Website Usability Evaluation Report

Bournemouth University Website Usability Evaluation Report
Andrew James Kafumbata
S4928923
22nd May, 2017
I
Table of Contents
1.0. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………. 1
1.1. Purpose of the website ………………………………………………….. 1
1.2. Key users of the website………………………………………………… 2
2.0. Executive Summary……………………………………………………………… 4
3.0. Methodology………………………………………………………………………. 6
3.1. Heuristic Evaluation ……………………………………………………… 6
3.2. Card Sorting ………………………………………………………………. 6
4.0. Results and Recommendation………………………………………………….. 7
4.1. Issues identified, Severity and Ease of Fix …………………………… 7
4.2. Issues Descriptions and Recommendation……………………………. 8
4.3. Analysis of Card Sorting……………………………………………….. 12
5.0. Revised Sitemap ……………………………………………………………….. 15
6.0. Screenshots of High Fidelity Design of Pages………………………………. 17
6.1. Homepage……………………………………………………………….. 17
6.2. Study page………………………………………………………………. 17
6.3. Search page …………………………………………………………….. 18
6.4. Staff page ……………………………………………………………….. 18
7.0. Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………. 19
8.0. References ………………………………………………………………………. 19
9.0. Appendix…………………………………………………………………………. 20
9.1. Jakob Nielson 10 Heuristics …………………………………………… 20
9.2. Severity Rating …………………………………………………………. 21
9.3. Ease of Fix……………………………………………………………….. 21
1
1.0. Introduction
This report highlights some of the key findings from a usability test for
Bournemouth (BU) website. It further proposes new design recommendations
which, when implemented, could ensure that the website is user-centred and
delivers the best user experience.
Bournemouth University (BU) website (https://www1.bournemouth.ac.uk)
serves as one of the ways the university disseminates its information to the
general public. The website was launched in 2014 and is managed by the BU
Digital Vision Steering Group.
1.1. Purpose of the website
The BU website was launched to provide information about:
 Various courses the university offers to prospective students, both
undergraduate and postgraduate including how to apply for them
and get admitted. Thus, an easy access to this information could
enable the university to recruit more new students, both local and
international, and allow it to expand its enrolment.
 Professional development training which the university offers to
various stakeholders. Some of these professional development
courses include; environmental law and social justice, green
technology and renewable energy and social media and
broadcasting.
 Research work the university undertakes in various areas such as
nutrition and computing.
 Student facilities such as accommodation, sports and health and
well-being.
 News and different invents happening on the campus, for example,
open days.
 Different collaborations between the university and other
stakeholders such as the communities, businesses, and alumni in
various areas such as community development.
 Job vacancies to prospective staff and placements to continuing
students.
2
1.2. Key users of the website
The BU website disseminates information to a number of key users. These
users are:
 Prospective students (undergraduate and postgraduate)
– Prospective students could use the website to request a
prospectus, browse and apply for the courses and check the
status of their applications. They could also use the website
to book accommodation, read university news and other
events happening on the campus. They could also access
information to do with different research work being
conducted by the university.
 Continuing students
– The website is not only useful to prospective students but
also continuing students. Continuing students use the
website mostly to access different services the university
offers to students such as the library. They could further use
the website to access information to do with career and
employability, accommodation, sports, different events
happening on the campus and university news.
 Prospective staffs
– The website disseminates information to the general public
about various vacancies available at the university in
different faculties or departments. Thus, prospective staff
could visit the website to look for these vacancies.
 Alumni
– The Alumni use the website to access information about
various alumni services offered by the university such
membership services and discounts. They could also use the
website to read university news and various events.
 Parents
– Parents could use the website to access information to do
with learning support for students with learning disability.
They could also help their children in the course application
process, read university news, access information about
parent guide to school fees, funding, and accommodation.
3
 Other stakeholders
– These include all other entities which could be interested in
the university. These stakeholders include; government
agencies or organizations, Non-governmental organizations,
companies, businesses and many others. These stakeholders
could use the website to look for any other information of
interest to them such as university news, research work, and
sports information. They could as well collaborate with the
university in different projects and possibly act as donors
Table 1 below gives a summary of the key user groups and their task scenarios
Table 1 A summary of user groups and their scenarios

4
The report is therefore organized as follows; Section 2.0 gives an executive
summary summarizing all the key findings and recommendations. In sections
3.0 and 4.0, the methodology and, results and recommendation are presented
respectively. Section 5.0 gives the revised site map while as section 6.0 presents
some of the key screenshots of high fidelity prototype design reflecting the
recommendations. Section 7.0 concludes the report by, among other things,
summarizing the keys issues and lessons learned.
2.0. Executive Summary
A usability test was conducted to evaluate the BU website at Bournemouth
University on 10th to 12th May, 2017. The purpose of the evaluation was twofold.
On one hand, an inspection of the web interface was done in order to assess
whether the website does not violate common design guidelines. On the other
hand, its navigation structure was further evaluated to assess whether it was
easy to use by its intended users. Using the findings, new design
recommendations, and revised site map were proposed. Finally, a high fidelity
prototype reflecting the recommendations was developed.
Although the website mostly follows common design guidelines and its
navigation is fairly easy to use by its intended users, there are still other
pertinent issues which were identified. These issues are summarized:
 The BU logo shortcut does not bring the user back.
 Breadcrumbs have not be used in some other pages.
 The website redirects users to other websites without informing them.
 There is a mismatch between picture used on the tiles and the events
they represent in the real world.
 The search boxes do not provide contextual suggestions and handle typos
in a query.
 The navigation structure and main menu items disappear on the search
result page.
 Two search boxes could lead to search errors.
 The staff link could mislead users into thinking that it links into a web
page containing staff profiles.
 The website homepage has many pages and therefore very long.
5

In order to address the issues above and ensure that the website effectively
meets its objective and improve user’s experience, recommendations have been
suggested. These recommendations are given below:

homepage whenever it is clicked.

 The website should be programmed to always inform the users before
they are re-directed to another website in the course of their navigation.
 Website tiles should be reworked to ensure that the pictures on them
correspond to events or activities they depict.
 Search boxes should be redesigned to enable them provide contextual
suggestions and handle typos in search queries.
 The website should be reworked to ensure that its navigation structure
and main menu are maintained on the search result page.
 The middle search box should be eliminated and the top right search box
should be customized to search everything on the site.
 Include all other staff information under the staff menu item not only the
staff login page as it is the case now.
 The number of pages of the homepage should be reduced by either
reducing the picture sizes or eliminating information that is less important.


 The website navigation should be redesigned according to the site map
given in section 5.0.
Thus, it is believed that when these recommendations are implemented, the
website could be user-centred and deliver the best possible user experience to
all key users.
6
3.0. Methodology
3.1. Heuristic evaluation
Heuristic evaluation as proposed by(Nielsen, 1995) was used to evaluate the
web interface and assess it whether follows common design guideline. Jacob
Nielsen 10 heuristics method was used because, according to(Sharp, et al.,
2002), it uses few guidelines which can be easily be remembered and applied.
Furthermore, due to time and resources constraints, heuristic evaluation method
was found to be cheaper and quicker than other methods because it does not
require user representatives and special equipment to perform (Sharp, et al.,
2002).
3.2. Card Sorting
Card sorting was used to evaluate the navigation structure or the information
architecture of the website. It was considered because, according to
(usability.gov, n.d.)(Nielsen, 2014), it is one of the most effective methods
which has, for a long time, been used to aid in the designing of the information
architecture of the websites. According to (Shanshan, 2010), card sorting
ensures that the information architecture or navigation structure of a website
conforms to the users’ mental model and makes it easy to use.
Since the primary purpose of the website is to help the prospective student to
find information about various aspects to do with their studies, 15 prospective
students were recruited to perform the card sorting. 15 students were chosen
because (Nielsen, 2014) argues that 15 participates should be the minimum
number of participates to have trustworthy results from card sorting.
There were basically 56 cards which were sorted. Each card represented a web
page of the website and had a word phrase written on it to represent its
corresponding content. The website has basically over 56 pages but only those
pages representing primary (first level) navigation were chosen due to time
constraint.
Two card sorting sessions were conducted followed by a 15-minute break in
between. In the first session, participants sorted 30 cards while in the second
participants sorted the remaining 26 cards. The cards were divided because
(usability.gov, n.d.) recommends that the number of cards to be sorted in each
session should not exceed 40 to avoid participates’ fatigue which can potentially
distort results.
In each session, both open and closed card sorting were performed. The open
card sorting was initially performed to identify the cards which belonged
together in one group followed by the closed card sorting which identified issues
with the current websites’ labels(usability.gov, n.d.). All of the 15 participates
successfully sorted all the cards with each session taking an average of 24
minutes.
7
4.0. Results and Recommendations
4.1. Issues identified
Table 2 below summarizes the usability issues which were identified using
the heuristic evaluation including the heuristics which were violated, the
severity of the issues and their ease of fix. The explanation of the
heuristics and, the severity and ease of fix ratings are provided in the
appendix in section 9.0.
Table 2 List of Issues Identified

8
4.2. Issues identified explained with recommendations
Table 3 below gives detailed descriptions of issues which were
found including their recommendations on how to fix them.
Table 3 Descriptions of Issues and Recommendations

9

10

11

12
4.3. Analysis of Card Sorting Results
Table 4 below shows the results of the card sorting. The results,
according to (Shanshan, 2010), were analyzed in Microsoft excel
using similarity matrix and the percentages represent the number
of participates who sorted the card in that particular group.
As shown in table 4, an open card sorting identified 8 groups.
Different participates came up with several names for the group;
for example, some participates name the Study group as Admission
and the Collaborate group as Participate. When a closed card
sorting was later performed, all current website group names were
maintained as participates observed that they were synonymous
with group names they previously suggested.
Furthermore, all the items under Why BU? were either put under
Study or About groups. Furthermore, the My Hub link was put
under Student. Thus, these items were removed from the
homepage main menu.
Participates suggested that all items sorted under study, admission
should be prioritized on the homepage as they contain useful
information to support the site primary objective.
13

Table 3 Analysis of Card Sorting Results
14

15
5.0. Revised site map
Figure 1 below shows the revised site map for the BU website. The sitemap has been revised to reflect the results of
card sorting. The items in gray represent the links which will form the main menu. The homepage will also have a
smaller menu with student, staff, and Alumni as shown:

16
BU website Revised Sitemap
Figure 1 BU revised Website Sitemap
17
6.0. High Fidelity Designs
6.1. Homepage
Figure 2 below shows a revised homepage. Notice that the Why BU
and My Hub are removed from the top menu. Further to that, the
middle search box has been removed.
Figure 2 Revised Homepage
6.2. Study page
Figure 3 below is the revised Study page. Notice breadcrumbs have
been added and also Postgraduate Research item has been replaced
with Our Faculties as per the results of card sorting.
Figure 3 Revised Study page
18
6.3. Search Result Page
A revised search page is shown in figure 4 below. Notice the
navigation is still retained unlike as it is the case now.
Figure 4 Revised search page
6.4. Staff Page
Figure 5 below is a staff page which has been designed to be under
Staff link on the homepage.
Figure 5 Revised staff page
19
7.0. Conclusion
This report has highlighted key usability issues and provided
recommendations after a detailed usability evaluation on BU website.
Most of the issues identified are to do with violation of common interface
design guidelines. Also, it was discovered that its information architecture
does not fully fit the users’ mental model. By implementing the
recommendations proposed in the report, these issues could be eliminated
and the website could deliver the best experience to its users.
It was further learned that some violations of common design guidelines
could be deliberate in order for the website to meet its business goals.
Also, a very attractive and cool design is not always effective for
university website as shown by (Sherwin, 2016). Every design has to be
constantly reviewed from time to time to ensure that it is always usercentred and provides best user experience. As (Nielsen, 2012) work
shows, users simply leave when the website is not user-friendly and does
not provide the best experience they expected.
8.0. References
Nielsen, J., 1995. 10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design.
[Online]
Available at: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/
[Accessed 07 04 2017].

[Accessed 14 04 2017].

introduction-to-usability/
[Accessed 05 04 2017].
Nielsen, J., 2014. Card Sorting: How Many Users to Test. [Online]
Available at: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/card-sorting-how-manyusers-to-test/
[Accessed 07 04 2017].
Nielsen, J., 2014. Card Sorting: How Many Users to Test. [Online]
Available at: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/card-sorting-how-manyusers-to-test/
[Accessed 05 05 2017].
20
Shanshan, M., 2010. Dancing with the Cards: Quick-and-Dirty Analysis of
Card-Sorting Data. [Online]
Available at: http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2010/09/dancingwith-the-cards-quick-and-dirty-analysis-of-card-sortingdata.php#comments
[Accessed 05 05 2017].
Sharp, H., Yvonne, R. & Jenny, P., 2002. Interaction Design: Beyond
Human -Computer Interaction. s.l.:John Wiley & Sons, Inc. .
Sherwin, K., 2016. University Websites: Top 10 Design Guidelines.
[Online]
Available at: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/university-sites/
[Accessed 19 05 2017].
usability.gov, n.d. How To & Tools -Card Sorting. [Online]
Available at: https://www.usability.gov/how-to-and-tools/methods/cardsorting.html
[Accessed 07 04 2017].
9.0. Appendix
9.1. Jakob Nielsen 10 Heuristics
The following are the ten heuristics as proposed by (Nielsen, 1995):
1. Visibility of System Status
2. Match Between the System and the Real World
3. User Control and Freedom
4. Consistency and Standards
5. Error Prevention
6. Recognition Rather than Recall
7. Flexibility and Ease of Use
8. Aesthetic and Minimalist Design
9. Help Users Recognise, Diagnose, and Recover from Errors
10.Help and Documentation
21
9.2. Severity Rating
The following table 4 below shows severity rating as proposed by
(Nielsen, 1995)
9.3. Ease of Fix
Table 5 below shows ease of fix rating as proposed by (Olson,
2004):

The post Website Usability Evaluation Report appeared first on My Assignment Online.

Expert Help With This Assignment — On Your Terms