u1055939 Individual Report
-
Upload
lawry-enzo -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of u1055939 Individual Report
-
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
1/33
U1055939 2512 words
Lawrence Tsuro
Usability Engineering Individual course
work
U1055939
1
-
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
2/33
U1055939 2512 words
Table of Contents
Lawrence Tsuro..................................................................1Usability Engineering Individual course work........................1
U1055939...........................................................................1
Table of Contents...............................................................2
1.Introduction....................................................................5
1.Designing an evaluation protocol......................................5a.Reasons for Choosing Heuristics Evaluation............................5
2.Results and Recommendation Loughborough University.....6
3.Usability Testing on University of Birmingham.................11
4.Reasons for choosing usability testing ............................12
5.Usability problems.........................................................12
6.Conclusion.....................................................................15
1.Introduction...................................................................17
2.Requirements gathering.................................................17
3.Task Analyses................................................................18
4.Design...........................................................................195.Evaluation.....................................................................21
6.Further Enhancements...................................................22
7.References....................................................................23
8.Appendix Part 1.............................................................24
a.Structured Tasks Results................................................24
b.Data Analysis Of Usability tasks......................................26
c.End Usability testing Questioner.....................................27
d.Data Analysis of the Questioners....................................29
7.Appendix Part 2.............................................................30a.Questioner: Completed by Participant 1 to evaluate mobilewebsite. ................................................................................30b.Questioner: Completed by Participant 2 to evaluate mobilewebsite. ................................................................................31c.Data analysis of the questioner.............................................32d.Structured Tasks Results......................................................33
2
-
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
3/33
U1055939 2512 words
3
-
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
4/33
U1055939 2512 words
Part 1
4
-
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
5/33
U1055939 2512 words
1. IntroductionI will carry out an evaluation on two websites using theprocedures mentioned below and supporting documentsare located in the appendix.
1.Designing an evaluation protocolTo 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 Usabilitytesting which involves measuring users performance andsatisfaction on typical tasks in laboratory conditionsaccording to Sharp, Rogers and Preece (2007).
a. Reasons for Choosing Heuristics Evaluation
According to Sharp, Rogers and Preece (2011), heuristicevaluation is less time consuming and cheaper compared
to other evaluation methods. This is because there are noparticipants involved, which also means that there are zerochances of violating ethical issues.
I used Nielsens (1994) heuristics for guidelines to evaluatethe website and the steps taken were:
Inspecting web interface and its function more than fourtimes due to my limited knowledge as a usability
consultant. I focused on different sections of the websiteindicated in figure.1 and complemented them withheuristics guidelines
Index page. Metaphors icons and symbols
Menu and navigation. Interaction design and types.
Structural layout. Hyperlinks and
Content layout Accessibility for disabled
Search tools or technology. Colour and text appearance.Figure.1: Sections focused on when evaluating the
5
-
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
6/33
U1055939 2512 words
website.
All inconsistencies and usability problems discoveredwere 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 usedby Nielsen (1994).
Screen shorts were also recorded to indicate usabilityproblems.
Recommendations were given after each usabilityproblem extracted.
There was no time factor set to evaluate the two
websites, however professional consultants, do workunder a time schedule.
ID EvaluationHeuristics
LoughboroughUniversity
BirminghamUniversity
Problems Found[1] Visibility of system status 0[2] Match between system and the real
world0 0
[3] User control and freedom 1 0[4] Consistency and standards 4 0[5] Error prevention 1 0[6] Recognition rather than recall 3 1[7] Flexibility and efficiency of use 1 1[8] Aesthetic and minimalist design 4 1[9] Help user recognise, diagnose and
recover from errors1 0
[10]
Help and documentation 1 0
Figure.2: Usability problems discovered on each Nielsens
heuristics.
2.Results and Recommendation
Loughborough University
Figure.3 indicates cluttered information with long andunclearly spaced sentences about news of the students
who have recently been graduated.
6
-
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
7/33
U1055939 2512 words
[Recommendation:1]Even spacing and ordering by using numbers or bulletspoints will make it easier to perceive and identifyinformation searched for and according to Sharp, Rogers
and Preece (2007), which would give the website a goodstructure.
Figure.3 Cluttered information of graduates.
Unrecognisable main navigation links that are located ontop of the banner with an inadequate colour contrastbetween the darker shade of purple font and the lightpurple background. This is similar within all the pages ofthe website but more significant on the home page asindicated on Figure.4.
[Recommendation:2]Situate the banner and navigation sections separately,
possibly with standard, suitable dark coloured font and lightcoloured background to make the website accessible tocolour blind people. Aligning the main navigation horizontalwill 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 thewebsite does not immediately offer a textbox but it is a linkthat takes the user to a non-functioning Google search
engine. The search tools are only located in the home pageas a link and not implemented in the rest of the website.
7
-
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
8/33
U1055939 2512 words
[Recommendation:3]A named search text box would be recognisable by theuser rather than spending more time attempting to locate
it. Text boxes are a popular technique to recognise than torecall. Textboxes are common interface objects used bypopular search engines such as Google, yahoo and evendesktop applications use them too. Therefore most userswould be expecting them when it involves to searching forsomething.
Providing a text box in this situation would reduce memoryload of the user attempting follow a procedure to get to the
search engine and then attempting again to search for therequired results.
Figure.4: Emphasis on colour contrast and navigationalstructure.
The term Information for in Figure.5 has been usedinappropriately in this situation. Both current student
and staff are links on the same section with the newswhich is not a link. On that section the term used wouldsound as (information for:current student|currentstaff|news).
[Recommendation:4]Standard link colours should be used to mark a differencebetween hyperlinks and non-hyperlinks.
Still focusing onFigure.5,
according to Nielsen (1998), outdated information has to be avoided because it creates
8
-
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
9/33
U1055939 2512 words
poor impression with the users. They are quite a few ofcluttered chunks of information that still date back to theyear 2003.The news is made of a section that is located onthe right side and occupies approximately 40% width and
80% height of the page. The middle section is left withunedited white space when scrolling the page vertically.
[Recommendation:5]Use of different medias with the users full functionalcontrols such as play and pause buttons. A possibleexample would be slide show images for the news toreplace text in order for the user to perceive and locatenews information of their choice. Simply to keep up and
update the page with latest information that would beinteresting 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 ClickHere hyperlink that causes the browser to give an errormessage because it is unable to connect. There are noback buttons or any source of recovery on the websitewhen dead pages are accessed. Shown in figure5&6.
[Recommendation:6]Check the website against link checker tool such as theW3C Linker otherwise dead links cause distrust of
information quality.
9
-
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
10/33
U1055939 2512 words
Figure.6: Indicates dead and deceptive link.
Figure.6 indicates a deceptive hyperlink were it statesWebmaster: Christine Bagley. It is not specificwhether this is a link that would take the user to ChristineBagley personal web page or her contact details. What itdoes it takes the user to the systems email client with out
informing them.
[Recommendation:7]Use icon metaphors such as a telephone or mail envelopesand symbol of an email to notify the user of the intention ofthe hyperlink and its meaning.
All of the website pages do not have a site map which mayassist the user when ever they have navigation difficulties.
[Recommendation:8]Provide a sitemap which gives a brief description of thelinks in the whole website and allows users to master theirway around the website according to Sharp, Rogers andPreece (2007).
Figure.7 indicates a client that requires user to login as acurrent student. It does not distinguish between an error
and information message and the blue question marksymbol remains the same when incorrect information isentered. A question mark symbol is often used for helpsituations but in this here it does not do anything. If theuser clicks cancel, they cannot escape from the popupbecause it takes them to a page that confirmsauthentication has been unsuccessful.
[Recommendation:9]
Good use of the graphical symbols such as an errormessage of a red X and an informative exclamation mark
10
-
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
11/33
U1055939 2512 words
will make users recognise and understand the meaning ofthe of what is required of them. Password recovery or helpbutton would be useful to prevent users being logged outfor failing to provide correct details within a certain number
of times. Plain message would be helpful to describe thenature of the problem and suggestions of how to solve itaccording 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 beenpreviously visited which could be frustrating for the user. Iwould recommend back and forward buttons that wouldallow the user to retrace their steps back and forthamongst visited pages until they recognize the contentthey want.
Figure7.a: indicates incomplete wording and inconsistencywhich may cause users suspicion of the website beingprofessional.
3.Usability Testing on University of
Birmingham.
The procedure to carry out the evaluation was adaptedfrom my second presentation and the following steps were
11
-
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
12/33
U1055939 2512 words
taken:
Data collection techniques were observations and an endtest 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 tocarry out tasks against time.
Two computers and timers were used. Video recorderwas set to focus on the users activities.
Data gathered was analysed and interpreted to find outmajor usability problems. Read appendix for the tests.
4.Reasons for choosing usability testingWhen using Heuristics evaluation on University ofBirmingham. I extracted insignificant number (3) ofusability problems due to evaluating by myself andaccording to Sharp, Rogers and Preece (2011); state thatapproximately an increase of 5 evaluators increases theproportion of usability problems discovered by 25%.
Usability testing became an alternative that would involveusers and obtain evidence of usability issues throughcompleting timed tasks.
5.Usability problems.
Inadequate colour contrast between a darker shade grey ofthe font and slightly lighter shade of grey on the
background. Participant: 1 mentioned difficulties ofidentifying any content on the following left-navigation andfooter section indicated on Figure.8&9.
[Recommendation:2] : applies here.Allowing users to manipulate color scheme will improvereadability.
Video recordings indicated that participants did not click
the doted lined search area, shown on figure.8.[Recommendation:3] : applies here.
12
-
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
13/33
U1055939 2512 words
Insufficient media control settings to stop and play, eventhough participants could forward and rewind the slideshow images.
[Recommendation:11]I would recommend a stop and play button should beincluded to provide more interactivity and control. Controlof slide shows speed would allow information to be easilyperceptible. That is alsosuitable for photosensitive epilepsyusers.
Complex cascading menu, which is inaccessible when using
tab key and storyline horizontal navigation used less than30% compared to the vertical navigation on the left sectionof the pages as indicated in Figure.8.Different media previewed on a cascading menu andimmediately abandoned by participants. No clicks tolinks were video recorded.
[Recommendation:12]Well-coded and Accessible single text based drop down
menu that would accept tab key navigating and a findingby Shneiderman (1998) state that a simple looking menu isusable compared to more complex menu structures.
Task 2 indicated difficulty by participants to locateservices because there it is labelled differently indifferent parts of the websites. Figures.9&10 as OurService and Professional Services on the menu andServices 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 typesservices as subsections to allow easy recognition by theuser.
Participants attempted task 4.a by clicking on the slideshow, to get current news, which is inconsistent right
through the site. This is because the slide show images arenot links in other pages.
13
-
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
14/33
U1055939 2512 words
[Recommendation:14]Standardise slide show images as either links or non-linksright through the website to avoid confusing and frustrating
the user.
Figure.8: Indicating inadequate colour contrast and mediacontrol.
Figure.9: Indicating inadequate colour contrast.
14
-
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
15/33
U1055939 2512 words
Figure 10: Cascading navigation menu
6.ConclusionDifferent evaluation methods work differently in differentscenarios. This is noticed through to the failure of finding asmall number of usability issues on the BirminghamUniversity through using heuristics evaluation, which led toan alternative evaluation method. Complimentingevaluation methods would be a good practice to evaluatethe website all round by involving users and expertconsultants.
15
-
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
16/33
U1055939 2512 words
Part 2
16
-
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
17/33
U1055939 2512 words
1. Introduction
After carrying out usability evaluation on LoughboroughUniversity, I have designed a usable and accessible websitethat is cross platform and browser compatible on a mobileand tablet device. The prototype will signify a correctapplication of usability and accessibility principles,guidelines and standards which the original website did nothave initially.
2. Requirements gatheringVolere Requirements Specification Template adapted fromRobertson and Robertson (1999) version6.1 was used. Aquestioner was handed out to extract general informationabout the users experience with mobile websites.
RequirementNumber
1
Requirement
type
9
Description Prospective students should be able to locateeither post or undergraduate course list.
Rationale Users should be able to locate requiredinformation.
Source Prospective studentsFit Criterion 80% of the users should locate the required
information within 5minutes of their firstattempt.
UserSatisfaction
3
UserDissatisfaction
2
VolereCopyright Atlantic Systems Guild
Figure 2.1: Functional requirement.
RequirementNumber
2
Event /Use caseNumber
17
-
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
18/33
U1055939 2512 words
Requirementtype
11
Description The University website should be easy to learn.Rationale Users should recognize the website rather than
recall.Source Student and staff membersFit Criterion 90% of the users should be to use the website
without training less than 5 minutes.UserSatisfaction
4
UserDissatisfaction
0
History
VolereCopyright Atlantic Systems Guild
Figure 2.2: Non-functional requirement.
RequirementNumber
3
Requirementtype
12
Description The website should be cross browser and
platform compatible.Rationale Users should access the website with out
affecting its structure and layout.Source Student and staff membersFit Criterion Website should work in 75% popular browsers
and 5 / 6 popular device platforms of the users.CustomerSatisfaction
3
Customer
Dissatisfaction
2
VolereCopyright Atlantic Systems Guild
Figure 2.3: Non-functional requirement.
3. Task Analyses.I implemented Hierarchical Task Analysis which indicatestasks supported by a website according to Sharp, Rogersand Preece (2007).
For a current or prospective student to search for any
18
-
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
19/33
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: 1-2-3Current users do: 2-3Plan 2:New users do: 1.1-2-3
4. Design
Univesity Logo
Home page
key words S e a r c h
L i s 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
L i s t e le m e n t
S u b -h e a d in g
L i s t e le m e n t
S u b -h e a d in g
Copyrights | Site-map | Top
Univesity Logo
Page Title
key words S e a r c h
Copyrights | Site-map | Top
Back
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
< P a g e C o n t e n t>
List element
S u b - h e a d in g
Adjustable
Adjustable
a b
19
-
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
20/33
U1055939 2512 words
Figure.4.1. Paper based prototype mobile or tablet website.
The website adapts to the screen resolution of either atable or mobile device without affecting the interface
layout and structure. This also applies to whether thedevice is in a landscape or portrait position.
Figure.4.2. Home Page.
20
-
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
21/33
U1055939 2512 words
Figure.4.3: Content Layout.
5. Evaluation
Usability testing and end test questioner were used toevaluate the website. There where 0% usability andaccessibility issues identified by the participants from thetasks 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 tooldoes not validate HTML versions other than XHTML.
21
-
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
22/33
U1055939 2512 words
6. Further EnhancementsI attempted to apply assistive web technologies such ascolour contrast and texts resize options. Have thenavigation as a popup menu on the tablet device. Due tolimited java script knowledge, I could not manage toimplement that on the website.
22
-
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
23/33
U1055939 2512 words
7.ReferencesNielsen, J. and Mack, R.L. (1994) Usability InspectionMethods. John Wiley and Sons.
Reif, V. (2011) Usability and user experience of an onlineservice. Unpublished Bachelors thesis. Oulu University of
Applied Sciences Business Information Technology.
Sharp, H., Rogers, Y. and Preece, Y. (2007) InteractionDesign: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. 2ndEdition.
John Wiley and Sons.
Sharp, H., Rogers, Y. and Preece, Y. (2011) InteractionDesign: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. 3rd Edition.
John Wiley and Sons.
Sheiderman, B. (1998) Designing the user interface:
strategies for effective human-computer interaction. 3rdEdition. Addison-Wesley.
Sheiderman, B. (2010) Designing the user interfaces:strategies for effective human-computer interaction.London: Addison-Wesley.
Robertson, S. and Robertson (1999) Mastering theRequirements Process. Addison-Wesley.
W3C (2012) Mobile Checker (Version1.4.2)[Online ValidatorTool]. Available at: http://validator.w3.org/mobile.(Accessed 21 April 2012).
Reif, V. (2011) Usability and user experience of an onlineservice. Unpublished Bachelors thesis. Oulu University ofApplied Sciences Business Information Technology.
23
http://validator.w3.org/mobilehttp://validator.w3.org/mobile -
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
24/33
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 datagathering.
a.Structured Tasks ResultsTemplate from HutchWorld evaluation case study used in Sharp, Rogers
and Preece(2007) book.
Participant number: 1 2 Average
Gender FM M
Age 36 21 29
Extra Notes Participant 1:uses reading glasses. Good test for
color contrast.
Structured Tasks
1.Task: Explore the University website. (3-5minutes)
a. Open the website http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/b. Familiarise yourself with website
Time Taken 2 3 3
2.Task: Identify different sections on the website. (6minutes)
a. Click on Study Here Link. 1 1 1
b. Click Services. 4 3 4
c. Click Undergraduate degrees Link. 2 2 2
d. Navigate to the Home Page. 2 2 2
24
-
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
25/33
U1055939 2512 words
Time Taken 6 3 5
3.Task: Searching (6minutes)
a. Click search for Events 3 2 3
b. Search for Latest news. 3 3 3
c. Search for visit us on main navigation. 3 4 4
Time Taken 4 3 4
4.Task: Get information. (6minutes)
1. Check for latest news. 2 3 3
2. Look for Campus life 3 3 3
3. View campuses 3 2 3
Time Taken 3 3 3
5.Task: Communication (4minutes)
a. Find a link to send email. Please do notsend.
2 1 2
b. Find University contact number. 2 1 2
Time Taken2 2 2
Average Time Taken/ 30minutes 3 3
ParticipantAverage: Difficulty level 3 2
1-easy, 2-ok, 3-difficult, and 4-needed help.
Table 8.1: indicates data gathered from structured tasks.
25
-
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
26/33
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
-
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
27/33
U1055939 2512 words
c.End Usability testing Questioner.
I. Questioner: Completed by Participant 1
Complete the question by and circling or underlying the answer you have chosen.
Participant Name: Jenny
1. Strongly Agree
2. Agree
3. Neutral
4. Disagree
5. Strongly Disagree
Please take a few minutes to complete post-test questioner.
1. Was the website easy to use?1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly Disagree
2. Was the navigation easy to use?1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly Disagree
3. Was the Color contrast adequate enough to enable you to explore the website?1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly Disagree
4. Were terms and symbols used clearly?1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly Disagree
5. Was information easy to locate?1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly Disagree
6. Did you have control over the media e.g. videos and slide shows1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly Disagree
7. Will you visit the website ever again?1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly Disagree
8. I can easily recognize the pages that I have previously visited.1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly Disagree
9. It was enjoyable exploring the website.
1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly Disagree
10. Was the content written understandable and professional1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly 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
-
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
28/33
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?
1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly Disagree
2. Was the navigation easy to use?
1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly Disagree
3. Was the Color contrast adequate enough to enable you to explore the website?
1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly Disagree
4. Were terms and symbols used clearly?
1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly Disagree
5. Was information easy to locate?
1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly Disagree
6. Did you have control over the media e.g. videos and slide shows1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly Disagree
7. Will you visit the website ever again?
1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly Disagree
8. I can easily recognize the pages that I have previously visited.
1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly Disagree
9. It was enjoyable exploring the website.
1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly Disagree
10. Was the content written understandable and professional
1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly 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
-
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
29/33
U1055939 2512 words
d.Data Analysis of the Questioners.
Participant 1 2 Averages
Questions
1 2 2 2
2 3 3 3
3 3 2 3
4 3 3 3
5 2 2 2
6 3 2 3
7 4 3 4
8 3 2 3
9 2 2 2
10 1 2 2
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
-
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
30/33
U1055939 2512 words
7. Appendix Part 2
a. Questioner: Completed by Participant 1 toevaluate 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?
1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly
Disagree
2. Was the navigation easy to use?
1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly
Disagree
3. Was the Color contrast adequate enough to enable you to explore the
website?
1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly
Disagree
4. Were terms and symbols used clearly?
1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly
Disagree
5. Was information easy to locate?
1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree
5.Strongly Disagree
6. Was the font size and images easily recognizable?
1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree5.Strongly Disagree
7. Will you visit the website ever again?
1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree
5.Strongly Disagree
8. I can easily recognize the pages that I have previously visited.
1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree
5.Strongly Disagree
9. It was enjoyable exploring the website.
1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree
5.Strongly Disagree
10. Was the content written understandable and professional
30
-
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
31/33
U1055939 2512 words
1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree
5.Strongly Disagree
b. Questioner: Completed by Participant 2 toevaluate mobile website.
Complete the question by circling or underlying the answer you have
chosen.
Participant Name: Rachel
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
DisagreeStrongly Disagree
Please take a few minutes to complete post-test questioner.
1. Was the website easy to use?
1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree
5.Strongly Disagree
2. Was the navigation easy to use?
1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree
5.Strongly Disagree
3. Was the Color contrast adequate enough to enable you to explore the
website?1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree
5.Strongly Disagree
4. Were terms and symbols used clearly?
1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree
5.Strongly Disagree
5. Was information easy to locate?
1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree
5.Strongly Disagree
6. Was the font size and images easily recognizable?
1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree5.Strongly Disagree
7. Will you visit the website ever again?
1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree
5.Strongly Disagree
8. I can easily recognize the pages that I have previously visited.
1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree
5.Strongly Disagree
9. It was enjoyable exploring the website.
1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree
5.Strongly Disagree
31
-
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
32/33
U1055939 2512 words
10. Was the content written understandable and professional
1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree
5.Strongly Disagree
c. Data analysis of the questioner
Participant 1 2 Averages
Questions Kevin Rachel
1 2 2 2
2 1 2 2
3 1 2 2
4 2 2 2
5 2 2 2
6 2 2 2
7 5 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
-
7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report
33/33
U1055939 2512 words
d.Structured Tasks Results
Template from HutchWorld evaluation case study used in Sharp, Rogers
and Preece(2007) book.
Participant number: 1 2 Average
Gender FM M
Structured Tasks
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)
a. Click on Location on Campus 1 1
b. Click Site Map 1 1
Time Taken 1 1 2
8.Task: Searching for degrees. (5minutes)
a.Search for Latest news for Firat Batmaz 1 1 1Time Taken 1 2 1
9.Task: Control and navigation. (5minutes)a. Navigate to Postgraduate page. 1 1 1
b. Return to home page. 1 1 1
Time Taken 1 1 2
10. Task: Communication (4minutes)c. Find a link to send email. Please do not
send.
1 1 1
d. Find General Office contact number.
e.
1 1 1
Time Taken 1 2 2
Average Time Taken/ 24minutes 1 1
ParticipantAverage: Difficulty level 1 1
1-easy, 2-ok, 3-difficult, and 4-needed help.
Table 8.2: indicates data gathered from structured tasks.