Website Analysis - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

Website Analysis

Description:

Patient Drug Information Analysis on www.depnet.com.au. By Marianne Gayed 0019310 ... range of information that would be sure to answer any patient's drug query, all ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:24
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 41
Provided by: Gay6
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Website Analysis


1
Website Analysis
  • Patient Drug Information Analysis on
    www.depnet.com.au
  • By Marianne Gayed 0019310

2
FIRST IMPRESSIONS
  • 1. Is the user able to quickly determine the
    basic content of the site?

2. User is able to determine the intended
audience of the site?
3
First impressions.
  • The homepage is clearly laid out as can be seen
    below

4
First impressions
  • The user quickly realises that the website is
    divided into the five different categories shown
    by the 5 different icons at the top of the page,
    and thereby alerts the user to the range of
    content this site supplies. There are specific
    headings for different types of users (relatives
    vs. patients themselves), which alerts the user
    to the different types of audience this website
    provides information for.

5
RELIABILITY
  • 3. Are the aims clear?

4. Does it achieve its aims?
6
RELIABILITY
  • 5. Is the information evidence based?

6. Does the website provide good coverage of
information?
7
RELIABILITY
  • 7. Is the information relevant?

8
Reliability
  • There are specific aims listed under each of the
    5 main icons on the top of the homepage, and
    these are links to pages which succinctly discuss
    these aims to the user. They are set out clearly,
    under several sub-headings, making it easy to
    read. The information does not seem to be
    evidence-based, although seemingly quite
    reliable, which is a major downfall of the
    website. It provides a range of information that
    would be sure to answer any patients drug query,
    all of it being quite relevant to the topic at
    hand.

9
AUTHORITY
  • 8. Is it clear who is responsible for the
    contents of the page?

9. Is it clear who wrote the material and are the
author's qualifications for writing on this topic
clearly stated?
10
Authority
  • While it is clearly stated that the website was
    written by the Lundbeck Institute, and any
    questions should be directed accordingly, the
    site does not acknowledge individual authors or
    their qualifications. In fact there is a
    disclaimer included on all of the information
    provided by the site.

11
INFORMATION VALUE
  • 10. Does it provide a good description of the
    condition or treatment protocol?

11. Does it outline criteria for diagnosis of
condition or criteria for appropriate
prescription of treatment?
12
INFORMATION VALUE
  • 12. Does it describe how each treatment works?

13. Does it describe the benefits of each
treatment?
13
INFORMATION VALUE
  • 14. Does it describe alternative treatments, or
    other diagnoses possible?

15. Does is detail the typical prognoses of
condition, associated risks treatment risks?
14
INFORMATION VALUE
  • 16. Are there any inaccurate or misleading
    descriptions, recommendations?

17. Does it provide contacts for questions,
support groups, or more information?
15
Information value
  • While this website gives comprehensive
    information about depression, it fails to mention
    criteria for diagnosis of depression. This could
    be due to the fact that the information on this
    site is aimed at patients and their relatives,
    and not health care professionals.
  • This website provides excellent information
    about all the different therapies available on
    the market, from non-pharmacological to
    pharmacological and many of the risks and side
    effects associated with all these different types
    of treatments.

16
Information value cntd
  • Even so, while the website goes into such detail
    on these matters, it fails to mention the
    benefits of certain therapies over one another,
    or the aims and treatment goals of antidepressant
    therapy in general.
  • The website is very careful not to make
    recommendations the main one is to seek medical
    advice if more information is needed. Several
    contact details to answer any queries are also
    included for the readers convenience.

17
ACCURACY
  • 18. Are the sources for any factual information
    clearly listed so they can be verified in another
    source?

19. Is the information free of grammatical,
spelling, and typographical errors?
18
ACCURACY
  • 20. Is it clear who has the ultimate
    responsibility for the accuracy of the content of
    the material?

21. If there are charts and/or graphs containing
statistical data, are the charts and/or graphs
clearly labeled and easy to read?
19
Accuracy
  • While there is a link for books and other
    sources about depression, there are no references
    listed throughout the website that could verify
    any information provided.
  • The information however is clearly understood
    and free of any typographical errors. It is not
    clear which author(s) (and what qualifications
    they possess) are responsible for the information
    provided, as only the corporation responsible was
    sited, accompanying a disclaimer.

20
CURRENCY
  • 22. Are there dates on the page to indicate when
    the page was written, first placed on the Web,
    and when it was last revised?

23. If material is presented in graphs and/or
charts, is it clearly stated when the data was
gathered?
21
Currency
  • No information about when the page was written,
    last revised, or first posted on the web is
    available. The only dates that are present are
    those that accompany relevant articles on
    depression posted on the website. Besides these
    dates, the amount of dates accompanying drug
    information on this website was found to be
    lacking.

22
PRESENTATION
  • 24. Is the information clearly communicated?

25. Is information summarised and/or
bullet-pointed ?
23
PRESENTATION
  • 26. Were the lines of type clearly spaced?

27. Are unrelated sections clearly separated?
24
PRESENTATION
  • 28. Are diagrams and images labeled and do they
    relate to the subject matter?

29. Is there a single style of design and layout
maintained throughout?
25
Presentation
  • Because this is a site designed to provide
    information to patients, the information is set
    out in an easy-to-read layout. A few main points
    are summarised and bulleted, and a few of these
    are also hyper- linked to pages that provide more
    comprehensive details about these main points.
    Even though this is the case, there is a lot of
    extra information provided that could perhaps be
    simplified for the readers of this website.

26
Presentation
  • The lines of type are clearly spaced, with more
    spaces separating different concepts and ideas
    presented to the reader. While the website had
    several pictures to complement the layout, none
    of these diagrams or images related to the
    subject matter directly. Most images were
    artistic or abstract photographs that did manage
    to complement the website nicely, even though it
    was irrelevant to subject matter.

27
Presentation
  • What was quite effective about this website was
    that it managed to maintain a single style of
    layout all throughout the site, which gives the
    reader a sense of order and a feeling of
    reliability as the information is presented
    succinctly and flows logically, from one point to
    another, throughout the website.

28
APPEARANCE OF TEXT
  • 30. Was 12pt font or larger used?(Recommended
    that no less than 10 pt font is used for the main
    body of text)

31. Was a dark typeface on a pale background
used?
29
APPEARANCE OF TEXT
  • 32. Was bold used for emphasis only?

33. Were italics not used for long passages?
30
APPEARANCE OF TEXT
  • 34. Was underlining avoided ?

35. Was UPPER CASE used sparingly ?
31
Appearance of text
  • The website could also be improved by increasing
    the font size of the text used. The authors of
    the website used a font size of 7.5 for the main
    body of text, which is much smaller than the
    recommended font size of 10 or above. The
    appearance of the text however was quite good, as
    a dark typeface was used on a pale background
    making the text, which was rather small, easy to
    read at all times. The authors reserved the bold
    and italics typeface for appropriate titles and
    phrases, as well as using upper case quite
    sparingly, if at all. Underlying was used only to
    indicate hyperlinks to related topics.

32
CONTENT
  • 36. Was jargon avoided ?

37. Were acronyms, abbreviations and specialist
terms explained (eg in a glossary)?
33
CONTENT
  • 38. Is the information balanced and unbiased?

34
Content
  • As the information on this website is directed
    to patients and relatives of patients, it is
    important that they are able to comprehend
    unbiased information, that is easy to understand.
    It was impossible not to mention medical terms
    and related jargon on this website, however, most
    of the time these terms were explained. A
    glossary was included as well, however, it was
    not a very comprehensive list and most of the
    terms were different types of medical disorders,
    and not specific terms relevant to the subject
    matter.

35
FURTHER INFORMATION
  • 39. Are there links to other sites that are
    relevant to the users needs/ purposes?

40. Are the links to other sites current and
working properly ?
36
Further Information
  • A very impressive aspect of this website are the
    number of links included for the users personal
    use. These links are all very relevant and
    address the subject at hand, as well as being
    up-to-date and working properly. There is however
    a disclaimer included on the content of the links
    by the Lundbeck Institute.

37
OVERALL RATING OF THE PUBLICATION
  • Total score 151/200 (Very good!)
  • 41. Based on the answers to all of the above
    questions, rate the overall quality of the
    publication as a source of information about
    treatment choices

38
Comment on the overall rating
  • www.depnet.com.au is a site that provides the
    patient with very relevant drug information in an
    easy-to-read and concise manner. It is displayed
    in an logical and ordered layout, which makes it
    very user friendly when searching for specific
    drug information. It includes several links to
    relevant sites, as well as many hyperlinks that
    provide the user with further comprehensive
    information if desired.

39
Comment on the overall rating
  • This website has a few downfalls. These include
    a lack of references, as it fails to mention any
    of these or any specific authors, or their
    qualifications, that helped compile the
    information. Doubtfulness of the reliability of
    the information may arise as a result.

40
Comment on the overall rating
  • There also seems to be a lack of relevant graphs
    and images, both of which could be used as as
    visual aids to implement the learning process.
    The font size could also be increased, which
    would help improve the appearance of the website
    thus improving the users opinion of this
    website overall.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com