U1055939
2512 words
Lawrence Tsuro
Usability Engineering Individual course work
U1055939
U1055939
2512 words
Table of Contents
Lawrence Tsuro..................................................................1 Usability Engineering Individual course work........................1 U1055939........................................................................... 1 Table of Contents...............................................................2 [Link]....................................................................5 [Link] an evaluation protocol......................................5 [Link] and Recommendation Loughborough University.....6 [Link] Testing on University of Birmingham.................11 [Link] for choosing usability testing ............................12 [Link] problems.........................................................12 [Link].....................................................................15 [Link]...................................................................17 [Link] gathering.................................................17 [Link] Analyses................................................................18 [Link]........................................................................... 19 [Link].....................................................................21 [Link] Enhancements...................................................22 [Link]....................................................................23 [Link] Part 1.............................................................24 [Link] Tasks Results................................................24 [Link] Analysis Of Usability tasks......................................26 [Link] Usability testing Questioner.....................................27 [Link] Analysis of the Questioners....................................29 [Link] Part 2.............................................................30
[Link]: Completed by Participant 1 to evaluate mobile website. ................................................................................30 [Link]: Completed by Participant 2 to evaluate mobile website. ................................................................................31 [Link] analysis of the questioner.............................................32 [Link] Tasks Results......................................................33 [Link] for Choosing Heuristics Evaluation............................5
U1055939
2512 words
U1055939
2512 words
Part 1
U1055939
2512 words
1. Introduction
I will carry out an evaluation on two websites using the procedures mentioned below and supporting documents are located in the appendix.
1. Designing an evaluation protocol
To evaluate the websites I will use Heuristic evaluation, which is a usability inspection method that was developed by Jacob Nielsen according to Sharp, Rogers and Preece (2007). To investigate further, I will also use Usability testing which involves measuring users performance and satisfaction on typical tasks in laboratory conditions according to Sharp, Rogers and Preece (2007). a. Reasons for Choosing Heuristics Evaluation According to Sharp, Rogers and Preece (2011), heuristic evaluation is less time consuming and cheaper compared to other evaluation methods. This is because there are no participants involved, which also means that there are zero chances of violating ethical issues. I used Nielsens (1994) heuristics for guidelines to evaluate the website and the steps taken were:
Inspecting web interface and its function more than four times due to my limited knowledge as a usability consultant. I focused on different sections of the website indicated in figure.1 and complemented them with heuristics guidelines
Index page. Metaphors icons and symbols Menu and navigation. Interaction design and types. Structural layout. Hyperlinks and Communication. Content layout Accessibility for disabled people. Search tools or technology. Colour and text appearance. Figure.1: Sections focused on when evaluating the
5
U1055939
2512 words
website.
All inconsistencies and usability problems discovered were recorded on a table against each heuristic as shown in figure.2. Severity rating was used to check the problems frequency, persistence and impact on the website used by Nielsen (1994). Screen shorts were also recorded to indicate usability problems. Recommendations were given after each usability problem extracted. There was no time factor set to evaluate the two websites, however professional consultants, do work under a time schedule.
Evaluation Heuristics Visibility of system status Match between system and the real world User control and freedom Consistency and standards Error prevention Recognition rather than recall Flexibility and efficiency of use Aesthetic and minimalist design Help user recognise, diagnose and recover from errors Help and documentation Loughboroug Birmingham h University University Problems Found 0 0 0 1 4 1 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0
ID
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [1 0]
1
4 1 1
Figure.2: Usability problems discovered on each Nielsens heuristics.
[Link] and Recommendation Loughborough University
Figure.3 indicates cluttered information with long and unclearly spaced sentences about news of the students who have recently been graduated.
U1055939
2512 words
[Recommendation:1] Even spacing and ordering by using numbers or bullets points will make it easier to perceive and identify information searched for and according to Sharp, Rogers and Preece (2007), which would give the website a good structure.
Figure.3 Cluttered information of graduates. Unrecognisable main navigation links that are located on top of the banner with an inadequate colour contrast between the darker shade of purple font and the light purple background. This is similar within all the pages of the website but more significant on the home page as indicated on Figure.4. [Recommendation:2] Situate the banner and navigation sections separately, possibly with standard, suitable dark coloured font and light coloured background to make the website accessible to colour blind people. Aligning the main navigation horizontal will utilise all that right space and reduce page height, which would reduce vertical scrolling of the page. Referring again to figure.4, to search for items in the website does not immediately offer a textbox but it is a link that takes the user to a non-functioning Google search engine. The search tools are only located in the home page as a link and not implemented in the rest of the website.
7
U1055939
2512 words
[Recommendation:3] A named search text box would be recognisable by the user rather than spending more time attempting to locate it. Text boxes are a popular technique to recognise than to recall. Textboxes are common interface objects used by popular search engines such as Google, yahoo and even desktop applications use them too. Therefore most users would be expecting them when it involves to searching for something. Providing a text box in this situation would reduce memory load of the user attempting follow a procedure to get to the search engine and then attempting again to search for the required results.
Figure.4: Emphasis on colour contrast and navigational structure. The term Information for in Figure.5 has been used inappropriately in this situation. Both current student and staff are links on the same section with the news which is not a link. On that section the term used would sound as (information for:current student|current staff|news). [Recommendation:4] Standard link colours should be used to mark a difference between hyperlinks and non-hyperlinks. Still focusing on Figure.5, according to Nielsen (1998), out dated information has to be avoided because it creates
8
U1055939
2512 words
poor impression with the users. They are quite a few of cluttered chunks of information that still date back to the year [Link] news is made of a section that is located on the right side and occupies approximately 40% width and 80% height of the page. The middle section is left with unedited white space when scrolling the page vertically. [Recommendation:5] Use of different medias with the users full functional controls such as play and pause buttons. A possible example would be slide show images for the news to replace text in order for the user to perceive and locate news information of their choice. Simply to keep up and update the page with latest information that would be interesting and attractive to gain the users attention.
Figure.5: Emphasis on the News not being a link. Dead links such as the TOP to scroll up and Click Here hyperlink that causes the browser to give an error message because it is unable to connect. There are no back buttons or any source of recovery on the website when dead pages are accessed. Shown in figure5&6. [Recommendation:6] Check the website against link checker tool such as the W3C Linker otherwise dead links cause distrust of information quality.
U1055939
2512 words
Figure.6: Indicates dead and deceptive link. Figure.6 indicates a deceptive hyperlink were it states Webmaster: Christine Bagley. It is not specific whether this is a link that would take the user to Christine Bagley personal web page or her contact details. What it does it takes the user to the systems email client with out informing them. [Recommendation:7] Use icon metaphors such as a telephone or mail envelopes and symbol of an email to notify the user of the intention of the hyperlink and its meaning. All of the website pages do not have a site map which may assist the user when ever they have navigation difficulties. [Recommendation:8] Provide a sitemap which gives a brief description of the links in the whole website and allows users to master their way around the website according to Sharp, Rogers and Preece (2007). Figure.7 indicates a client that requires user to login as a current student. It does not distinguish between an error and information message and the blue question mark symbol remains the same when incorrect information is entered. A question mark symbol is often used for help situations but in this here it does not do anything. If the user clicks cancel, they cannot escape from the popup because it takes them to a page that confirms authentication has been unsuccessful. [Recommendation:9] Good use of the graphical symbols such as an error message of a red X and an informative exclamation mark
10
U1055939
2512 words
will make users recognise and understand the meaning of the of what is required of them. Password recovery or help button would be useful to prevent users being logged out for failing to provide correct details within a certain number of times. Plain message would be helpful to describe the nature of the problem and suggestions of how to solve it according to Sharp, Rogers and Preece (2007).
Figure.7: Error Reporting, Diagnosis, and Recovery [Recommendation:10] It is difficult to try and remember pages that have been previously visited which could be frustrating for the user. I would recommend back and forward buttons that would allow the user to retrace their steps back and forth amongst visited pages until they recognize the content they want.
Figure7.a: indicates incomplete wording and inconsistency which may cause users suspicion of the website being professional.
[Link] Testing on University of Birmingham.
The procedure to carry out the evaluation was adapted from my second presentation and the following steps were
11
U1055939
2512 words
taken: Data collection techniques were observations and an end test questioner to extract usability and accessibility problems from the participants. Simulated laboratory condition to carry out the experiment. Two non-UEL and diversified participants volunteered to carry out tasks against time. Two computers and timers were used. Video recorder was set to focus on the users activities. Data gathered was analysed and interpreted to find out major usability problems. Read appendix for the tests.
4. Reasons for choosing usability testing
When using Heuristics evaluation on University of Birmingham. I extracted insignificant number (3) of usability problems due to evaluating by myself and according to Sharp, Rogers and Preece (2011); state that approximately an increase of 5 evaluators increases the proportion of usability problems discovered by 25%. Usability testing became an alternative that would involve users and obtain evidence of usability issues through completing timed tasks.
5. Usability problems.
Inadequate colour contrast between a darker shade grey of the font and slightly lighter shade of grey on the background. Participant: 1 mentioned difficulties of identifying any content on the following left-navigation and footer section indicated on Figure.8&9. [Recommendation:2] : applies here. Allowing users to manipulate color scheme will improve readability. Video recordings indicated that participants did not click the doted lined search area, shown on figure.8. [Recommendation:3] : applies here.
12
U1055939
2512 words
Insufficient media control settings to stop and play, even though participants could forward and rewind the slide show images. [Recommendation:11] I would recommend a stop and play button should be included to provide more interactivity and control. Control of slide shows speed would allow information to be easily perceptible. That is also suitable for photosensitive epilepsy users. Complex cascading menu, which is inaccessible when using tab key and storyline horizontal navigation used less than 30% compared to the vertical navigation on the left section of the pages as indicated in Figure.8. Different media previewed on a cascading menu and immediately abandoned by participants. No clicks to links were video recorded. [Recommendation:12] Well-coded and Accessible single text based drop down menu that would accept tab key navigating and a finding by Shneiderman (1998) state that a simple looking menu is usable compared to more complex menu structures. Task 2 indicated difficulty by participants to locate services because there it is labelled differently in different parts of the websites. Figures.9&10 as Our Service and Professional Services on the menu and Services and Facilities on the footer. This indicates variation of a similar term for a novice or dyslexic users. [Recommendation:13] Use the wording Services once and have different types services as subsections to allow easy recognition by the user. Participants attempted task 4.a by clicking on the slide show, to get current news, which is inconsistent right through the site. This is because the slide show images are not links in other pages.
13
U1055939
2512 words
[Recommendation:14] Standardise slide show images as either links or non-links right through the website to avoid confusing and frustrating the user.
Figure.8: Indicating inadequate colour contrast and media control.
Figure.9: Indicating inadequate colour contrast.
14
U1055939
2512 words
Figure 10: Cascading navigation menu
6. Conclusion
Different evaluation methods work differently in different scenarios. This is noticed through to the failure of finding a small number of usability issues on the Birmingham University through using heuristics evaluation, which led to an alternative evaluation method. Complimenting evaluation methods would be a good practice to evaluate the website all round by involving users and expert consultants.
15
U1055939
2512 words
Part 2
16
U1055939
2512 words
1. Introduction
After carrying out usability evaluation on Loughborough University, I have designed a usable and accessible website that is cross platform and browser compatible on a mobile and tablet device. The prototype will signify a correct application of usability and accessibility principles, guidelines and standards which the original website did not have initially.
2. Requirements gathering
Volere Requirements Specification Template adapted from Robertson and Robertson (1999) version6.1 was used. A questioner was handed out to extract general information about the users experience with mobile websites.
Requirement Number Requirement type Description Rationale Source Fit Criterion
1 9 Prospective students should be able to locate either post or undergraduate course list. Users should be able to locate required information. Prospective students 80% of the users should locate the required information within 5minutes of their first attempt. 3 2
Copyright Atlantic Systems Guild
User Satisfaction User Dissatisfaction
Volere
Figure 2.1: Functional requirement. Requirement Number Event /Use case Number
17
U1055939 Requirement type Description Rationale Source Fit Criterion User Satisfaction User Dissatisfaction History
2512 words
11 The University website should be easy to learn. Users should recognize the website rather than recall. Student and staff members 90% of the users should be to use the website without training less than 5 minutes. 4 0 Volere
Copyright Atlantic Systems Guild
Figure 2.2: Non-functional requirement. Requirement Number Requirement type Description Rationale Source Fit Criterion Customer Satisfaction Customer Dissatisfaction
3 12 The website should be cross browser and platform compatible. Users should access the website with out affecting its structure and layout. Student and staff members Website should work in 75% popular browsers and 5 / 6 popular device platforms of the users. 3 2
Copyright Atlantic Systems Guild
Volere
Figure 2.3: Non-functional requirement.
3. Task Analyses.
I implemented Hierarchical Task Analysis which indicates tasks supported by a website according to Sharp, Rogers and Preece (2007). For a current or prospective student to search for any
18
U1055939
2512 words
academic degree or information on the mobile website, possible steps are indicated on figure figure.4.1.
Figure 3.1: HTA of mobile website. Plan 1: New users do: 1-2-3 Current users do: 2-3 Plan 2: New users do: 1.1-2-3
4. Design
a
Univesity Logo Home page
key words
S e a rc h
b
Univesity Logo Page Title
key words
Back
S e a rc h
S u b - h e a d in g
L is t e le m e n t
S u b -h e a d in g
List element
S u b - h e a d in g
Adjustable
< P a g e C o n te n t>
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
L is t e le m e n t
S u b - h e a d in g
L is t e le m e n t
Copyrights | Site-map | Top
S u b - h e a d in g
List element
Copyrights | Site-map | Top
Adjustable
19
U1055939
2512 words
Figure.4.1. Paper based prototype mobile or tablet website.
The website adapts to the screen resolution of either a table or mobile device without affecting the interface layout and structure. This also applies to whether the device is in a landscape or portrait position.
Figure.4.2. Home Page.
20
U1055939
2512 words
Figure.4.3: Content Layout.
5. Evaluation
Usability testing and end test questioner were used to evaluate the website. There where 0% usability and accessibility issues identified by the participants from the tasks completed. The website code validated with 0% errors on the W3C tool (2012) against CSS3 and HTML5. The site was also checked against W3C mobile Checker (2012) tool. Results were inconclusive because the tool does not validate HTML versions other than XHTML.
21
U1055939
2512 words
6. Further Enhancements
I attempted to apply assistive web technologies such as colour contrast and texts resize options. Have the navigation as a popup menu on the tablet device. Due to limited java script knowledge, I could not manage to implement that on the website.
22
U1055939
2512 words
7. References
Nielsen, J. and Mack, R.L. (1994) Usability Inspection Methods. John Wiley and Sons. Reif, V. (2011) Usability and user experience of an online service. Unpublished Bachelors thesis. Oulu University of Applied Sciences Business Information Technology. Sharp, H., Rogers, Y. and Preece, Y. (2007) Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. 2nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons. Sharp, H., Rogers, Y. and Preece, Y. (2011) Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. 3rd Edition. John Wiley and Sons. Sheiderman, B. (1998) Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human-computer interaction. 3 rd Edition. Addison-Wesley. Sheiderman, B. (2010) Designing the user interfaces: strategies for effective human-computer interaction. London: Addison-Wesley. Robertson, S. and Robertson (1999) Mastering the Requirements Process. Addison-Wesley. W3C (2012) Mobile Checker (Version1.4.2)[Online Validator Tool]. Available at: [Link] (Accessed 21 April 2012). Reif, V. (2011) Usability and user experience of an online service. Unpublished Bachelors thesis. Oulu University of Applied Sciences Business Information Technology.
23
U1055939
2512 words
8. Appendix Part 1
NB: Some of the questioner questions were adapted from Sharp, Rogers and Preece (2007) book including techniques of data gathering.
a. Structured
Tasks Results Template from HutchWorld evaluation case study used in Sharp, Rogers and Preece (2007) book. Participant number: 1 2 Average
Gender Age Extra Notes
FM 36
M 21 29
Participant 1:uses reading glasses. Good test for color contrast.
Structured Tasks
1. Task:
Explore the University website. (3-5minutes)
a. Open the website [Link] b. Familiarise yourself with website Time Taken 2 3 3
2. Task:
Identify different sections on the website. (6minutes) 1 1 1
a. Click on Study Here Link.
b. Click Services. c. Click Undergraduate degrees Link. d. Navigate to the Home Page.
4 2 2
3 2 2
4 2 2
24
U1055939
Time Taken
2512 words
3. Task:
Searching (6minutes) 3 3 3 4 2 3 4 3 3 3 4 4
a. Click search for Events b. Search for Latest news. c. Search for visit us on main navigation. Time Taken
4. Task:
Get information. (6minutes) 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3
1. Check for latest news. 2. Look for Campus life 3. View campuses Time Taken
5. Task:
Communication (4minutes) 2 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 2 2 2
a. Find a link to send email. Please do not send. b. Find University contact number. Time Taken Average Time Taken/ 30minutes
Participant Average: Difficulty level 1-easy, 2-ok, 3-difficult, and 4-needed help.
Table 8.1: indicates data gathered from structured tasks.
25
U1055939
2512 words
b. Data
Analysis Of Usability tasks
Key: 1-easy, 2-ok, 3-difficult, and 4-needed help. Graph 8.2: Indicates average difficulty results of the two participants when completing the twelve tasks
26
U1055939
2512 words
c. End
I.
Usability testing Questioner. Questioner: Completed by Participant 1
Complete the question by and circling or underlying the answer you have chosen. Participant Name: Jenny 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
Please take a few minutes to complete post-test questioner. 1. Was the website easy to use? [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] [Link] 2. Was the navigation easy to use? [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] [Link]
[Link] Disagree [Link] Disagree
3. Was the Color contrast adequate enough to enable you to explore the website? [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] Disagree 4. Were terms and symbols used clearly? [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] 5. Was information easy to locate? [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] Disagree [Link] Disagree
6. Did you have control over the media e.g. videos and slide shows [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] Disagree 7. Will you visit the website ever again? [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] Disagree
8. I can easily recognize the pages that I have previously visited. [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] Disagree 9. It was enjoyable exploring the website. [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] Disagree
10. Was the content written understandable and professional [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] Disagree Please provide comments on your experience that has not been addressed above or that could be improved. Make the text black not grey. Separate the main navigation links clearly. I thought it was a University slogan not links. Website looks fine and simple. Similar to some websites that I use.
27
U1055939
2512 words
II.
Questioner: Completed by Participant 2.
Complete the question by circling or underlying the answer you have chosen. Participant Name: Mike Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Please take a few minutes to complete post-test questioner. 1. Was the website easy to use? [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] [Link] 2. Was the navigation easy to use? [Link] Agree [Link] [Link]
[Link] Disagree
[Link]
[Link] Disagree
3. Was the Color contrast adequate enough to enable you to explore the website? [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] Disagree 4. Were terms and symbols used clearly? [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] 5. Was information easy to locate? [Link] Agree [Link] [Link]
[Link]
[Link] Disagree
[Link]
[Link] Disagree
6. Did you have control over the media e.g. videos and slide shows [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] Disagree 7. Will you visit the website ever again? [Link] Agree [Link] [Link]
[Link]
[Link] Disagree
8. I can easily recognize the pages that I have previously visited. [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] Disagree 9. It was enjoyable exploring the website. [Link] Agree [Link] [Link]
[Link]
[Link] Disagree
10. Was the content written understandable and professional [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] Disagree Please provide comments on your experience that has not been addressed above or that could be improved. No comments recorded. Participant did not realize this part behind the document.
28
U1055939
2512 words
d. Data
Analysis of the Questioners. 1 2 3 3 3 2 3 4 3 2 1 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 Averages 2 3 3 3 2 3 4 3 2 2
Participant Questions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Table 8.3: Data gathered from the questioner of the two participants.
Table 8.4: indicates user experience of the two participants on each individual question.
29
U1055939
2512 words
7. Appendix Part 2
a. Questioner: Completed by Participant 1 to evaluate mobile website.
Complete the question by circling or underlying the answer you have chosen. Participant Name: Kevin Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Please take a few minutes to complete post-test questioner. 1. Was the website easy to use? [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] Disagree 2. Was the navigation easy to use? [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] Disagree
[Link] [Link]
3. Was the Color contrast adequate enough to enable you to explore the website? [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] Disagree 4. Were terms and symbols used clearly? [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] Disagree 5. Was information easy to locate? [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] [Link] Disagree
[Link] [Link]
[Link]
6. Was the font size and images easily recognizable? [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] Disagree 7. Will you visit the website ever again? [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] [Link] Disagree
[Link]
8. I can easily recognize the pages that I have previously visited. [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] Disagree 9. It was enjoyable exploring the website. [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] [Link] Disagree 10.
[Link]
Was the content written understandable and professional
30
U1055939
2512 words
[Link] Agree [Link] [Link] Disagree
[Link]
[Link]
b. Questioner: Completed by Participant 2 to evaluate mobile website.
Complete the question by circling or underlying the answer you have chosen. Participant Name: Rachel Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Please take a few minutes to complete post-test questioner. 1. Was the website easy to use? [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] Disagree 2. Was the navigation easy to use? [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] [Link] Disagree
[Link]
3. Was the Color contrast adequate enough to enable you to explore the website? [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] Disagree 4. Were terms and symbols used clearly? [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] [Link] Disagree 5. Was information easy to locate? [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] [Link] Disagree
[Link]
[Link]
6. Was the font size and images easily recognizable? [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] Disagree 7. Will you visit the website ever again? [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] [Link] Disagree
[Link]
8. I can easily recognize the pages that I have previously visited. [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] Disagree 9. It was enjoyable exploring the website. [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] [Link] Disagree
[Link]
31
U1055939
2512 words
10. Was the content written understandable and professional [Link] Agree [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] Disagree
c. Data analysis of the questioner
Participant Questions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Kevin 2 1 1 2 2 2 5 2 Rachel 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Averages 2 2 2 2 2 2 4
8 2 2 2 9 2 2 2 10 2 2 2 Table 8.1: Questioner data gathered from the two participants.
Table 8.2: indicates user experience of the two participants on each individual question based on the questioner.
32
U1055939
2512 words
d. Structured Tasks Results
Template from HutchWorld evaluation case study used in Sharp, Rogers and Preece (2007) book. Participant number: Gender Structured Tasks 1 FM 2 M Average
6. Task:
Explore Mobile website. (3-5minutes) a. Familiarise yourself with website Time Taken 1 2 2
7. Task:
Identify different sections on the website. (5minutes) 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
a. Click on Location on Campus b. Click Site Map Time Taken
8. Task: Searching for degrees. (5minutes) a. Search for Latest news for Firat Batmaz
Time Taken
1 1
1 2
1 1
9. Task:
Control and navigation. (5minutes) a. Navigate to Postgraduate page. b. Return to home page. Time Taken
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 2
10.
Task: Communication (4minutes) c. Find a link to send email. Please do not send. d. Find General Office contact number. e. Time Taken Average Time Taken/ 24minutes Participant Average: Difficulty level
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1 1
2 1 1
1-easy, 2-ok, 3-difficult, and 4-needed help. Table 8.2: indicates data gathered from structured tasks.
33
