Jonathan Steffens, one of this year’s guest bloggers, sat this morning in the first session presented by Lori Packer from the University of Rochester: “These Kids Today: Testing Usability with parents and incoming students.” This is Jonathan’s first HighEdWebDev post.
Lori Packer of the University of Rochester, began HEWD with hat trick as committee organizers, conference social director (kicking off with geektastic IPOD War Social last night) and headlining the inaugural presentation for the Usability, Accessibility, & Design track at HEWD.
To paint you the picture, it is standing room only – higher ed professionals sit Indian style around the podium as there is not an empty seat in the house getting this conference off to an impressive start.
Use–a–BILL–IT-TY testing: (noun) any act that allows website creator(s) to observe real people as they use that website.
This is how Lori defines “Usability testing,” and then further delves into providing an outline on how your institution can use the basics to begin your own usability testing, whether you have your own usability lab or just a computer and a camera. She breaks it down as follows:
Observe
Live and in person (Interact and watch users first hand)
Over a webcam or video link (Record your study for research and study)
Record
Handycam on tripod (Over the shoulder technique)
Screen recording software (Camtasia, MORAE, even ISight)
Analyze
Identify the “duh†moment (we should really fix that)
“Is there anything fundamental in our structure or approach that people just aren’t gettingâ€
Card Sorts
Ask for user input on information architecture
Write topics on cards and ask people to sort them into related concepts/categories
Focus Groups
Ask for user input about needs, preferences and requirements
“What are you looking for in a websiteâ€
Feedback Surveys
Ask for user input on a new design or architecture
Lori then broke down her Usability Philosophy (greatly inspired by author and industry expert Steve Krug) that provides a code for developers to follow.
“Don’t make me think†(Making the design intuitive)
Testing need not be elaborate or expensive (Know your budget and limitations)
Simply observe real people using your site while asking what they’re thinking
Not trying to prove or disprove anything (eg. Flyout menus are bad). Instead, “Does this menu with these items work for this siteâ€
In the second part of the presentation, Lori demonstrates how she used these criteria in her Fall 2006 study of the current University of Rochester website in preparation for a later redesign and to identify quick usability (low hanging fruit as Lori puts it) that can be quickly fixed so that you have immediate feedback.
Here are some goals of that design:
More space for dynamic content
A more consistent navigational scheme that allows visitors to find information easily across all schools and divisions
Adoption of Web standards to conform with modern browsers aids withaccessibility for user w/ disabilities and prepare for compatibility for future devices
Previously (as many campuses currently do) UoR conducted usability tests with the primary audiences: current students, faculty, and University staff. With this new test they introduced two new audiences; visiting prospective students and parents of incoming freshmen. Lori provided insights on how her team went about conducting and wranglers users for this study:
Tests conducted during Orientation (bribe them w/ college merchandise)
10 participants from each group (get a healthy sample of participants)
Half of each group started at university, half at college or alternate landing page
Screen capture / microphone technology available
Each session: 30 minutes
Prepare web based tasks (15+)
Prepare questions to prompt feedback for user rationale
Based on this study, Lori was able to identify common archetypes in her users.
Searchers vs. Browse-then-searchers: Users often start off with the search button (so make sure you have one!) to find what they need, or conversely they hunt and peck around the navigation searching for what they need providing you with vital data on just how intuitive your site’s architecture is. Often when a browse fails, they feel frustrated when forced to use the search engine.
Readers vs. Scanning: The majority of users (especially students) are leaning to the latter focused on scanning the page quickly to determine relevance searching for the exact info they want, leaving more legacy users that will read the entire body.
Observations about parents: Parents want to know what is going on with their kid(s), and they want to know specifically. If you haven’t started to think about “helicopter parentsâ€, you should.
Observations about Students
Students are fast. They are faster than you.
Students see with their fingers as much as their eyes.
Students discovered more of a page’s links than their parents
Findings
Lori finished her presentation outlining the various next steps her team identified from the study – while specific to UoR take note so to make sure your site has these bases covered.
- The “duh†moment: No search on College page
- No student job listings on “Working†page
- Is there a standard University fact sheet?
- Maps hard to find
- Search results confusing
- Online calendar is visually unappealing and incomplete
- Graphic look changes dramatically from site to site (makes it hard to know when you’ve left)
.
