# Presentation: 145832

## NIH NLM Senior Health Website and Prototypes: Usability Test Findings

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

## Introduction

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

## 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.

- 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.

- Study Goals

## 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.

- Lab Setup

## Slide 6

## 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

## 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?
- You’re 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?

## 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

## Key Findings

- The website’s nomenclature and implementation of the accessibility options did not support ease of use
- The website’s 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.

## 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

## Current Website

## Prototype A(50 Links)

## Prototype B(10 Links)

## 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

## 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

## 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 aren’t able to predict the content the website contains, or the terminology that will be used, this format presents significant usability issues

## 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

## 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.

## 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

## Contrast

- Participants were confused by the term “contrast”
- Participants stated that they didn’t like the feature’s 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

## 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

## 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?

## 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

## 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

## 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

## 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

## 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

## Discussion / Video

## Project Outcomes

- A findings report
- Companion highlight video
- This presentation

## Thank you!For more information, contact:American Institutes for Research490 Virginia RoadConcord, MA 01742(978) 371-8334chass@air.org