# Presentation: 481503

## ACSI Web Survey User Group September 25, 2007

## Agenda

-  Company Background
-  Approach to Website Usability
-  Overview of Usability Audit Review
-  Examples of Poor Usability
-  Business Case for Usability Audit

## Our Background

-  User Experience Consultancy
- Usability Audits of Websites
- User-Centric Solutions

## Approach to Website Usability

- User Experience  Bottom Line
- Small Improvements  Business Metrics

## Approach to Website Usability

- User Experience  Bottom Line

## Approach to Website Usability

- Small Improvements  Business Metrics

## Independent Perspective on Usability

- The *Why *Behind Usability Issues
- What They Want To Do Online

## Usability Audit Review

## Usability Audit Review

- Audit

**Notes:**
Our usability audit review has two key components at its core—first there’s the usability audit itself.  

If you will, conceptualize our audit by thinking of a financial audit of a company's records that measures compliance against a set of standards.  

Our audit works very much the same way in that we apply usability indicators to measure usability compliance.

## Usability Audit Review

- Audit

- Analysis

**Notes:**
The second component of our usability review takes place once the audit has been completed and involves  deep analysis of audit data.  

This post-audit analysis delivers powerful insights about the user experience on a site that will help you make smarter decisions about your web initiatives.  The analysis is delivered in a SWOT format where we detail internal strengths and weaknesses as well as external opportunities and threats.

## Usability Indicators

-  Individual Application
-  Pass / Fail Metric
-  Measures Specific Aspect of Usability
-  Proprietary to ForeSee Results
-  Research and User Experience Findings
-  Best Practice

## Usability Compliance Rating

|  | Excellent |
| --- | --- |
|  | Good |
|  |  |
|  |  |

**    ****70—79%**** **

**    ****80—89%**** **

**   ****90—100%**** **

- Fair

- Poor

**     ****0—69%**** **

**Notes:**
The application of these usability indicators results in the number of passes and failures of website features and functionalities and provides a complete appraisal of site usability in the form of a compliance rating ranging from 0% to 100%, which corresponds to a grade of poor, fair, good, or excellent.  

The higher the percentage rating, the more usable and intuitive the site.

## How The Audit Works

- Usability Violation

**Notes:**
Here’s essentially how the audit works.  Your site passes or fails each indicator and each instance of noncompliance is what we call a usability violation   Each usability violation points to a localized negative implication on the user experience and this is really important because it’s only at this localized level that the violation can be remedied to improve usability.  The identification of all usability violations is the most basic level of audit intelligence that our solution delivers.

The most critical usability violations uncovered are then detailed in an audit report, which serves as a blueprint for improving site usability.

That concludes a cursory look at our methodology for the usability audit review.

## Navigation

- Average Usability Compliance Rating:  63%
- High:  87%
- Low:  49%

**Notes:**
All of these examples revolve around navigation, which is the absolute key to keeping your site visitors focused and moving forward.  

Strikingly, our audits reveal that the average usability compliance rating received with regard to navigation is a low 63% on a scale from zero to 100.  The highest rating earned is 87% while the lowest is 49%.

Clearly this tells us that for the vast majority of sites, navigation is a critical area of opportunity—one that directly impacts efficiency, ease of use, and overall goal completion.  And in the end, that’s really what it’s all about—goal completion.  Every visitor to your site has a goal in mind and these goals are all directly and fundamentally impacted by your site’s navigation.  So let’s look at a few examples...

## Appearance of Links

**Notes:**
The first example I’d like to share has to do with the appearance of links. It’s critical that links change in appearance when rolled over to let visitors know which link is being targeted.  Here we see on HHS.gov that the sidebar navigation options fail to change in appearance, which deprives users of an important visual cue.

## Appearance of Links

**Notes:**
In contrast, here we see on WhiteHouse.gov and the USDA site that links change in appearance when being targeted—the first by the link changing to red and the second example by becoming underlined.

## Descriptive Links

**Notes:**
Good usability dictates that hypertext links be descriptive, which means that the most information-bearing words be hyperlinked.  HHS.gov shows a propensity for using generic link labels, such as you see here, rather than underlining and hyperlinking more descriptive words.  As a result, the homepage is cluttered unnecessarily with More links that fail to add value.

## Descriptive Links

## Scope Notes

**Notes:**
Here we see that efficient and informed navigation is potentially impaired by the lack of scope notes to provide additional details about where visitors will be taken if they click on the link.  While the USDA homepage provides scope notes for some News links, it fails to do so consistently.

## Scope Notes

**Notes:**
In contrast, here we see on the homepage of the US Postal Service that scope notes are consistently provided for its collection of navigation options in the centerwell.  These scope notes are useful in helping visitors make an informed decision about which link to click to accomplish their particular online goal.

## Scope Notes

**Notes:**
And here’s another example of a site that does a good job of consistently providing scope notes to facilitate efficient navigation.

## Targeting Links

**Notes:**
In another example of poor usability, the US Postal Service forces users to target the small arrow to access interior pages rather than being able to click on the header, such as Change of Address, and accompanying scope notes.  Forcing visitors to be overly precise in targeting navigation options slows them and can cause frustration for those with less than stellar hand-eye coordination.  In addition, by rendering only the small arrow clickable, the site defies user expectations about what is and is not clickable on the homepage.

## Back to Top Links

**Notes:**
Here on the left you see a long scrolling page on USDA where efficient navigation is compromised because the site fails to provide a Back to Top link at the bottom of the page.  Whenever pages scroll below the fold, good usability dictates that a shortcut navigation link be provided.

## Back to Top Links

**Notes:**
In contrast, here we such a link on another site that efficiently returns users to the top of the page to access other content of interest.

## Clickable Featured Images

**Notes:**
Good usability and convention call for featured images to be rendered clickable.  Here on USDA.gov, the site renders only the header associated with an article clickable, but fails to do so for the corresponding image.  The point here is that many users will attempt to access the article by clicking on the more eye-catching image only to find they have wasted a click.  While a click here and there might seem inconsequential, over the course of an entire browsing experience, these wasted clicks add up.

## PDF Notification

**Notes:**
Here we see an example from the OMB site where messaging indicates that some of the documents on the page were created as PDFs.  However, this messaging falls short because users want to know which documents in particular are PDF’d in order to make an informed decision about what type of content they want to access.

## PDF Notification

**Notes:**
It’s interesting that elsewhere on the same site, icons are used to designate which documents are PDF.  The site simply needs to be consistent in letting visitors know which links will take them to PDF content.

## PDF Notification

**Notes:**
Here we see an example of this good usability on the INS website where visitors are consistently notified as to the format and size of content.

## Logo Clickability

**Notes:**
The logo on interior pages should be rendered clickable so that users have a quick and efficient means of returning to the homepage.  However, we see evidence on interior pages of USCIS.gov and OMB.gov that the logos are not clickable, which wastes a click.

As a result, users must resort to clicking on the Home link that is provided as part of the breadcrumb trail on USCIS.gov and on the OMB Home link on OMB.gov.

## Logo Clickability

**Notes:**
In contrast, these sites exhibit best practice by ensuring that the logo is clickable on all interior pages, which immediately take users to the homepage.  

## Text Size

**Notes:**
Reading from a monitor is different than reading content in print and is likely to cause eyestrain, particularly for those who have poor eyesight, less-than-ideal monitors, and are elderly. Therefore, it s critical that sites code text in  relative sizes so that users’ reading preferences are accommodated.  

As you can see, text on these two sites display text that is inadequately sized.

## Text Size

**Notes:**
On the flipside, HHS.gov provides users the capability to increase the font size so that text is enlarged to accommodate those who require larger text in order to read with ease.

## Link Differentiation

**Notes:**
This site, HHS.gov, shows evidence of poor usability when it comes to users being able to differentiate among hypertext links.  For example, initially, it appears that all three links circled are one wrapped link, especially since the spacing between the links is so close.  However, clicking on each link line takes users to a different page.  The site should ensure that each unique link is differentiated from another, perhaps with the use or bullet points or with additional spacing in between so that users are not confused about where one link ends and the next begins.

## New Browser Window

**Notes:**
USDA.gov reflects poor usability when it comes to users clicking on links ad expecting to be taken to a new web page.  Instead, a new browser window opens, which is disorienting.  For example, when users click on How to Get Information, they are surprised to find that...

## New Browser Window

**Notes:**
A new browser window opens with the corresponding content.  This experience is jarring and disorienting and forces users to close the browser window in order to return to the previous screen, especially since the Back button is disabled.

## Effective Use of Color

**Notes:**
This brings me to the last example I’d like to share.  Here we see that WhiteHouse.gov fails to follow convention when it comes to the use of color for hypertext links.  As shown here, the blue text on the right-hand side of the page appears to be a link; however, when users attempt to click on it, they find that it is an unclickable header.    

## Effective Use of Color

**Notes:**
Here we see the site using blue to render unclickable headers and hyperlinks, which means users cannot anticipate which elements are clickable and which are not without resorting to a trial and error process.

## Take Voice of User to the Next Level

-  Use Satisfaction Data to Focus Usability Efforts
-  Measure Baseline Usability of the Site
-  Make Improvements that Impact Critical Metrics
-  Prioritize Usability Initiatives and Enhancements
-  Build Consensus among Website Stakeholders

**Notes:**
That concludes a look at a sample audit and the types of usability issues identified.  I’d like to begin to wrap up by sharing the different ways clients use our audit intelligence to take the voice of user to the next level:

Satisfaction data is extremely effective in focusing usability efforts.

Our audit intelligence provides a measure of baseline site usability to let you know how your site measures up as well as benchmark the site over time  

In addition, there’s no doubt that our audit intelligence helps you to make site improvements that impact critical metrics—both with regard to the website and your overall business

It also helps you prioritize usability initiatives and enhancements.  

Our audit intelligence is also ammunition for building consensus and buy-in from website stakeholders.  Like most companies, you have various departments with a stake in your website, I.T. Marketing, Creative, Merchandising, etc.  Our usability audit review can help cut through some of the noise that comes from different stakeholders to make clearer what the focus of usability initiatives should be. 

## Satisfaction Element Focused:
Product browsing 
Product Selection
Ability to Browse Products  
Product descriptions 
Product images 
Search 
Navigation 
# of steps, organization, labeling, ability to find, ease of navigation 
Look and Feel 
clarity, layout, ease of reading 
Functionality 
usefulness of services, convenience of the services, ability to accomplish what you wanted to

- Product browsing
- Product Selection
- Ability to Browse Products
- Product descriptions
- Product images
- Search
- Navigation
- # of steps, organization, labeling, ability to find, ease of navigation
- Look and Feel
- clarity, layout, ease of reading
- Functionality
- usefulness of services, convenience of the services, ability to accomplish what you wanted to

**Task Focused:**
- Catalog Quick Order
- Catalog Request
- Checkout
- Comparison Functionality
- Content
- Product Resources
- Buying Guides
- How-Tos, etc.
- Customer Service
- E-mail Subscription
- Gift Cards
- Homepage

- Live Chat
- My Account
- Order Tracking
- Online Catalog
- Registration
- Registry
- Shopping Cart** **
- Store Locator
- Store Pick-up
- Weekly Ads
- Wish List

- Usability Audit Review: Specific Areas of Focus

## Slide 40