NHLBI Web site Redesign USABILITY TEST RESULTS

1
NIH NLM Senior Health Website and Prototypes
Usability Test Findings

• American Institutes for Research
• July 2005
• Project Team
• Chris Hass
• Jack Carroll
• John Dozier

2
Introduction

• American Institutes for Research (AIR) conducted
  a lab-based usability study of the Senior Health
  website and two prototypes that illustrated
  alternate homepages

3
Study Goals

• To evaluate the navigation, ease-of-use, and
  conceptual clarity of the website with its
  primary audience.
• To identify the usability strengths and
  weaknesses of the website and two prototype
  websites.
• The study took place in May, 2005 at the AIR
  evaluation facility in Concord, MA.

4
Participants

• We recruited 16 senior citizens for this study
• 63 - 82
• 7 Males, 9 Females
• All participants were intermediate or advanced
  Web users.
• Each participant used the Internet at least once
  per day.

5
Lab Setup
6
(No Transcript)
7
Testing Process

• Sixteen individual sessions
• Each session lasted 1.5 hours
• Participants interviewed about their Web use
• Asked to complete core tasks
• Observed their interactions with the website and
  prototypes
• Asked summative questions about their experiences
• Counterbalanced website, prototype A, prototype B

8
Sample Tasks

• A friend mentions to you that she was able to get
  the website to read to her. How would you get the
  website to read to you?
• Youre interested in locating information about
  habits that might lead someone to develop
  lung-cancer. Using the website, locate this
  information.
• A friend who lives in Oregon calls you to say
  that she is being featured on this website as an
  example of the benefits of physical activity.
  Using this website, how would you locate her
  information?

9
Findings

• Participants were largely very positive about the
  website
• They stated it contained information they found
  relevant, that they needed/would look for, and
  that they wanted to learn more about.
• Participants were largely able to complete tasks.
• They stated that they would return, and would
  tell friends and family about the website
• However, there were suggestions for improvement

10
Key Findings

• The websites nomenclature and implementation of
  the accessibility options did not support ease of
  use
• The websites information architecture and
  navigation schemes could be more logical and
  user-friendly.
• In particular, grouping topics by category, and
  labeling them as such may significantly enhance
  the user experience.

11
Findings

• They understood the website was for seniors
• The purpose, scope, and ownership unclear
• Splash page obscured serious information by
  delaying entry to site, could be merged with a
  homepage
• Unsure if NIH was sponsor
• Unsure what NIH meant
• Liked people photos, wanted medical photos

12
Current Website
13
Prototype A(50 Links)
14
Prototype B(10 Links)
15
Current Website v. Prototypes A B

• No one iteration was more successful than the
  others
• None was entirely satisfactory
• Elements of both prototypes were deemed
  attractive
• Both prototypes deemed more attractive and easy
  to use than current website

16
Prototype A 50 Links on One Page

• Most participants preferred the functionality of
  this prototype
• Seeing all possible links helped them
• Ease of use a valuable website asset
• However, page deemed ugly and like an index
• Expanding topic list leads to confusion

17
Prototype B 10 Links to a Page

• Participants found this prototype aesthetically
  pleasing
• Participants deemed this prototype easy
• A significant minority preferred this prototype
• However, it was deemed time consuming
• Because users arent able to predict the content
  the website contains, or the terminology that
  will be used, this format presents significant
  usability issues

18
Integrating the Best of All Options

• Grouping and sub-grouping topics into categories
  is a critical need
• e.g., Diseases, staying healthy, elder care, etc.
• Develop a short main menu page that presents
  top-level categories in a summary manner similar
  to Prototype B, but all on one page, as in
  Prototype A

19
Accessibility Task Bar Findings

• Participants had trouble finding the
  Accessibility Task Bar
• They stated it blended into the browser
  toolbars
• Reactions were mixed
• Majority of participants stated features useful
  for people with a specific disability, but not
  me.
• The callout box introducing the speech option
  only mentioned one of three features
• This feature might be more profitably
  incorporated into navigation bars or callout
  features.

20
Text Size

• Most successful of the three accessibility
  features
• Participants understood and liked this feature
• Participants found it straightforward to use
• Participants deemed it useful

21
Contrast

• Participants were confused by the term contrast
• Participants stated that they didnt like the
  features effect
• However, none of the participants were current
  users of similar features
• Website graphics, particularly those used to
  represent text, excluded from this feature
• Website graphics should be converted to text

22
Speech

• Participants expected that activating this
  feature would initiate an orienting speech event
  or would read the whole page
• Participants felt forced to explore with the
  mouse to understand the speech feature
• Lack of orientation and guidance to this feature
  caused confusion among participants
• The Main Menu-page instructions were insufficient
  to orient users to this feature

23
Website Content

• While generally pleased, participants thought the
  information was very general and expected
  more
• Prepare for doctor visits, research conditions
• Participants wanted more content per page
• Participants wanted overview content followed by
  in-depth content
• Awards Recognition self-serving
• How do exercise stories relate to readers?

24
Key Recommendations

• Developing intuitive categories to organize
  topics into is critical
• Participants themselves were unsure what
  categorization rules would be most effective
• A systematic approach to understanding user
  categorization preferences, either through
  existing data or empirical study is likely to be
  highly effective

25
Accessibility Bar Recommendations

• Make it easier to find, understand and use
• Provide easily locatable text to describe each
  feature
• Clearly indicate to users how to control Speech
• Convert all site graphics of text to actual text

26
Content Recommendations

• Use a whole-list approach to organizing content
  (50 v. 10)
• Group topics by subject
• Provide brief subject annotations to help users
  predict content
• Ideally, conduct a categorization study to ensure
  the categories are user-appropriate and intuitive
• On content pages, consider including more content
  per page
• Label pages clearly so users can predict content

27
Content Recommendations

• Consider merging the splash page and the Main
  Menu page
• Reduce index-like appearance
• Orient visitors to the ownership and scope of
  website with brief statement of
  purpose/introductory information
• Provide clear navigational cues
• Consider the addition of a search engine,
  cross-referencing, glossary

28
Content Recommendations

• Consider ways to make it easier to find and use
  the Exercise Stories
• Provide value proposition statements that
  indicate what benefit a given set of information
  might provide
• Ensure that the information contained within
  specific topics (e.g., lung cancer) is
  substantive enough to provide value to a majority
  of visitors

29
Discussion / Video
30
Project Outcomes

• A findings report
• Companion highlight video
• This presentation

31
Thank you!For more information,
contactAmerican Institutes for Research490
Virginia RoadConcord, MA 01742(978)
371-8334chass_at_air.org