Usability Report With Comments

8/6/2019 Usability Report With Comments

1/7

English Department Website Redesign

Val KovalJonathan NipperNeto OparaEnglish 379


2/7

7->~n glish D ep artm en t W e bsite R ed esig n 1Summary; i/ .. ?4 I ~ I I v 'AThe report describes the English department's website of University Maryland Baltimore 0 ~ 7 f t J DCountry (UMBC). Withi~n of the website, the report @scIi~the positive and the U

~

tives of the website~~~ numerous changes to the English department's websitd that l-1.1 staf ould like to change. The report outlines changes that should be made based on suggestions d l e/:~ , the interviewees and the interviewers. The report outlines the procedures, the questions, and ~vthe basic outline of the interview ~iven exercises and tasks given to the interviewees

that are outlined in the report. Furt ermore, test subjects were asked to rate their expenence , ~ ~about the website and expressed that the website had certain issues. Test subjects complained u:" c- - / :about the wording on the website in the sense that there was too much wording. The website ~seems to be more of a text based paper than a website designed for the current age of media, ~pictures and over all quick searchable guides for perspective students, parents, and other:e~a~f?abt .UMBC.The suggestions given in the report are designed to help the English department website to lookbetter and for users to have a better experience while using the website. The suggestions givenare designed for perspective students to be interested in the two English tracks as their majors.Furthermore, the revamping of the website would help draw in more traffic to the site and make ~sure that the site is comparable to other departments. In fact, having a well developed English hwebsite c.9}lldmake potential students interested in attending UnivJrsity Maryland of Baltimore /J 'j~County.~ ~0 +l: ~1' f)~/?

"7

Introduction:The English department's we site ofUMB as several problems reported. There are issueswith searching of data in the websi attempting to find information on the website. Thewebsite is not always updated on time and certain classes are not always offered. Some peoplehave certain confusions when it comes to navigating the website. The website has links and titlesin similar colors that confuse people and makes people think that titles are clickable links.Furthermore, there is no search feature in the website so people have to look through the entiresite in order for them to find the information they are looking for.One ofthe major complaints about the website is that the site is composed of mostly allparagraphs. The website has limited lists and people must go through several texts before findinginformation they require. Certain information about staff members are missing on the Englishdepartment's website. There are very little pictures on the website and there are no videosavailable for people have a visual representation of what the English department is about. Inorder for the website to appeal to more people, the staff would like to change the website andcorrect issues with the site mentioned above.The English department of University Maryland Baltimore County would like to change thlir - - - J o rhomepage. The English department is often times overlooked in a university where science andtechnology is very big. UMBC is known for their math and science departments and they are themost funded departments in the university. While the English department is not under funded,the English department does not have as many students enrolled in the English tracks as much asthe science departments. So, the English department would like to change the website in order tobring in more students. The more students that the English department can bring in the more


3/7

English Department Website Redesign 2

funding that department might be able to acquire. Furthermore, in order for the Englishdepartment to grow there has to be a growth in the number of students interested in the Englishtracks. The current website of the English department does not seem to entice students to lickEnglish as their major.Website description:The English department website has the majority of the information that a person would look forin a department website. The site has helpful tabs at the top so that students may easily ge~to the /description about the curriculum and faculty members. A major flaw with the website is tHatthere are practically no lists on the website. The site contains all paragraphs describing all of the~nformat~on about the English department, curriculum, news, and every other piece of 1:/ ~information. f 1 V r ~t!J 1 1 ; ; J CDue to the fact that the site has all paragraphs it takes longer to find certain information ra herthan using lists or links. The majority of links are on the side of the website and not in the . I ,_content of the main page. The side links are easy to read and are in the color blue to distingUishf:?r:t{LJthem from the rest of the text. The links on the side of the webpage are the only way to qukklyfind what a person is looking for. When a person clicks on a tab on the top of the website theonly way to quickly find anything is through the links on the side of the website. The webdite ~does not have a search feature of any kind. The website does not have any videos or pictures that f'J1support the information on the website.

( b / \ ) 1 1 1 he main heading at the top of the website. is in blue, which can be mistaken for a link sinc1ethe/I\,)nks on the side of the website are colored blue. The main heading on the website is a darker~ color blue and is bold. The headings and the titles within the website are blue there is a nathral

~ {" tendency for people to think that they are c\ickable links.)\,n On the homepage of the website there is a section where there is different literature genresr f v . ' f ~ mentioned that seem like they should be links but are not. Furthermore, the list of literature. genres do not seem to be literature tracks as majors or are courses that are offered consistently.

, To the left ofthe literature genres are pictures of writers like Shakespeare and others and t lere isShakespeare is part of the curriculum but the others do not have a dedicated course to themjWhile they are important figures in literature the website is not updated with new writers from anupdated curriculum. The curriculum on the website is not always up to date and some courses

;{ that are listed in the curriculum do not represent courses that students can actually take. There1 are courses that are offered ones in a while and not every semester.

There are no pictures of the faculty members for the English department. There is a lack ofinformation on the website about the faculty members. The site does not show what cours9sfaculty members teach or their office hours. The site does not have any way for people to type afaculty member's name and find information that way.

Usability Report Methods OverviewThis section details the methods behind conducting our usability test. Discussed in this sectionare the test methods and setting, participant's tasks, participant's computing environment, test-r~ ~L/0(? L:2~/

fhcrf L2- ~ ,?riA ~ T~~-!Ljfi~ry~

. .


4/7

English Department Website Re esign 3

administrator tools, experimental designs, procedure, and participant general instructions. [Thissection of the Usability Report also discusses the results and their role in our proposal for the.Website's revision. \ ~~

~ j :M e t h o d sand Setting ~, 1We designed the methods for our Usability Test to collect qualitative data pertaining to thewebsite. The test subject demographic consisted of the student body of UMBC. Each of thfselected participants was asked to conduct a search on the English Department's Website. Eachparticipant was given tasks to complete based on the site's navigation ability and organization.Once the tasks were completed, each participant took part in a follow up interview in Whicr theydiscussed their opinions about the website and its usability.

1 . . , . - -cli)participants ~ ? ,. ~ive participants in total wer selected or the usability testing procedure. Each individual hat

participated in the test possess SIC computer literacy skills- of which included basicknowledge on how to navigate the internet. Each of the five participants were selected atrandom; all participants represented the student body provided that each participant was astudent at the school. The age range for the participants was between 19 and 26, with two ,f theparticipants being females.r.:5 ~ ~ IThe chart below details the characteristics of each participant.

Gender Age Education Computer WebsiteExperience Experience

P1 Female 20 College Standard NoneP2 Female College Standard NoneP3

Contextl TasksThis section of the report outlines the usability test procedure including the tasks involved, aswell as the testing environment provided to the participants while performing the test.Each of the tasks presented to the participants were chosen in order to challenge the websites ~comprehensibility and effectiveness. The activities therefore required, but were not limited Ito,the searching for basic content (ex. finding email addresses, courses, department requirementsetc.), and the assessment of the sites design and various des~riptions. -J /p,.,J v--vJ~ ~JJ~ ~~Tasks included:

Find the email address for Mitzi Mabe.Who are the core faculty members of the English department?Who are the emeritus faculty members of the English department?Find a blurb on Carolyn Fitzpartrick.What are the two English major tracks?How many minors does the English department offer?What is English 386?Find the graduate courses.


5/7


Participants Computing EnvironmentEach participant was provided a quiet working space, away from any surrounding distracti ns.Furthermore, all testing was done on UMBC campus between the dates of April s" and A rilis".Logic Behind the Experimen(;J.ignThe general design of the experiment is intended to generate an informal assessment of theEnglish department's website. Through the application of each of the selected tasks, it isbelieved that the results obtained do in fact reflect the general usability of the website as thltasks include several concepts considered important to the comprehension of the EnglishDepartment. As designed, the tasks are to be completed prior to the interview, providing theparticipant with solid background of the site before they are asked to give an opinion on it. Indoing so, the tester is able to then get an educated response on the usability of the site in te s ofthe specific needs of the site. ~Test Administrator Tools

The test, which is given to each participant A notepad, or recorder- in order to record interview responses A usability rubric to grade the usability of the site according to the participai t's r Y ! I

feedback ~ (v

What are the common core courses for the two English majors?Find the latest alumni newsletter. What is the date for the newsletter? How do you eel& about this?From the homepage, find the student/alumni/faculty news links. Click on one ofth links,< s then click on the CONTACT button. What happened? How does this make you feelt : : about the website as a whole?What is the effective date of the CT major requirements?What does ENGL - LI stand for? What does ENGL - CT stand for?I want you to find the Communication Track major requirements without using one of the& - main headings.Can you reach a map of the UMBC campus?

l1 - - Participant Task InstructionsParticipants were asked to, at their own speed, fulfill each task listed to the best of their ab lity;they were encourage to skip any task believed to be too difficult.

ResultsThe usability test showed that participants did not particularly like certain elements on theUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC) English department's website. Moreo er,the participants were engaged in tasks that revealed unsettling issues, which could diminis thegoals of the UMBC English department's website.


6/7


Similarly, participants' responses on the usability feedback questionnaire revealed more Iinformation regarding test participants impression of the site design and content. When askedabout the accessibility of information, the usability of the site, and how they felt while using theUMBC English department's website, the responses revealed a similar set of feelings in rdgards ..//1to the site: I r~.I y

~articip~ts provided negative r~sponses when asked ~bout the ease of finding ~ ~}information on the UMBC English department's website. /YV'j J Participants thought the UMBC English department's website site was not fairly eJsy to ~~-p

navigate upon first use/visit. -1', " Participants provided affirmative responses when asked, at various times, if they were (PJ~J

confused while using the UMBC English department's website. ~

~?: 3

When asked about what features could be improved or included on the UMBC Englishdepartment's website, all participants noted that there should be less words on the pages andmore bulleting, more helpful information on the homepage, the addition of an insite searcHengine, and change the color of certain words and heading to avoid confusing them for liJ:s.Additionally, one participant in particular, recommended that the site add more pictures.Overall, the results were not positive for the UMBC English department's website, and thingsneed to be changed in order for users ofthe site to be happy with their experiences. However, thesite was not deemed as horrible, and participants rated the site as average.

r> J Data Analysis--tt ) In this section, we will analysis the various data that was observed and recorded throughou~ ourintervie~s and experiments. We will also reference the results in order to discuss any trends thatwere noticed. ~ i: 2--

1 r / : 1 0 Analysis of Usability Tasks 1The usability test was made up of a series of tasks that participants were asked to complete1 A:~ , /~otal of fifteen tasks were run with our 4 participants. The tasks were varied in difficulty, c mtent,, J hud orientation, so that we would be able to test multiple aspects of the site.~ . . . During the testing, some tasks took users a short time to compete, thirty seconds or less, while/Y other tasks took participants a longer time to complete, one minute or more, or the tasks co lIdf1 " not be completed. ': "

nalysis of Usability Feedback QuestionnaireThis section covers the range of answers that were given by the different participants. We ,sedverbal responses, as well as numeric responses. Each of the questions asked the participant torate their various experiences on a scale of 1 - 1O~with one being very low in satisfaction,difficulty, etc, and ten being very high in satisfaction, difficulty, etc. In the end, participants hada narrow range of answers, and this spoke volumes about how the site was viewed by thedifferent participants.Overall, participants rated their experiences as average or slightly below average. Yet, ourparticipants rated the site slightly above average as a whole, but most parts of the site were ated~~~kJp &~~ ~~~ W~7~;:. J 4 -< / J - a : - ;-L$JY


7/7


as average or slightly below average. The range of scores in the overall organization and\navigation were disconcerting because most users experienced great difficulty in understandingthe site's organization, and therefore, their navigation of the site was negatively affected. \RecommendationsIn order for the UMBC English department website to best fulfill the redesign goals outli~ed bythis report, and in order to remain aligned with UMBC's (and their English department's)1 ~mission and style guide, we recommend the following: .. i., ~/1 . Decrease the amount of text on the pages, and increase the use of bullets l:I...rj \... .

2. Design links and pages for the types of visitors using UMBC English de?artment's?(ebsite (e.g. faculty, students, etc.) U-y J- " 3. Add an in-site search engine or function. I. j~ 7. /J .r 4. Change the coloring patterns so that word;;~d headings are not mistaken for acti'-f1einks., ' / r l ! ' " 5. Update the information on the website. ~-;f : '~? 6. Continue testing to measure usability and to generate new ideas for design and cOitent. ~ ':This list represents the six most pressing issues that we revealed from our UMBC English I r Ydepartment's website usability testing and questionnaire. With these changes, we believe that ,the UMBC English department's website can turn around its image, and produce more \l1.0.prospective faculty members and students. / r ( J \v : : :JUsability Test Conclusions I d IY v aThe UMBC English department's website is average at best. The website has the informa,ion ~ ../that participants expect, howe:~r the site does not incorporate many ~eatures that ~articipapts ~.~'expect. For example, the participants expected to find a homepage Withvaluable information, I f ~and a summary of the UMBC English department, but that's not what they were met with. I ~Additionally, the website does not provide participants with as much navigational information atall; consequently, participants are left with negative impressions of their experience with tieUMBC English department's website.In conclusion, based on the results of the usability test, we determined that the the UMBC IEnglish department website contains usability problems. Furthermore, the UMBC Englishdepartment website needs to be redesigned and updated in order for it to be highly effective.Test participants found no certain elements of the site to beoverly useful. In fact, the Iparticipants found that most ofthe elements ofthe site hindered their usage. However, resultsfrom our testing show that the UMBC English department website is an average website. ITherefore, future testing should be conducted, and should focus on the similar tasks, as well ason first-time and returning users, and the types of users. Further research is necessary to buildmore data to further refine our conclusions and recommendations, and can only help the sitbgrow and improve.

Usability Report With Comments

Documents

Transcript of Usability Report With Comments