7% 1% 0%
1% 16% 3%
8% 12%
21% 14%
I had to search for
75% the logo
27% 26%

31%
45% I spotted it but only
after a while
50%

73%
It was prominent and
59%
58%
I spotted it easily
25%
44%
35%

It was the first thing
that I noticed on the
0%
page

Base: 634

15

Financial Info

Chart 3: Presentation of the home page (overall)

JFM '08
0%
0% 0% 0%
1% 1% Extremely haphazard
100% 1%
1% 2%
3% and badly presented
10%
17%
14%
25%
31%
Fairly disorganized and
75% ill presented
32%
19%

47% Just average in
37% organization and
50% presentation
49%
Fairly well organized
and presented
64%
58%
25%
36% 35% Extremely well
organized and neatly
19%
presented
0%

Base: 634

Chart 4: Presentation of the task page (overall)

JFM '08
0% Extremely untidy and
1% 1% 3%
100% 2% 0% 6%
1% 1% cluttered
10% 1%
14%
19% 16%
17%
Fairly untidy
75%
25% 18%
37%
32% 30%
Averagely presented
50%

Fairly well presented
63%
60%
52%
25% 47% 46%
Very well presented

0%

Base: 634

16


Chart 5: Aesthetics of text (overall)

JFM '08
100% 3% 10% 3% 4%
12%
It has too little content
and looks empty
29% 15% 29%
17%
43%
75%

It has too much text
and looks cluttered
50%

75%
71%
69% 68%
54%
25%
It has just the right
amount of text and
looks fine

0%

Base: 634

Chart 6: Aesthetics of graphics (overall)

JFM '08
100% Too few
4% 6% 8%
9%
10%
21% 12%
32%
75% 32%
24%
Too many

50%

60%
64%
57% Highly
46%
37%
25%
relevant and
engaging

0%


Base: 633

17

Financial Info

Chart 7: User identification with the site (overall)

JFM '08
100% Its just opposite of my
style and personality
16%
32% 37% 39%
I find it difficult to
50%
75% relate to it

I can live with it
56%
18%
33%
50% 29%
I can relate to it to
some extent
32% 19%
25% 20%
It matches my style
30%
15%
25% and personality
13%
9% completely
5% 3% 9%
3%
6%
1%
0% 0% 0%

Base: 634

Chart 8: Ease of comprehension (overall)

JFM '08
2%
2% 2%
100% 5% 0%
8%
1% Extremely difficult
7%
2%
13%
3%
14%
20%
12%
24%
Quite difficult
75% 23%
30%
35% 20%
Neither easy nor
39%
50% difficult

Reasonably easy
62%
53%
25% 48%
42%
35%
Extremely easy

0%

Base: 634

18


Chart 9: Relevance of content (overall)

JFM '08
0%
1% 2%
100% 6% 6%
4% 1%
1% 2% Almost irrelevant
0%
7% 2%
5%
10%
22%
23%
75% Low relevance
37%

54% 43%
39% Averagely relevant
50%

71%
Fairly relevant
54%
25%
39%
35% 35%
Highly relevant

0%

Base: 634

Chart 10: Relative quality of content (overall)

JFM '08
0% 0%
1%
2%
100% 6%
2% Significantly inferior
1% 7%
3% 0% than the other
17% 8% websites
22%
16% 17%
Somewhat inferior
75% than the other
websites
36%
29% 25% 31%
45% Same as offered by
the other websites
50%

Somewhat better than
the other websites
51%
25% 50%
49% 46%
37% Significantly better
than the other
websites
0%

Base: 634

19

Financial Info

Chart 11: Ease of locating task info (overall)

JFM '08
0%
0% 0% 0%
100% 1% 3% 3% Extremely difficult
6% 1%
1
9%
12%
1%
1
20% 4%
Fairly difficult
15%
30%
75% 20%
24%
32%
24% Neither easy nor
difficult
50%

Fairly easy
64%
61% 58%
25% 47%
46%
Very easy

0%

Base: 625

Chart 12: Ease of conducting the task info (overall)

JFM '08
0% 1% 0%
1% Faced lots of difficulty
100% 5%
2% 1% 4%
6%
7% 4%
17% 17%
19% 24% Faced some difficulty
24%
but was able to
75%
complete the task
22%
41% 26% Neither easy nor
18%
difficult
50%

Fairly easy with only
67% some minor irritants
57%
50%
25% 47%
40% Extremely easy and
hassle-free

0%

Base: 625

20


Chart 13: Navigation flow between pages (overall)

JFM '08
1%
0% 0%
1% 1%
100% 2% 1% 5% Relevant page did not
6%
8% 14% open at all
15%
14%
12%
9%
28% Faced lot of problems
75%
19%
31%
32% 24%

Neither freely nor with
50% difficulty

More or less freely
63% 62%
54%
52%
25% 50%

Completely freely

0%

Base: 625

Chart 14: Navigation cues and helps (overall)

JFM '08
Had very few relevant
100%
instructions
28% 29%
37%
38% Had a fair bit of
45%
relevant instructions
75%

13% 12%
Almost did not have
1%
1
13% any relevant
50% instructions
13%

Had most of the
48% relevant instructions
51%
42%
44%
33%
25%
Had all the relevant
instructions
7%
4%
6% 10% 7%
5%
2% 2% 1% 1%
0%

Base: 625

21

Financial Info

Chart 15: Error recovery (overall)

JFM '08
1%
1%
2% 2% 3%
100% Couldn't resolve and
0%
4% 4%
4% 3% failed to complete the
8%
6%
6% 9% task
1%
1

18% 21% Resolved with great
75% difficulty
28%
38%
35%
Encountered but
resolved with website
50% help instructions

Encountered error but
71% resolved on my own
69%
58%
51%
25% 49%
Did not encounter any
error at all

0%

Base: 625

Chart 16: Appropriateness of the response (overall)

JFM '08 1%
0%
3%
100% 6%
2% 6%
6% There was no
6% 1% 1% response at all
4%
2%
6%
14%
24% 9%
1%
1 10%
Received only auto-
75%
reply, nothing
17%
thereafter
18%
They responded but
did not resolve the
50% query
79%
78% 77% Query was resolved
only partially
63%
56%
25%
Query was resolved
completely

0%

Base: 299

22


Chart 17: Timeliness of response (overall)

JFM '08
1%
0%
1%
3% 3%
100% 1%
2%
1%
0% 2%
8% Did not receive any
9% 6% response at all
13%
24% 12%
16%
32%
Fairly late
75%

27%
34%
Neither promptly nor
late
50%

74%
72% More or less in time
64%
52%
25%
45%
Very promptly

0%

Base: 299

Chart 18: Satisfaction with response (overall)

JFM '08
1% 0% 1%
2% Highly dissatisfied
100% 5%
0% 1%
4% 6% 0%
4% 13%
12%
12%
2%
19%
Moderately
75% dissatisfied
23%
47%

41%
Neither satisfied not
54%
dissatisfied
50%

73% Moderately satisfied
62%
25% 49%
41%
31% Highly satisfied

0%

Base: 299

23

Financial Info

Chart 19: Timeliness of task completion (overall)

JFM '08
0% 1% 1%
2% 4%
100% Took significantly
4% 8% longer than expected
13% 5% 13%
1%
1
21%
14% Took somewhat more
26% 19%
75% time than expected
28%
13%
23% Completed in as much
18% 27% time as expected
50%

Completed marginally
faster than expected
61%
54%
25% 47% 46%
41%
Completed a lot faster
than expected

0%

Base: 625

Chart 20: Quality of usage experience (overall)

JFM '08
0% 0% 1% 0%
1%
100% 1%
2% 2% Downright painful
6%
8%
19% 19% 9%
7% 26%

Fairly troublesome
75%
and irritating
34%
39%
43% 44% 30% Just about agreeable
50%

Fairly pleasant and
satisfactory
25% 49%
45% 42%
36% 36%
Extremely pleasant
and delightful
0%

Base: 625

24


Chart 21: Perceived sense of security in usage (overall)

JFM '08
0% 1%
1% 2% 3%
100%
0%
3% 4% 4%
1% Completely insecure
10%
22% 17%
19% 22%

75% Fairly insecure
32%

37%
37%
34%
43% Not sure if I can trust
the website
50%

Fairly secure
54%
25%
41%
40% 40%
33% Absolutely secure

0%

Base: 1,255

Chart 22: Brand preference creation (overall)

JFM '08
0% 1% 1%
100% 5%
2% 6%
1% 1% Very unlikely to visit it
7%
10% 3% 3%
1%
1 4%
1%
1
18%
21% Fairly unlikely to visit it
75%
39%
33% 24%

Not sure, may or may
not visit it
50%

Somewhat likely to
71%
68% visit it
58%
54% 53%
25%
Very likely to visit it

0%

Base: 1,255

25

Financial Info

Chart 23: Adequacy of refund amount (overall)

JFM '08
0%
0% 0%
100% 0% 4% 0% 5% Didn't get the refund at
3%
4% 0% 0%
4% all
21%
30% 18%
25% 31% Significantly lower than
75% expected

1%
1
Marginally lower than
47% expected
50%
51% As expected
76%
64%
60%
25%
More than expected
32%
16%
0%

Base: 356

26


Relative Importance
of the Individual
Criteria
Table 10: Importance ranking of the key individual criteria (overall)
Overall-
Brands Myiris Religare Sharekhan Icicidirect Moneycontrol
Financial Info
Fastest to download 51% 62% 44% 57% 50% 53%
Brand image in the market place 35% 51% 37% 35% 43% 41%
Simplest and most easy to understand
34% 33% 26% 34% 42% 34%
language
Provide the best help 34% 24% 29% 36% 42% 33%
Most responsive and prompt in
25% 29% 45% 20% 36% 32%
customer service and support
Best assures safety against frauds &
misuse of personal details & financial 27% 21% 29% 27% 19% 24%
info
Most logical structure and flow of info.
30% 17% 26% 29% 12% 22%
/ content
Gives best assurance on privacy of info
24% 33% 14% 18% 16% 21%
provided
Most neat looking design (aesthetics) 17% 9% 16% 17% 10% 13%
Helps accomplish the task in least no.
16% 6% 7% 15% 14% 11%
of clicks
Matches my personality and style the
5% 4% 16% 9% 9% 8%
best
Most consistent design, look & feel
3% 12% 12% 3% 7% 8%
across the page
Base: 1,256

27

Financial Info

Website User
Friendliness
Aggregate Scores -
Website Users Only
Table 11: User friendliness index (WUF) - website users only
Brands WUF Index Relative Index
Religare 4.5 100%
Sharekhan 3.5 77%
Icicidirect 2.8 64%
Myiris 2.2 50%

Base: 514

Table 12: Friendly interface index (UFEX) - website users only
Brands UFEX Index Relative Index
Religare 2.5 100%
Sharekhan 2.0 80%
Icicidirect 1.6 65%
Myiris 1.2 51%

Base: 514

Table 13: User friendly usage experience index (UZEX) - website users
only
Brands UZEX Index Relative Index
Religare 2.0 100%
Sharekhan 1.5 74%
Icicidirect 1.2 62%
Myiris 1.0 49%

Base: 514

28


Website User
Friendliness Sub
Parameter Scores -
Website Users Only
Table 14: Accessibility index (website users only)
Brands Accessibility Index Relative Index
Religare 1.3 97%
Sharekhan 1.1 79%
Icicidirect 0.9 64%
Myiris 0.7 51%

Base: 514

Table 15: Appeal index (website users only)
Brands Appeal Index Relative Index
Religare 1.2 100%
Sharekhan 0.9 79%
Icicidirect 0.7 64%
Myiris 0.6 48%

Base: 514

29

Website User Friendliness Q1 Financial Info Report

Website User Friendliness Q1 Financial Info Report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Website User Friendliness Q1 Financial Info Report

Similar to Website User Friendliness Q1 Financial Info Report (20)

More from JuxtConsult

More from JuxtConsult (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Website User Friendliness Q1 Financial Info Report