2015-11-27 Usability Report - Simon Fraser Universitymimit/portfolio/BCcampus Usability test...

BCcampusconnect.collaborate.innovate.

ApplyBCUnmoderated Usability TestMimi Tsai and Dave DumaresqNovember, 20152015

U s a b i l i t y R e p o r t

O c t 2 0 - 2 8

Purpose

Test Plan

Methodology

0 3

Unmoderated Usability Tool 0 6Demographic Filter

Scenarios 0 7

ParticipantsEvaluation

Objectives

Introduction

Participants’ Information0 8

Procedures

Overview of Issues0 4

||

|

||

Table ofContents

ApplyBC 2015 Usability Report 01

Issues and SuggestionsLanding Page 1 0

Create an Account 1 1Contact Information 1 3

Academic History

Program Selection 1 4Review and Submit (Part 1)

Log-in 1 5Review and Submit (Part 2)

Submit Payment 1 6Receipt Page 1 7

Post Test Questionnaires

Conclusion

Responses Summary1 9

Final Thoughts 2 4

Written Responses

Conclusion for Part 2 1 8

|

|

|

|

References 2 6


PURPOSEIn fall of 2015, BCcampus conducted unmoderated remote usability tests with ApplyBC using http://usertesting.com on the mobile phone platform. We believe ApplyBC is much more stable compared to previous years, therefore it is a good time to conduct an unmoderated user tests to identify different usability problems. Also, instead of our desktop interface, we focused on evaluating our mobile phone web interface through the unmoderated user testing session.

The usability test allowed us to evaluate ApplyBC through methodically observing representative people using our online application service in real situations of use. This helped us identified new usability problems, and determined the usability of our mobile phone interface.

OBJECTIVESThe objectives of this usability test were:

Mobile phone web interface usabilityUsability of Help ButtonApplication - can user successfully finish the applicationPayment - feedback on receipt

••••

TEST PLANTo see details of our test plan, please see: https://portal.bccampus.ca/confluence/x/dIfOB

Introduction


CONTACT INFORMATION

1. Missed the new fields after country was entered. (Medium)

ACADEMIC HISTORY

1. The error message that informed users to type “other” did not show up. (Bug)

PROGRAM SELECTION

1. Participants were not able to select category in the given task. (Serious)

REVIEW AND SUBMIT (PART 1)

1. All participants appreciated how all information was on one single page. (Feedback)

OVERVIEW OF ISSUESLANDING PAGE

1. Mixed impressions of the landing page. (Feedback)

2. Typo on the landing page for SFU. (Low)

3. Content in between took longer to load than the header and footer. (Medium)

4. Re-ordering the displayed content on the landing page. (Feedback)

CREATE ACCOUNT - PERSONAL INFORMATION

1. The pop-up consent form had mixed reactions. (Feedback)

2. Usability of the help buttons. (Feedback) (Medium)

3. All participants missed the password requirements. (Critical)


LOG-IN

1. Majority of the participants had some trouble logging back into their account.

(Serious)

REVIEW AND SUBMIT PAGE (PART 2)

1. Confusion on how to get to “Review and Submit” page. (Low)

PAYMENT

1. Trouble inputting correct card number. (Serious)

2. Confusion on whether to enter the slash on the date (/). (Medium)

3. Pressure on 5 minutes to complete the payment process. (Low)

RECEIPT PAGE

1. Receipt page Receipt page contained all information needed. (Feedback)

2. Mixed reviews on returning to the landing page. (Feedback)


UNMODERATED USABILITY TOOL

We used http://usertesting.com as our tool for the unmoderated user tests. We did the tests with the basic plan, which included:

Screen and voice recordingBasic filtering of demographic (age, gender, income ect.)Panel users (18+)15 minutes of recordings4 post-test questionnaires$49/test

••••••

DEMOGRAPHIC FILTERThe basic filter provided by UserTesting.com included:

Which panel do you want to use? (Any - use highest rated)How many participants? (5)What device should they use? (Smartphone)Mobile recording method: (Mobile)Age: (18-25)Income: (Any)Gender: (Any)Country: (Canada)Operating System: (Any)Social Networking: (Any)Other Requirements: (None)

Part 1:

•••••••••••

Part 2:

Which panel do you want to use? (Reuse favorite users - enter user ID)Note: user ID of previous participants will be provided on results dashboard.

•

Methodology


SCENARIOS

There were two tests conducted: Part 1 & Part 2:

Part 1 - Participants started by creating an account for ApplyBC and ended at "Save and Submit later". Part 2 - Participants started by logging back in with the account they created in Part 1, and ended after they submitted the application.

EVALUATION

While we reviewed the video recordings, we looked for points where users encountered any issues that caused them not being able to complete the tasks. We allocated each issue with different severity level depending if the issue was found on a red route, was difficult to resolve, and was persistent. A red route is the key path a user must take to submit an application.

In general, the severity levels may be as interpreted:Critical: all users had difficulty completing the task, with several attempts.Serious: a few (3 or 4) users had difficulty completing the task, with few attempts.Medium: some (less than 3) completed the task, but are annoyedLow: cosmetic issueFeedback: general feedback and suggestions from users toward a specific feature or page.

PROCEDURES

Two tests were created (Part 1 & Part 2), with 5 tasks or less in each test. When the tests were ready, Usertesting delivered tests to participants for the testing session.

During the scenarios, participants were asked to think aloud – verbalize their thoughts and actions.

There are a total of 18 issues we found significant: 1 critical issues, 1 bug, 3 serious issues, 4 medium issues, 3 low issues and 7 feedback suggestions from the 5 participants.

Note: The usability tests were conducted on the testing environment (CERT). There may be issues found on CERT that does not apply to PROD. *

There were also adjustments made according to the importance of the issues.*


PARTICIPANTS’ INFORMATION

Username: asas63Gender: MaleAge: 22Web expertise: averageSocial network: Google+, FacebookWeb browsers: Opera, Safari, IE, Firefox, ChromeMobile Device InformationManufacturer: LGEMobile Device: Nexus 5Mobile OS: androidVersion: 5.0.1Mobile Carrier: VIRGIN

Username: ManuEng13Gender: MaleAge: 24Web expertise: AdvanceMobile Device InformationManufacturer: SamsungMobile Device: SM-G920W8Mobile OS: androidVersion: 5.1.1Mobile Carrier: Rogers

Username: EnfoAge: 25Web expertise: AverageSocial networks: Google+, Pinterest, Twitter, LinkedIn, FacebookWeb browsers: Safari, IE, Firefox, ChromeMobile Device InformationManufacturer: LGEMobile Device: Nexus 4Mobile OS: androidVersion: 5.1.1Mobile Carrier: Koodo

Participants


Username: emiliemercierGender: FemaleAge: 24Web expertise: AdvancedMobile Device InformationManufacturer: SamsungMobile Device: SM-G386WMobile OS: androidVersion: 4.4.2Mobile Carrier: Telus

Username: alexfairlieGender: MaleAge: 25Social networks: LinkedIn, FacebookWeb browsers: ChromeMobile Device InformationManufacturer: samsungMobile Device: SGH-I337MMobile OS: androidVersion: 4.4.2Mobile Carrier: Rogers

Note for future tests: All participants for this test were android users. Therefore, the results of this test should only be considered for android phones. In future tests, we should specifically ask for a mixture of androids and ios users.

*


LANDING PAGE

Feedback: Mixed impressions of the landing page. General impressions of the landing page from participants were: nothing really stood out and looked bare. Two participants mentioned it felt cluttered, jumbled up, and did not look very optimized for mobile use. The landing page gave one participant a feeling that the process of the application would be complicated and cold. A few also mentioned the landing page was not very aesthetic pleasing. However, two participants also mentioned the purpose of the website was to help users get through the application, therefore, aesthetics were not in priority in terms of usability. One participant suggested they would make the landing page simpler and more suitable for first-time use applicants.

Low: Typo on SFU landing page. Under the “Terms currently open” tab, “application” is spelt wrong. On the page it is spelt “applicantion”

1.

2.

Note: On the CERT environment, there was the “certification” watermark on the background. Therefore, it may have significantly impacted participants’ impression on the landing page. Recommendation: For future testings, remove the background and maybe also the “This is a testing environment for ApplyBC” banner.

Note: The spelling for “application” is correct on PROD.

Issues &Suggestions


Medium: Content in between took longer to load than the header and footer. A few participants thought the link was broken and had to refresh a couple times until they realized the content in the center took longer to load than the header and footer.

3.

PERSONAL INFORMATION (CREATING ACCOUNT)

Feedback: The pop-up consent form had mixed reactions. One participants had to scroll up to read from the top to bottom. One participant liked how the consent form was a pop-up, forcing applicants to read it. Others did not read the consent form and went on with the account creation process.

1.

Recommendation: Have a placeholder in the middle while the contents load.

Feedback: Re-ordering the displayed content on the landing page. Two participant suggested the re-ordering of the content. One participant mentioned the first thing he saw other than the “test-test-test” was the help videos, which leads users away from the website. One participant mentioned that with returning applicants, their first intention is to log-back into their account, however, yet it takes them an extra step to do so since they have to scroll down to find fields. They suggested that “create an account” and “login” should be at the top instead of at the bottom.

4.


Feedback: Usability of the help buttons. One participant liked where the help button was located, and appreciated how the help buttons opened and closed. A few did not have any suggestion regarding the help button, it felt decent to them. One participant mentioned when the help button tab was open, it obscured the rest of the page, and suggested maybe the help button shift the fields instead of a covering the fields. One participant mentioned the first thing they saw was the help button, since it was a different colour to the rest of the page.

2.

Critical: All participants missed the password requirements. Since the password requirements were blocked by the participants’ keyboard, all participants had to re-enter a new set of password to fit the requirements.

3.

Heuristic violated: Visibility of system status. The password requirements checklist were blocked with users’ keyboard while they entered the password. Therefore, it was easily missed. This may also have interrupted user’s cognitive flow that caused users not able to remember their passwords (for Part 2 login).Participant suggestions: One participant suggested the requirements should be shown first instead of at the bottom.Recommendation: Under the help button, it points out the password needed to fulfill all requirements. However, it is not noticeable on the mobile UI. The password requirement can be shown on the top of the password fields as indicated in the example below.

Medium: Heuristic violated: recognition rather than recall. There may be some visibility issues of the help button when the sections are long. Users need to scroll up to top of the section to find the help button. This may have violated the recognition rather than recall rule since users need to scroll up to find the help button (ONLY if users remember there is a help button available).Recommendation: Instead of having a help button, we can replace it with a tooltip.

(All are required)


CONTACT INFORMATION

Medium: Missed the new fields after country was entered. Three participants missed the new fields that was introduced after they entered the country. They only realized after the hit “Save and Continue” However, a few did mention they liked how they were directly brought to the location of the missing fields.

1.

ACADEMIC HISTORY

Bug: The error message that informed users to type “other” did not show up. One participant was not able to enter the correct school name due to the restricted choices. Participant tried different variations of the school name and no match was found. In the end, the participant randomly chose something else. However, few was pleased of the feature since they could not fully remember their past school names.

1.

Heuristic violated: Visibility. Since the city and postal code fields were hidden unless a country was selected, participants did not see it until an error message occurred after “Save and Continue”. Recommendation: Instead of having the new fields show up after “country” is entered, the new fields could be a fade out and users could not enter information unless country is entered. Also, the order of the fields may have caused cognitive interruption as the fields were displays as: City > Country > Province. (Province should come before country)

Heuristic violated: User control and freedom & visibility. The system restricted users on school names and there was no indication on what to do when the correct school name did not show up.Recommendation: have “Please type other if school not found” message beside the field title instead at bottom.


PROGRAM SELECTION

Serious: Participants were not able to select category in the given task. Under “Program Selection” page, we asked each participants to select different category under “What category best describes you”. Other than the participant given the task to choose “High School Student”, only category participant was able to select the category in the given task. All others had to continue on with the category of “High School Student” since it was the only one available. One participant thought it was a bug at first, however, when the participant looked at the help button, participant realized there were other available categories, but he was not sure why only “High School Student” showed up.

1.


Feedback: All participants appreciated how all information was on one single page. While reviewing the applications, all participants were able to quickly scroll through the information they entered in the previous sections. One participant used all lower-case for their name was surprised that the system let it through. Two participants went too quickly onto the payment page, but were able to go back to the application by using the back button on their mobile device. One participant missed the task on “Program selection page” and appreciated the edit feature on the “Review and Submit” page.

1.

Heuristic violated: Error prevention. The help button showed all possible selections to the question. However, there was no indication on how or why there was only one available choice.Recommendation: Under help button, add: If desired category is not shown, please select a different term. Note: In the task, we did not tell participants to choose “Late Applicants”, therefore, this may have cause the problem.


LOGIN

Serious: Majority of the participants had some trouble logging back into their ApplyBC account. Out of all 5 participants, only 1 participant successfully logged back onto their account with the first try. Two participants had to re-enter their ID and password few times in order to log back on due to the password requirements (uppercase). Two other participants had to re-create an ApplyBC account in order to continue with the testing.

1.


Low: Confusion on how to get to “Review and Submit” page. After logging back onto ApplyBC, some participants were confused on how to get to the “Review and Submit” page since they were still on the landing page. Soon after, they realized they needed to click “Continue to Apply” in order to move on. However, once all participants continued with the application, they use progress bar to jump to the “Review and Submit” page.

1.

Heuristic violated: Error prevention and visibility. The indication that password was case sensitive were missed by users.Note: Since the participants were not legitimately creating an account to apply for post secondary, they may have rushed through the process and not being extra careful compared to users who actually intends to apply.Suggestions: To validate the results of this finding, we can track the number of users who requests a password change on our database. The interruption occurred at the creating password section may also have caused participants not able to fully remember their password. Also, we can add an “expose password” function available for users if needed.Recommendation: Have a visual indication/connection between the error message and re-entry input.

Heuristic violated: Recognition rather than recall. The instructions given in the task missed the step where users had to click on “continue to apply” first in order to jump to “review and submit” page.


PAYMENT

Serious: Trouble inputting correct card information. Since the given card number had spaces, all participants first entered the numbers with the spaces, resulting “invalid card number”. After a couple tries on re-entering the card number, they realized the problem may be because of the space. Therefore, after participants removed the spaces from the card numbers they inputted, they were able to pay for the application fee.Note: It was harder for some participants to enter the correct card numbers since the given card information was 4111 1111 1111 1111.

1.

Heuristic violated: Match between real system and the world & error prevention. Having the credit card numbers field as a whole increased the chance of entering wrong numbers. Since credit card numbers come in sets of fours, with spaces in between, there was no indication that the spaces should be removed.Suggestions: One participant suggested dividing slots for each set of the card numbers. For eg, (_ _ _ _) (_ _ _ _) (_ _ _ _) (_ _ _ _) instead of all together. The participant mentioned that this would have definitely helped him with inputting the card numbers.

Medium: Confusion on whether to enter the slash on the date (/). Since the given information was (09/16), a few participants missed the indication on the payment page (MMYY) and tried entering the slash while entering the date. Participants soon realized they could not since the system only allowed numbers.

2.

Heuristic violated: Visibility. The indication of (MMYY) was easily missed. Note: This may also be because the information given to participants had the slash, therefore caused the confusion on whether to enter it or not.


Low: Pressure on 5 minutes to complete the payment process. One participant mentioned when he saw the note “You have 5 minutes to complete the payment process”, he felt pressured and wanted to finish the payment quickly before it times out.

3.

RECEIPT

Feedback: Receipt page contained all information needed. All participants said that all the information on the receipt page was information they expected, nothing important seems to be missing. One participant mentioned that the receipt only says who the merchant was but did not indicate it was for university application fee. Another participant mentioned even though everything she was expecting was on the receipt page, she would want to know more information regarding her application. For example, when would she hear back or were there any documents she needed to send in ect. The same participant also realized that she cannot return to the receipt after she exited. She suggested, in reality, she would want to be able to see the receipt under her account since the participant did not like to print. One participant pointed out maybe include some contact information on the receipt page, in case if something went wrong about the information provided on the application.

1.

Heuristic violated: Error prevention. The phrase “You have 5 minutes to complete this page” may place unnecessary stress on the user. Recommendation: Let users know they have only 5 minutes to complete the payment before they enter the payment page as well as telling them on the payment page.

Suggestion: The receipt should be accessible under user’s account. Note: On the receipt, it says “Check your ___ inbox for a copy of this receipt.” However, the email received was a confirmation email of the application, not a copy of the receipt.Recommendation: Have a copy of the receipt sent to applicants instead only sending a confirmation.

Receipt after payment Email received


Feedback: Mixed reviews on returning to the landing page. (3/5 Yes, 1/5 No, 1/5 Neutral.) Two participants mentioned leading back to the landing page would be a useful feature to include if users wanted to look for more information regarding the school or other resources. One participants mentioned they did not see the need of going back to the landing page since they were done with the application. Instead, maybe it could lead users to SFU’s website. One participant was neutral on whether leading back to the landing page or not. The same participant suggested that it was not a big of a deal. If users wanted to go back to the landing page, they can always re-enter the URL again. However, participant commented that having a little shortcut on the page would not hurt either.

2.

CONCLUSION FOR PART 2

Due the some miscommunication between tasks and information given to participants, it may have results higher number of issues on part 2 of the test, especially on the payment page. For example the card number given on the task has spaces included, which may have resulted why participants entered the spaces as well.


WRITTEN RESPONSES

Part 1:Username: alexfairlie

Q1: What frustrated you most about this site?The overall aesthetic of the site. There were frustrations such as not having drop down options for countries for example.

Q2: If you had a magic wand, how would you improve this site?Have a better looking landing page with a better organized menu option. Not having to repeat that I'm from Canada multiple times.

Q3: What did you like about the site?I like the layout of the help buttons that helped me fill in the sections properly. Also that they were in a good location with a clean drop down function.

Q4: Was there something missing you were expecting to see?A cleaner looking site. More options for schools and programs.

SUMMARY OF ANSWERS: All participants preferred to use desktop instead of mobile to fill out application forms similar this.All participants answered 8/10 on how likely they will recommend to a friend of colleague. (Except participant Enfo who did not rate, and ManuEng13 who may have misunderstood the question since he was not going to attend BC PSI in reality.) For all participants, either nothing big frustrated them too much, or it was the aesthetics of the site. Most participants commented the application was simple and straight-forward. Two participants suggested having a status tracking feature for the submitted applications.

•

•

•

••

Post TestQuestionnaires


Part 2:Q1: In reality, would you use this site yourself if you were applying for admission for post-secondary institutions (please explain why or why not)?If found a course that I wanted to attend in a BC institution or SFU yes I would use this site. At this time am not planning on attending any post secondary education so I would not realistically uses this site. Although I feel that other people would visit.

Q2: If you had a magic wand, how would you improve this application process?Having the ability to go back to the starting page once you finish the application.

Q3: In reality, would you prefer to use to use desktop or mobile phone for the application (please briefly explain why)?I tend to do these sort of application at a desktop computer since I find it easier to fill out and navigate

Q4: How likely are you to recommend this site to a friend or colleague (0=Not at all likely, and 10=Very Likely)?8

Part 1:

Part 2:

Username: emiliemercier

Q1: What frustrated you most about this site?The form was very long! I don't like filling in long forms on my phone.

Q2: If you had a magic wand, how would you improve this site?I would make the process of filling the form shorter.

Q3: What did you like about the site?I liked that it was really easy to use. I didn't have to use the help button once!

Q4: Was there something missing you were expecting to see?I was expecting to get information about the application process.

Q1: In reality, would you use this site yourself if you were applying for admission for post-secondary institutions (Please explain why or why not)?I would. I have used websites like this one to apply for grad school and it worked well!


Q2: If you had a magic wand, how would you improve this application process?I would make sure that I can see my receipt and my application form when I log back in.

Q3: In reality, would you prefer to use to use desktop or mobile phone for the application (please briefly explain why)?Desktop because I don't like to write on my phone.


Part 1:

Username: ManuEng13

Q1: What frustrated you most about this site?The choppy look and occasionally missing the dynamic questions as they popped up

Q2: If you had a magic wand, how would you improve this site?I would make the page a little more colourful. Each section would have a different coloured background to assist in keeping track.

Q3: What did you like about the site?It was simple and linear. I felt like I could quickly fill in the necessary information.

Q4: Was there something missing you were expecting to see?A little more branding of who I was applying to.

Part 2:Q1: In reality, would you use this site yourself if you were applying for admission for post-secondary institutions (Please explain why or why not)?In Ontario we apply to all universities on one site. If I were applying, either way I would apply on my computer. It's a big deal and I wouldn't want to mess anything up by using a small screen. There is no urgency to this task that it couldn't wait until I got home to

Q2: If you had a magic wand, how would you improve this application process?I would space out the credit card number to make it easier to troubleshoot.


Q3: In reality, would you prefer to use to use desktop or mobile phone for the application (please briefly explain why)?I already stated I would prefer desktop and why, University applications are not something that should be done on a phone.


Part 1:

Username: Enfo

Q1: What frustrated you most about this site?Nothing on the page stood out as particularly frustrating. Overall a smooth application procedure. If I had to choose, I'd say the organization (or lack thereof) on the landing page.

Q2: If you had a magic wand, how would you improve this site?I would add a register/log in button to the top left.

Q3: What did you like about the site?To answer the previous question: I would add a register/log in button to the top right hand side of the landing page, instead of the bottom. The register button could open a page with a tutorial video above the fields where info is filled in for registration. Question 3: I liked how easy the interface was to use.

Q4: Was there something missing you were expecting to see?I really expected the landing page to be more inviting (especially towards new users)

Part 2:Q1: In reality, would you use this site yourself if you were applying for admission for post-secondary institutions (Please explain why or why not)?Would use the site. It was quick and easy to enter any relevant information and move on to pay for the application. The interface was pretty easy to use.

Q2: If you had a magic wand, how would you improve this application process?I felt the application went well overall. I was following tasks and I knew what I had to do on the site. However, new users may not be sure where to start. Maybe make the register button more obvious? I also think it could be helpful if there was a "status" button next to the application. Incomplete, accepted, processing, etc. So that users have a reason to come back and check up on their application.


Q3: In reality, would you prefer to use to use desktop or mobile phone for the application (please briefly explain why)?To be honest I would rather use a desktop. It's easier for me to write than on a mobile phone & I like having a larger screen to do important things like filling out applications


Part 1:

Username: asas63

Q1: What frustrated you most about this site?Want to go to school again!

Q2: If you had a magic wand, how would you improve this site?The design is quite basic, but it is well done and shouldn't be made more complicated.

Q3: What did you like about the site?Easy to use compared to other school registration.

Q4: Was there something missing you were expecting to see?Not that I can think of.

Part 2:Q1: In reality, would you use this site yourself if you were applying for admission for post-secondary institutions (Please explain why or why not)?Yes, I would. Every school website I've dealt with has been a horrible mess. On the contrary, this one was very easy to work with both times.

Q2: If you had a magic wand, how would you improve this application process?Free education?

Q3: In reality, would you prefer to use to use desktop or mobile phone for the application (please briefly explain why)?Either or, only depends on personal preference and convenience. Granted, having a nice fleshed-out mobile app can be seen as quite professional! I would prefer computer, but only for the obvious reasons such as bigger screen and capabilities.



FINAL THOUGHTS

All participants found ApplyBC to be straight-forward and simple to use. It was a very interesting to experience with Usertesting.com as well as trying out unmoderated user testing for the first time. In general, most participants were able to complete the tasks and successfully submit their application for SFU. Only one participant was not able to finish paying for the application since the individual could not log back onto their original account they have created in part 1. Therefore, when the participant was asked to re-create an account, the participant created the account through applybc.ca instead of cert.applybc.ca, which in the end resulted fail in payment process since the card information was bogus.

Other than the incident stated above, we were still able to gain valuable information regarding the usability issues of ApplyBC.

Conclusion


Special thank you to the ApplyBC team members and BCcampus staff

members who helped to conduct the unmoderated usability testing 2015.

Thank You


Durmaresq, D., Chen, M., Fung, G. (2013, December 19). BCcampus: ApplyBC 2013 Usability Report. Retrieved from: https://portal.bccampus.ca/confluence/x/ooOt Aw

Nielsen, J. (2012, January 16). Nielsen Norman Group: Thinking Aloud: The #1 Usability Tool. Retrieved from http://www.nngroup.com/articles/thinking-aloud-the-1-usabili ty-tool/

Nielsen, J. (1995, January 01). Nielsen Norman Group: 10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design. Retrieved from http://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usabili ty-heuristics/

Nielsen, J. (2012, April 10). Nielsen Norman Group: Mobile Site vs. Full Site. Retrieved from http://www.nngroup.com/articles/mobile-site-vs-full-site/

Nielsen Norman Group (2014, June 01). Nielsen Norman Group: Selecting an Online Tool for Unmoderated Remote User Testing. Retrieved from http://www.nn group.com/articles/unmoderated-user-testing-tools/

Travis, D. (2009, October 05). UserFocus: How to prioritize usability problems. Retrieved from http://www.userfocus.co.uk/articles/prioritise.html

Travis, D. (2006, March 26). UserFocus: Red Route usability: The key user journeys with your web site. Retrieved from: http://www.userfocus.co.uk/articles/redroutes.ht ml

References


2015-11-27 Usability Report - Simon Fraser Universitymimit/portfolio/BCcampus Usability test...

Documents

Transcript of 2015-11-27 Usability Report - Simon Fraser Universitymimit/portfolio/BCcampus Usability test...