Website User Friendliness Q1 Travel Report

Website User Friendliness Study

Travel Portal

Website User
Friendliness Study

Travel Portal Report
Jan-Mar ‘08


Table of content
Introduction ........................................................................ 1
Methodology ........................................................................ 2
Category Websites Tested ...................................................... 10

Findings:
Website User Friendliness Aggregate Scores- Overall...................... 12
Website User Friendliness Sub Parameter Scores - Overall ............... 13
Website User Friendliness Perceptual Map – Overall ....................... 16
Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters - Overall .................. 16
Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters - Overall .................. 17
Rating Dispersions by Individual Attributes .................................. 19
Relative Importance of the Individual Criteria.............................. 30
Website User Friendliness Aggregate Scores - Website Users Only ...... 31
Website User Friendliness Sub Parameter Scores - Website Users Only 32
Website User Friendliness Perceptual Map – Website Users Only ........ 34
Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters - Website Users Only ... 34
Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters - Website Users Only ... 35
Website User Friendliness Aggregate Scores - Website Non Users Only 55
Website User Friendliness Sub Parameter Scores - Website Non Users
Only ................................................................................. 56
Website User Friendliness Perceptual Map – Website Non Users Only .. 58
Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters - Website Non Users Only
....................................................................................... 58
Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters - Website Non Users Only
....................................................................................... 59
Demographic Profile ............................................................. 73
Socio Economic Profile .......................................................... 77
Economic Profile.................................................................. 79
Net Usage Dynamics.............................................................. 81
WUF Index Ranking of Websites by User Segments......................... 82

Sample Sizes....................................................................... 89


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

Travel Portal

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 ‘generic’ parameters that required to be measured to make
the model a fairly comprehensive one. The parameters related to ‘e-
commerce’ or ‘transactions’ were not included in the ‘generic model’

2


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.

The following graphics outline the precise ‘website user friendliness’
measuring and rating schema based on the 19 ‘generic’ parameters
used in the JuxtConsult model and in bringing out these reports:

©
The Model
The Website – User The User Friendliness Criteria The Measures
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

Travel Portal

©
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 ‘generic’ 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).

Additional ‘Shopping Index’ for E-Commerce Category
Websites
For websites which come under the e-commerce categories, offering
online transactions, an additional ‘seventh’ group of user friendliness
parameters have been added to the model. This set of critical measure
has been classified as ‘Shopping Friendliness Index’ of the e-commerce
websites.

The shopping friendliness of an e-commerce website has been
measured as a cumulative effect of the usage experience it delivers
while a user ‘transacts’ on the website, takes ‘delivery’ of the
product/service bought online and the satisfaction with the ‘refund’ in
case a cancellation is made and refund sought.

The following graphics outline the additional ‘shopping user
friendliness’ index measuring and rating schema used in the JuxtConsult
model for the e-commerce category websites:

5

Travel Portal

©
Shopping Friendliness Measuring Schema

1. Successful transaction completion
2. Ease of transacting
9. Display/ease of locating refund policy
3. Comprehension of charges and prices
10. Comprehension of refund policy
4. Adequacy of payment options 7. Timeliness of product/service delivery
11. Timeliness of refunds
5. Sense of security while transacting 8. Appropriateness of delivery as per
12. Adequacy of refund amount
6. Promptness of transaction confirmation specification

Transacting on the site is easy, Delivery of product/service is Refund process is well understood
smooth and secure efficient and adequate and smooth

Delivery Experience
Transaction Experience Refund Experience
Delivery Friendliness Index
Transaction Friendliness Index Refund Friendliness Index

Shopping Friendliness Index
Category Level Shopping User Friendliness Index (SUF)

As shown in the schema, the 12 individual parameters that determine
the overall ‘shopping friendliness’ of an e-commerce website have been
clustered together into 3 ‘sub index’ measuring the ‘transaction’,
‘delivery’ and ‘refund’ usage experience of a website. Hereafter, these
three sub indices are combined to arrive at the overall ‘shopping user
friendliness’ (SUF) index of an e-commerce website.

In case of e-commerce websites, the overall ‘website user friendliness’
(WUF) index is calculated and reported after incorporating the
‘shopping user friendliness’ (SUF) index parameters as well. That is, the
WUF index of the e-commerce websites is calculated based on 31
parameters and not just on 19 ‘generic’ parameters.

6


The Online Survey
To test and get the e-commerce websites rated on these 19 generic
parameters and the 12 additional e-commerce related parameters 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
respondent gave only ‘part’ rating of the website. This meant that in
practice we would have to 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:

1
The tasks that the respondents of the Travel category were asked to perform
were – 1) search for an air ticket from Delhi to Jaipur, 2) search for a 3-star
hotel in Jaipur, and 3) search for a tour package from Delhi to Rajasthan.

7

Travel Portal

Table 1: Sample size by websites
Sample Base Users Non-users Total
Makemytrip Home page 60 60 120
Task 60 60 120
Yatra Home page 60 60 120
Task 60 60 120
Cleartrip Home page 60 60 120
Task 60 60 120
Travelguru Home page 60 60 120
Task 60 60 120
Indiatimes
Home page 60 60 120
Travel
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 ‘generic’ 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 ‘generic’ 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
respondents were asked to give their ratings basis the ‘live’ usage
experience and in real time.

On the other hand, for all the 12 individual parameters on the
‘shopping friendliness’ index the feedback was taken from the
respondents based on their ‘past usage’ of the website (therefore asked
only to the ‘users’). This was done largely because it was completely
impractical to ask the respondents to transact online ‘live’, nor was it
possible to capture the ‘delivery’ and ‘refund’ feedback from them on

8


the ‘live’ basis. For these 12 ‘shopping related’ parameters again users’
gave the ratings directly, and all ratings were taken on a ‘5 point
qualitative scale’.

Eventually, all Index numbers (whether WUF or SUF) 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 and shopping 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 1,430 unduplicated and clean responses were collected from the
online survey for the 5 websites being tested under the Travel 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 1,309
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.

9

Travel Portal

Category Websites
Tested
Travelguru (www.travelguru.com)

Cleartrip (www.cleartrip.com)

Indiatimes Travel (www.travel.indiatimes.com)

Yatra (www.yatra.com)

Makemytrip (www.makemytrip.com)

10


Findings

11

Travel Portal

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

Brands WUF Index Relative Index
Cleartrip 10.4 100%
Makemytrip 8.9 85%
Yatra 8.2 79%
Travelguru 7.6 74%
Indiatimes Travel 7.0 67%
Base: 1,309

Table 3: User friendly interface index (UFEX) - overall

Brands UFEX Index Relative Index
Cleartrip 4.7 100%
Makemytrip 4.4 94%
Yatra 3.9 85%
Travelguru 3.8 82%
Base: 1,309

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

Brands UZEX Index Relative Index
Cleartrip 3.7 100%
Makemytrip 3.1 85%
Travelguru 3.1 85%
Yatra 3.1 84%
Base: 1,309

Table 5: Shopping friendliness index - overall

Brands SUF Index Relative Index
Yatra 2.7 100%
Cleartrip 2.8 79%
Makemytrip 1.7 61%
Travelguru 1.6 58%
Base: 701

12


Website User
Friendliness Sub
Parameter Scores -
Overall
Table 6: Accessibility index (overall)

Brands Accessibility Index Relative Index
Cleartrip 2.9 100%
Makemytrip 2.4 93%
Yatra 2.2 85%
Travelguru 2.2 84%
Base: 1,309

Table 7: Appeal index (overall)

Brands Appeal Index Relative Index
Cleartrip 2.1 100%
Makemytrip 2.0 95%
Yatra 1.8 84%
Travelguru 1.7 80%
Base: 1,309

13

Travel Portal

Table 8: Shopping friendliness index (overall)
Brands SUF Index Relative Index
Yatra 1.7 100%
Cleartrip 1.5 86%
Travelguru 1.0 57%
Makemytrip 0.8 48%

Base: 379

Table 9: Navigability index (overall)

Brands Navigability Index Relative Index
Cleartrip 1.4 100%
Travelguru 1.3 89%
Yatra 1.1 75%
Makemytrip 1.0 73%
Base: 1,309

Table 10: Usage satisfaction index (overall)

Brands Satisfaction Index Relative Index
Cleartrip 2.3 100%
Makemytrip 2.1 93%
Yatra 2.0 89%
Travelguru 1.9 82%
Base: 1,309

14


Table 11: Transaction friendliness index (overall)
Yatra 0.9 100%
Cleartrip 0.7 86%
Travelguru 0.5 57%
Makemytrip 0.4 49%

Base: 379

Table 12: Delivery experience index (overall)
Yatra 0.9 100%
Cleartrip 0.8 90%
Travelguru 0.5 59%
Makemytrip 0.4 50%

Base: 379

Table 13: Refund friendliness index (overall)
Yatra 0.8 100%
Cleartrip 0.7 87%
Travelguru 0.5 57%
Makemytrip 0.4 47%

Base: 379

15

Travel Portal

Website User
Friendliness
Perceptual Map –
Overall
.5
Ease of Usage

.4

.3

Travelguru
.2

.1
Cleartrip

Delivery Experience
-.0 Refund Experience
Transaction Experience
-.1 Ease of Access
Usage Satisfaction
Design Appeal
Attribute

-.2
Yatra
Indiatimes Travel
-.3 Makemytrip

-.6 -.4 -.2 -.0 .2 .4 .6 .8

Brand

16


Average Ratings on
the Individual
Parameters - Overall
Table 14: Summary table - overall

Ratings (on a 5 point qualitative scale) Travelguru Cleartrip Indiatimes Travel Yatra Makemytrip
Browser Compatibility 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Download Time 4.6 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.2
Accessibility Index 2.2 2.6 2.1 2.2 2.4
Distinctive in identity (branding) 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.3
Presentation layout of the home page 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.3
Presentation layout of the task page 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.5
Aesthetics of text on the homepage 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.7
Aesthetics of graphics on the homepage 3.4 3.6 3.1 3.2 3.5
User identification with the site 3.9 3.8 4.1 4.0 3.9
Ease of comprehension 4.1 4.5 4.3 4.1 4.2
Relevance of content 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.3 4.2
Relative quality of content 4.3 4.5 4.2 4.3 4.2
Appeal Index 1.7 2.1 1.6 1.7 2.0
Ease of locating task info 4.2 4.7 4.2 4.3 4.1
Ease of conducting the task 4.2 4.4 4.0 4.2 4.1
Navigation flow between pages 4.4 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.2
Navigational cues and helps 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.9 2.8
Error recovery 4.6 4.3 4.2 4.7 4.1
Appropriateness of response to queries 4.7 4.8 4.4 4.6 4.7
Timeliness of response to queries 4.4 4.6 4.3 4.5 4.5
Satisfaction with query resolution 4.5 4.7 4.2 4.5 4.3
Navigability Index 1.3 1.4 0.9 1.1 1.0
Timeliness of task completion 3.8 4.1 3.9 4.3 4.1
Quality of the usage experience 4.1 3.7 4.0 4.3 4.0
Perceived sense of security during usage 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.4 4.3
Creation of brand preference 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.6 4.3
Satisfaction Index 1.9 2.3 1.8 2.0 2.1
Successful transaction completion 3.6 3.9 3.9 4.4 4.6
Ease of transacting 4.2 3.8 4.3 4.3 4.5
Comprehension of charges and prices 4.1 3.7 4.2 4.6 4.6
Adequacy of payment options 4.2 3.8 4.4 4.7 4.4
Sense of security while transacting 4.2 3.8 4.1 4.6 4.5
Promptness of transaction confirmation 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.7 4.5
Transaction Experience 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.9 0.4

17

Travel Portal

Ratings (on a 5 point qualitative scale) Travelguru Cleartrip Indiatimes Travel Yatra Makemytrip
Timeliness of product/service delivery 4.3 4.1 4.3 4.4 4.4
Appropriateness of delivery as per specification 4.4 4.0 4.4 4.6 4.7
Delivery Experience 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.9 0.4
Display/ease of locating refund policy 3.9 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.3
Comprehension of refund policy 3.9 3.6 4.1 4.5 4.3
Timeliness of refunds 4.2 3.6 4.5 4.7 4.6
Adequacy of refund amount 4.0 3.7 4.0 4.6 3.6
Refund Experience 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.8 0.4
UFEX Index 3.8 4.7 3.7 3.9 4.4
UZEX Index 3.1 3.7 2.7 3.1 3.1
Shopping Index 1.0 1.5 0.9 1.7 0.8
WUF Index 8.2 10.4 7.0 7.6 8.9

Base: 1,309

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.

18


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

JFM '08
Extremely slow
1% 0% 1%
4%
100% 1% 0% 7%
8% 13% 6% 1%
23%
1% 8% 12%
22%
Fairly slow
75% 15%
26%
23% 32%

50% Neither fast nor
slow
69% 67%
60% 54%
25% 49%
Reasonably fast

0%
Adequately fast
Travelguru Cleartrip Indiatimes Yatra Makemytrip
Travel

Base: 652

Chart 2: Distinctive in identity (overall)

JFM '08
Didn't no tice the lo go
2% 3%
100% 4% at all
7%
11% 4%
8% 7%
17%
2%
7% 7%
10% 24%
4% I had to search fo r the
75%
lo go
23% 27%
36%
28%
32%
50% I spo tted it but o nly
after a while

55% 52%
25% 49% 46%
38% It was pro minent and I
spo tted it easily

0%
It was the first thing
that I no ticed o n the
Travel page

Base: 652

19

Travel Portal

Chart 3: Presentation of the home page (overall)

JFM '08 Extremely haphazard
0% 0% 0% 1% 1%
100% and badly presented
3% 2% 1%
8% 9%
10% 16%
10%
29%
17%
Fairly disorganized and
75%
ill presented
27%
37%
53%
38%
50% 40% Just average in
organization and
presentation
54%
25% 45%
Fairly well organized
36%
34% 30% and presented

0%
Extremely well
organized and neatly
Travel presented

Base: 652

Chart 4: Presentation of the task page (overall)

JFM '08
Extremely untidy
1% 1% 1% 1%
2%
100% 8% 1%
1%
4% 7% and cluttered
0%
12% 6%
28% 21%
Fairly untidy
28%
75%
33%
40%
20%
34%
Averagely
50%
presented
63%
54% 53%
25% Fairly well
45%
38%
presented

0% Very well
presented
Travel

Base: 652

20


Chart 5: Aesthetics of text (overall)

JFM '08
2%
100% 1%
4% 5%
5% It has too little
7%
content and looks
18%
27% 32%
26%
empty
75%

It has too much
50%
91% text and looks
77% cluttered
69% 69% 67%
25%

It has just the
right amount of
0%
text and looks
fine
Travel

Base: 652

Chart 6: Aesthetics of graphics (overall)

JFM '08
100% 3%
4% 4% 5%
17% Too few
14%
16% 16%
24%
75%
16%

Too many
50%
75% 70%
69%
57%
54%
25%

Highly relevant
and engaging
0%

Travel

Base: 668

21

Travel Portal

Chart 7: User identification with the site (overall)

JFM '08
1% 0% Its just opposite of my
4%
100% 8% 10% 5% style and personality
6% 16%
2% 11%
4%
11% 16%
22%
75% 22% I find it difficult to
relate to it
46% 31%
48%
24%
50% 31%
I can live with it

25%
43% 39%
38%
33% I can relate to it to
32%
some extent
0%
It matches my style
and personality
Travel completely

Base: 652

Chart 8: Ease of comprehension (overall)

JFM '08
0% 1%
2% 2%
100% 6% Extremely
3% 3% 9%
5%
9% 4%
9% difficult
6%
7% 10%
27%
75%
Quite difficult
36%
37% 32%
46%
50%
Neither easy nor
difficult
65%
50%
25% 49%
47%
37% Reasonably easy

0%
Travelguru Cleartrip Indiatimes Yatra Makemytrip Extremely easy
Travel

Base: 652

22


Chart 9: Relevance of content (overall)

JFM '08
0% 0% 1% 2%
100% 5% 5%
3% 0% Almost irrelevant
3%
4% 14%
12%
10%
27% 13%
75% Low relevance
30%
36%
47%
44%
33%
50% Averagely
relevant
52%
25% 48% Fairly relevant
39%
37% 35%

0% Highly relevant
Travel

Base: 652

Chart 10: Relative quality of content (overall)

JFM '08
0% 0% 1% 1% Significantly inferior
1%
100% 1%
1% 2% 3%
3% than the other
8%
websites
13% 15% 22%
22%
75% Somewhat inferior
35%
than the other
36% 32% websites
29% 37%
50% Same as offered by
the other websites

56%
25% 49%
48% 47%
40% Somewhat better than
the other websites

0%
Significantly better
Travelguru Cleartrip Indiatimes Yatra Makemytrip than the other
websites
Travel

Base: 652

23

Travel Portal

Chart 11: Ease of locating task info (overall)

JFM '08
Extremely
2% 1% 3%
4%
100% 7%
3% 0%
3% difficult
4% 8%
5%
12% 6%
21% 23%
15%
Fairly difficult
75%
25%
31% 18%
23%

50% Neither easy nor
difficult
73%
59% 55%
52%
25% 50%
Fairly easy

0%
Very easy
Travel

Base: 658

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

JFM '08
Faced lots of difficulty
1% 1% 1%
3%
100% 1% 9%
3% 9%
5%
3%
12%
22% 7% 15%
20%
Faced some difficulty
75%
20%
25% but was able to
25% complete the task
28%
26%
50%
Neither easy nor
difficult
62%
58%
50%
25% 47% 45%
Fairly easy with only
some minor irritants

0%
Extremely easy and
hassle-free
Travel

Base: 658

24


Chart 13: Navigation flow between pages (overall)

JFM '08 Relevant page
1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2%
100% did not open at
2% 2%
6%
8% 9%
all
10% 4% 18%
22%
Faced lot of
18%
75%
problems
44%
28%
43% 27%
Neither freely
50%
nor with
68% difficulty
50%
25% 47% 48% More or less
40%
freely

0%
Completely
Travelguru Cleartrip Indiatimes Yatra Makemytrip freely
Travel

Base: 658

Chart 14: Navigation cues and helps (overall)

JFM '08
Had very few relevant
100%
instructions
25% 29% 33%
47% 46%
75% Had a fair bit of
relevant instructions
7%
29% 15%
50% Almost did not have
11% 14%
any relevant
55% instructions
44%
29%
25% 44% 38% Had most of the
relevant instructions
1%
1% 4% 8% 7%
9%
3% 2%
1% 1%
0%
Had all the relevant
instructions
Travel

Base: 658

25

Travel Portal

Chart 15: Error recovery (overall)

JFM '08 Couldn't resolve and
1% 2% 3%
4%
100% 2% 1% failed to complete the
8%
1% 1% 2%
1%
7% task
5%
13% 15%
12%
33%
Resolved with great
75%
difficulty
45% 17%
33%

50% Encountered but
resolved with website
79%
help instructions
63% 58%
25% 49%
47%
Encountered error but
resolved on my own

0%
Did not encounter any
Travelguru Cleartrip Indiatimes Yatra Makemytrip error at all
Travel

Base: 658

Chart 16: Appropriateness of the response (overall)

JFM '08
0%
2%
3% 3%
0% 0% There was no
100% 0%
1% 1%
6% 1% 1%
3% 2% response at all
3%
7%
7% 16%
35%
75% Received only auto-
46% reply, nothing
thereafter

50%
They responded but
88%
84% 79% did not resolve the
64% query
25% 48%
Query was resolved
only partially
0%
Query was resolved
completely
Travel

Base: 247

26


Chart 17: Timeliness of response (overall)

JFM '08 Did not receive
1% 0%
2%
100% 5% 3% 7% any response at
5%
2% 3%
4% 0% 5% 1%
1% all
14%
20% 17%
Fairly late
30%
32%
75%
25%

50% Neither
promptly nor
74%
73%
late
62%
60% 56%
25%
More or less in
time

0%
Very promptly
Travel

Base: 247

Chart 18: Satisfaction with response (overall)

JFM '08
Highly
1% 0% 0% 0%
2%
100% 5%
5% 1% 1%
5% 0% dissatisfied
13%
3%
22% 17%
19%
22% Moderately
24%
75%
17%
dissatisfied
30%
50% Neither satisfied
not dissatisfied
74%
68% 64% 61%
25% 47%
Moderately
satisfied
0%
Highly satisfied
Travel

Base: 247

27

Travel Portal

Chart 19: Timeliness of task completion (overall)

JFM '08
1% 1%
1% 2%
100% 7% 5% Took significantly
6%
9% longer than expected
19% 9% 19%
13% 23%
12%
75%
Took somewhat more
13%
22%
time than expected
20%
37% 30%
15%
50%
Completed in as much
time as expected
62%
25% 50%
43% 42%
40%
Completed marginally
faster than expected
0%
Completed a lot faster
than expected
Travel

Base: 658

Chart 20: Quality of usage experience (overall)

JFM '08
1% 0% 2%
3%
100% 4% Downright painful
1%
14% 7%
1%
11%
12%
30% 23%
5%
8%
75% Fairly
32%
troublesome and
irritating
25% 46%
36% 39% Just about
50%
agreeable

54% Fairly pleasant
25% 44%
36% and satisfactory
33% 33%

Extremely
0%
pleasant and
delightful
Travel

Base: 658

28


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

JFM '08
Completely
1% 0% 0% 1% 3%
3%
100% 1%
3% 1%
2% insecure
12%
15% 13%
16% 14%
Fairly insecure
75%
33%
34%
34%
41%
45%
Not sure if I can
50%
trust the website

53% Fairly secure
25% 49%
47%
42%
36%

0% Absolutely secure

Travel

Base: 1,309

Chart 22: Brand preference creation (overall)

JFM '08
0% 2%
3% 3% 4% Very unlikely to
100%
2% 3%
1% 2%
9% 5%
6% visit it
12%
15%
8%
19%
75% Fairly unlikely to
31% 22% 26%
26% visit it

50% Not sure, may or
may not visit it
72%
61%
59% 57%
55%
25% Somewhat likely
to visit it

0%
Very likely to
Travelguru Cleartrip Indiatimes Yatra Makemytrip visit it
Travel

Base: 1,309

29

Website User Friendliness Q1 Travel Report

Website User Friendliness Q1 Travel Report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Website User Friendliness Q1 Travel Report

Similar to Website User Friendliness Q1 Travel Report (20)

More from JuxtConsult

More from JuxtConsult (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Website User Friendliness Q1 Travel Report