Research-Based

Web Design &

Usability Guidelines

Research-Based

Web Design &

Usability Guidelines

Forewords by:

Michael O. Leavitt

Secretary of Health and Human Services

Ben Shneiderman

Professor of Computer Science, University of Maryland
U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL EDITION NOTICE

Use of ISBN 

This is the Official U.S. Government edition of this publication and 

is herein identified to certify its authenticity. Use of the 0-16 ISBN 

prefix (if agency uses own block of ISBN, list full ISBN in this space) 

is for U.S. Government Printing Office Official Editions only. The 

Superintendent of Documents of the U.S. Government Printing 

Office requests that any reprinted edition clearly be labeled as a copy 

of the authentic work with a new ISBN. 

Legal Status and Use of Seals and Logos

The seal and logo of the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) and the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) 

authenticates the Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines 

as the official codification of Federal regulations established under the 

Federal Register Act. The HHS seal and logo displayed in this book 

are protected under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 1320b-10. The GSA 

seal and logo displayed in this book are protected under the provisions of 18 U.S.C 506. The unauthorized use of these seals and logos 

in a publication is prohibited and subject to a civil penalty of up to 

$5,000 for each unauthorized copy of it that is reprinted or distributed.

It is prohibited to use the HHS or GSA seal or logo displayed in this 

book without the express, written permission. To request permission 

to use the HHS seal or logo, please submit a request to: 

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

200 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20201

To request permission to use the GSA seal or logo, please submit a 

request to:

U.S. General Services Administration 

1800 F Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20405

____________________________________________________

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, 

U.S. Government Printing Office, Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov 

Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800; 

Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001

ISBN 0-16-076270-7

I am pleased to announce this new edition of the 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Research-Based Web 

Design and Usability Guidelines. These Guidelines reflect HHS’ commitment 

to identifying innovative, research-based approaches that result in highly 

responsive and easy-to-use Web sites for the public. 

The Federal government is the largest single producer, collector, consumer, 

and disseminator of information in the United States. The Internet provides 

the most efficient and effective way of making this information available 

to the widest possible audience. Record numbers of citizens are accessing 

government sites 24 hours a day to find information and services that will 

improve their daily lives. This makes it all the more essential that the Federal 

government deliver Web technologies that enable and empower citizens. 

These Guidelines help move us in that direction by providing practical, yet 

authoritative, guidance on a broad range of Web design and communication 

issues. Having access to the best available research helps to ensure we make 

the right decisions the first time around and reduces the possibility of errors 

and costly mistakes. 

Since their introduction in 2003, the Guidelines have been widely used by 

government agencies and the private sector, implemented in academic 

curriculum, and translated into several foreign languages. I encourage all 

government agencies to use these Guidelines to harness the Web in support 

of the President’s vision of a Federal government that is citizen-centered and 

results-oriented.

– Michael O. Leavitt

Secretary of Health and Human Services

Foreword—Secretary Michael O. Leavitt 

Headings, Titles, and Labels Link Foreword

ii

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
Background 

These new HHS Web usability Guidelines carry 

forward one of the most enduring success stories in user interface design. 

They continue the noble tradition of thoughtful practitioners who have 

hacked their way through the unruly design landscape and then distilled their 

experience into compact and generalizable aphorisms or patterns. 

Compilations of such guidelines offer newcomers a clearer roadmap to follow, 

helping them to avoid some of the swamps and potholes. Guidelines serve 

experienced experts and busy managers by giving them an overview and 

reminding them of the wide range of issues. Most importantly, guidelines 

provoke discussions among designers and researchers about which guidelines 

are relevant and whether a refined or new guideline should be added. 

Guidelines should be more than one person’s lightly-considered opinion, 

but they are not rigid standards that can form the basis of a contract or a 

lawsuit. Guidelines are not a comprehensive academic theory that has strong 

predictive value, rather they should be prescriptive, in the sense that they 

prescribe practice with useful sets of DOs and DON’Ts. Guidelines should be 

presented with justifications and examples. 

Like early mapmakers, the pioneering developers of user interface guidelines 

labored diligently. Working for IBM in the mid-1970s, Stephen Engel and 

Richard Granda recorded their insights in an influential document. Similarly, 

Sid Smith and Jane Mosier in the early 1980s, collected 944 guidelines in a 

500-page volume (available online at http://hcibib.org/sam/contents.html). 

The design context in those days included aircraft cockpits, industrial control 

rooms, and airline reservation systems and the user community emphasized 

regular professional users. These admirable efforts influenced many designers 

and contributed to the 1980s corporate design guidelines from Apple, 

Microsoft, and others covering personal computers, desktop environments, 

and public access kiosks. 

Then, the emergence of the World Wide Web changed everything. The 

underlying principles were similar, but the specific decisions that designers 

had to make required new guidelines. The enormously growing community 

of designers eagerly consulted useful guidelines from sources as diverse as Yale 

University, Sun Microsystems, the Library of Congress, and Ameritech. Many 

of these designers had little experience and were desperate for any guidance 

about screen features and usability processes. Sometimes they misinterpreted 

or misapplied the guidelines, but at least they could get an overview of the 

issues that were important.

Foreword—Dr. Ben Shneiderman

Headings, Titles, and Labels Links Introduction Foreword

iii

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
As Web usability guidelines became more widely used and consulted, 

discrepancies and contradictions became subjects of lively discussion at 

usability conferences and human-computer interaction research seminars. 

For example, many early Web guidelines documents were vague about 

appropriate numbers of links per page, sometimes falling back to mention 

George Miller’s famous notion of seven plus or minus two. His work dealt 

with short-term memory capacity, but in studying a Web page, this factor has 

little bearing. As controversy grew, researchers collected dramatic empirical 

evidence that broader shallow trees were superior in information presentation 

websites. 

Fortunately, the remarkable growth of the professional community of Web 

designers was matched by a healthy expansion of the academic community 

in psychology, computer science, information systems, and related disciplines. 

The research community went to work on the problems of menu design, 

navigation, screen layout, response time, and many more. Not every 

experiment is perfect, but the weight of validated results from multiple studies 

provides crucial evidence that can be gainfully applied in design. 

This newest set of guidelines from the prestigious team assembled by the 

Department of Health and Human Services makes important contributions 

that will benefit practitioners and researchers. They have done the meticulous 

job of scouring the research literature to find support for design guidelines, 

thereby clarifying the message, resolving inconsistencies, and providing 

sources for further reading. Researchers will also benefit by this impressive 

compilation that will help them understand the current state of the art and 

see what problems are unresolved. Another impact will be on epistemologists 

and philosophers of science who argue about the relevance of research 

to practice. It is hard to recall a project that has generated as clear a 

demonstration of the payoff of research for practice.

The educational benefits for those who read the guidelines will be enormous. 

Students and newcomers to the field will profit from the good survey of issues 

that reminds them of the many facets of Web design. Experienced designers 

will find subtle distinctions and important insights. Managers will appreciate 

the complexity of the design issues and gain respect for those who produce 

effective websites.

Enthusiasms and Cautions 

My enthusiasms for this HHS guidelines project and its product are great, but 

they are tempered by several cautions. To put it more positively, the greatest 

benefits from these research-based guidelines will accrue to those who create 

effective processes for their implementation. My advice is to recognize the 

Guidelines as a ‘living document’ and then apply the four Es: education, 

enforcement, exemption, and enhancement.

Headings, Titles, and Labels Link Foreword

iv

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
Education: Delivering a document is only the first stage in making an 

organization’s guidelines process effective. Recipients will have to be 

motivated to read it, think about it, discuss it, and even complain about 

it. Often a live presentation followed by a discussion can be effective in 

motivating use of guidelines.

Enforcement: While many designers may be willing to consider and apply 

the guidelines, they will be more diligent if there is a clear process of interface 

review that verifies that the guidelines have been applied. This has to be done 

by a knowledgeable person and time has to be built into the schedule to 

handle deviations or questions.

Exemption: Creative designers may produce innovative compelling Web 

page designs that were not anticipated by the Guidelines writers. To support 

creative work, managers should balance the enforcement process with an 

exemption process that is simple and rapid.

Enhancement: No document is perfect or complete, especially a guidelines 

document in a fast changing field like information technology. This principle 

has two implications. First, it means that HHS or another organization should 

produce an annual revision that improves the Guidelines and extends them 

to cover novel topics. Second, it means that adopting organizations should 

consider adding local guidelines keyed to the needs of their community. 

This typically includes guidelines for how the organization logo, colors, titles, 

employee names, contact information, etc. are presented. Other common 

additions are style guides for terminology, templates for information, universal 

usability requirements, privacy policies, and legal guidance.

Finally, it is important to remember that as helpful as these research-based 

guidelines are, that they do not guarantee that every website will be effective. 

Individual designers make thousands of decisions in crafting websites. 

They have to be knowledgeable about the content, informed about the 

user community, in touch with the organizational goals, and aware of the 

technology implications of design decisions. Design is difficult, but these 

new research-based guidelines are an important step forward in providing 

assistance to those who are dedicated to quality.

– Ben Shneiderman, Ph.D. 

University of Maryland 

Headings, Titles, and Labels Links Introduction Foreword

v

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
Contributors

The following experts assigned ‘Strength of Evidence’ ratings for these 

guidelines and provided many sources listed in this book. 

Robert W. Bailey, Ph.D. 

President, Computer Psychology, Inc.

Carol Barnum, Ph.D. 

Professor of Technical Communication, Southern Polytechnic State University

John Bosley, Ph.D. 

Cognitive Psychologist, Bureau of Labor Statistics (U.S. Bureau of Census)

Barbara Chaparro, Ph.D.

Director of the Software Usability Research Laboratory, Wichita State 

University

Joseph Dumas, Ph.D. 

Senior Human Factors Specialist, The Design and Usability Center, 

Bentley College

Melody Y. Ivory, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor, University of Washington

Bonnie John, Ph.D.

Associate Professor and Director of the Masters Program for Human 

Computer Interaction, Carnegie Mellow University

Hal Miller-Jacobs, Ph.D. 

Managing Director, Human Factors International

Sanjay J. Koyani

Senior Usability Specialist, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Headings, Titles, and Labels Link Contributors

vi

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
James R. Lewis, Ph.D. 

Senior Human Factors Engineer, IBM

Stanley Page 

Usability Manager, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Judith Ramey, Ph.D. 

Professor & Department Chair, University of Washington

Janice (Ginny) Redish, Ph.D. 

President, Redish & Associates, Inc.

Jean Scholtz, Ph.D. 

Computer Science Researcher, National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

Steve Wigginton 

Architecture Manager, Amdocs 

Cari A. Wolfson

President, Focus on U!

Larry E. Wood, Ph.D.

User Experience Consultant and Managing Partner, Parallax, LC

Don Zimmerman, Ph.D.

Professor of Journalism and Technical Communications, Colorado State 

University

Headings, Titles, and Labels Links Contributors

vii

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
xv. Introduction

xvii. How to Use this Book and the Guidelines

xx. Background and Methodology

1 Chapter 1—Design Process and Evaluation

2 1:1 Provide Useful Content

2 1:2 Establish User Requirements

3 1:3 Understand and Meet User’s Expectations

4 1:4 Involve Users in Establishing User Requirements

4 1:5 Set and State Goals

5 1:6 Focus on Performance Before Preference

5 1:7 Consider Many User Interface Issues

6 1:8 Be Easily Found in the Top 30

7 1:9 Set Usability Goals

7 1:10 Use Parallel Design

8 1:11 Use Personas

9 Chapter 2—Optimizing the User Experience

10 2:1 Do Not Display Unsolicited Windows or Graphics

10 2:2 Increase Web Site Credibility

11 2:3 Standardize Task Sequences

12 2:4 Reduce the User’s Workload

13 2:5 Design for Working Memory Limitations

13 2:6 Minimize Page Download Time

14 2:7 Warn of ‘Time Outs’

15 2:8 Display Information in a Directly Usable Format

16 2:9 Format information for Reading and Printing

16 2:10 Provide Feedback When Users Must Wait

17 2:11 Inform Users of Long Download Times

18 2:12 Develop Pages that Will Print Properly

19 2:13 Do Not Require Users to Multitask While Reading

19 2:14 Use Users’ Terminology in Help Documentation

20 2:15 Provide Printing Options

21 2:16 Provide Assistance to Users

Headings, Titles, and Labels Link Contributors Table of Contents

viii

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
22 Chapter 3—Accessibility 

23 3:1 Comply with Section 508

23 3:2 Design Forms for Users Using Assistive Technologies

24 3:3 Do Not Use Color Alone to Convey Information

24 3:4 Enable Users to Skip Repetitive Navigation Links

25 3:5 Provide Text Equivalents for Non-Text Elements

26 3:6 Test Plug-Ins and Applets for Accessibility

26 3:7 Ensure that Scripts Allow Accessibility

26 3:8 Provide Equivalent Pages

27 3:9 Provide Client-Side Image Maps

27 3:10 Synchronize Multimedia Elements

27 3:11 Do Not Require Style Sheets

28 3:12 Provide Frame Titles

28 3:13 Avoid Screen Flicker

29 Chapter 4—Hardware and Software

30 4:1 Design for Common Browsers

31 4:2 Account for Browser Differences

32 4:3 Design for Popular Operating Systems

33 4:4 Design for User’s Typical Connection Speed

33 4:5 Design for Commonly Used Screen Resolutions

34 Chapter 5—The Homepage

35 5:1 Enable Access to the Homepage

36 5:2 Show All Major Options on the Homepage

37 5:3 Create a Positive First Impression of Your Site

38 5:4 Communicate the Web Site’s Value and Purpose

39 5:5 Limit Prose Text on the Homepage

40 5:6 Ensure the Homepage Looks like a Homepage

41 5:7 Limit Homepage Length

42 5:8 Announce Changes to a Web Site

43 5:9 Attend to Homepage Panel Width

44 Chapter 6—Page Layout

45 6:1 Avoid Cluttered Displays

46 6:2 Place Important Items Consistently

47 6:3 Place Important Items at Top Center

Headings, Titles, and Labels Links Contributors Table of Contents

ix

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
48 6:4 Structure for Easy Comparison

49 6:5 Establish Level of Importance

50 6:6 Optimize Display Density 

51 6:7 Align Items on a Page

52 6:8 Use Fluid Layouts

53 6:9 Avoid Scroll Stoppers

54 6:10 Set Appropriate Page Lengths

55 6:11 Use Moderate White Space

56 6:12 Choose Appropriate Line Lengths

57 6:13 Use Frames when Functions Must Remain Accessible

58 Chapter 7—Navigation

59 7:1 Provide Navigational Options

60 7:2 Differentiate and Group Navigation Elements

61 7:3 Use a Clickable ‘List of Contents’ on Long Pages

62 7:4 Provide Feedback on User’s Location

63 7:5 Place Primary Navigation Menus in the Left Panel

64 7:6 Use Descriptive Tab Labels

65 7:7 Present Tabs Effectively

66 7:8 Keep Navigation-Only Pages Short

67 7:9 Use Appropriate Menu Types

68 7:10 Use Site Maps

69 7:11 Use ‘Glosses’ to Assist Navigation

70 7:12 Breadcrumb Navigation

71 Chapter 8—Scrolling and Paging

72 8:1 Eliminate Horizontal Scrolling

73 8:2 Facilitate Rapid Scrolling While Reading

74 8:3 Use Scrolling Pages for Reading Comprehension 

74 8:4 Use Paging Rather Than Scrolling

75 8:5 Scroll Fewer Screenfuls

76 Chapter 9—Headings, Titles, and Labels

77 9:1 Use Clear Category Labels

78 9:2 Provide Descriptive Page Titles

79 9:3 Use Descriptive Headings Liberally

80 9:4 Use Unique and Descriptive Headings

81 9:5 Highlight Critical Data

82 9:6 Use Descriptive Row and Column Headings

83 9:7 Use Headings in the Appropriate HTML Order

84 9:8 Provide Users with Good Ways to Reduce Options

Headings, Titles, and Labels Link Contributors Table of Contents

x

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
85 Chapter 10—Links

86 10:1 Use Meaningful Link Labels

87 10:2 Link to Related Content

88 10:3 Match Link Names with Their Destination Pages

89 10:4 Avoid Misleading Cues to Click

90 10:5 Repeat Important Links

91 10:6 Use Text for Links

92 10:7 Designate Used Links

93 10:8 Provide Consistent Clickability Cues

94 10:9 Ensure that Embedded Links are Descriptive

95 10:10 Use ‘Pointing-and-Clicking’ 

96 10:11 Use Appropriate Text Link Lengths

97 10:12 Indicate Internal vs. External Links

98 10:13 Clarify Clickable Regions of Images

99 10:14 Link to Supportive Information

100 Chapter 11—Text Appearance

101 11:1 Use Black Text on Plain, High-Contrast Backgrounds

102 11:2 Format Common Items Consistently

102 11:3 Use Mixed-Case for Prose Text

103 11:4 Ensure Visual Consistency

104 11:5 Use Bold Text Sparingly

105 11:6 Use Attention-Attracting Features when Appropriate

106 11:7 Use Familiar Fonts

107 11:8 Use at Least 12-Point Font

108 11:9 Color-Coding and Instructions

109 11:10 Emphasize Importance

110 11:11 Highlighting Information

111 Chapter 12—Lists

112 12:1 Order Elements to Maximize User Performance

113 12:2 Place Important Items at Top of the List

114 12:3 Format Lists to Ease Scanning

115 12:4 Display Related Items in Lists

116 12:5 Introduce Each List

117 12:6 Use Static Menus

117 12:7 Start Numbered Items at One

118 12:8 Use Appropriate List Style

119 12:9 Capitalize First Letter of First Word in Lists

Headings, Titles, and Labels Links Contributors Table of Contents

xi

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
Table of Contents

120 Chapter 13—Screen-Based Controls (Widgets)

121 13:1 Distinguish Required and Optional Data Entry Fields

122 13:2 Label Pushbuttons Clearly

123 13:3 Label Data Entry Fields Consistently

123 13:4 Do Not Make User-Entered Codes Case Sensitive

124 13:5 Label Data Entry Fields Clearly

125 13:6 Minimize User Data Entry

126 13:7 Put Labels Close to Data Entry Fields

127 13:8 Allow Users to See Their Entered Data

128 13:9 Use Radio Buttons for Mutually Exclusive Selections

129 13:10 Use Familiar Widgets

130 13:11 Anticipate Typical User Errors

131 13:12 Partition Long Data Items

132 13:13 Use a Single Data Entry Method

133 13:14 Prioritize Pushbuttons

134 13:15 Use Check Boxes to Enable Multiple Selections

135 13:16 Label Units of Measurement

136 13:17 Do Not Limit Viewable List Box Options

137 13:18 Display Default Values

138 13:19 Place Cursor in First Data Entry Field

138 13:20 Ensure that Double-Clicking Will Not Cause Problems

139 13:21 Use Open Lists to Select One from Many

140 13:22 Use Data Entry Fields to Speed Performance

140 13:23 Use a Minimum of Two Radio Buttons

141 13:24 Provide Auto-Tabbing Functionality

141 13:25 Minimize Use of the Shift Key

142 Chapter 14—Graphics, Images, and Multimedia

143 14:1 Use Simple Background Images

144 14:2 Label Clickable Images

145 14:3 Ensure that Images Do Not Slow Downloads

146 14:4 Use Video, Animation, and Audio Meaningfully

146 14:5 Include Logos

147 14:6 Graphics Should Not Look like Banner Ads

148 14:7 Limit Large Images Above the Fold

149 14:8 Ensure Web Site Images Convey Intended Messages

150 14:9 Limit the Use of Images

151 14:10 Include Actual Data with Data Graphics

152 14:11 Display Monitoring Information Graphically

153 14:12 Introduce Animation

xvi

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Headings, Titles, and Labels Link Contributors Table of Contents

xii

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Table of Contents

154 14:13 Emulate Real-World Objects

155 14:14 Use Thumbnail Images to Preview Larger Images

156 14:15 Use Images to Facilitate Learning

157 14:16 Using Photographs of People

158 Chapter 15—Writing Web Content

159 15:1 Make Action Sequences Clear

160 15:2 Avoid Jargon

161 15:3 Use Familiar Words

162 15:4	 	 Define Acronyms and Abbreviations

163 15:5 Use Abbreviations Sparingly

164 15:6 Use Mixed Case with Prose

165 15:7 Limit the Number of Words and Sentences

166 15:8 Limit Prose Text on Navigation Pages

167 15:9 Use Active Voice

167 15:10	 	 Write Instructions in the Affirmative

168 15:11 Make First Sentences Descriptive

169 Chapter 16—Content Organization

170 16:1 Organize Information Clearly

171 16:2 Facilitate Scanning

172 16:3 Ensure that Necessary Information is Displayed

173 16:4 Group Related Elements

174 16:5 Minimize the Number of Clicks or Pages

175 16:6 Design Quantitative Content for Quick Understanding

176 16:7 Display Only Necessary Information

177 16:8 Format Information for Multiple Audiences

178 16:9 Use Color for Grouping

179 Chapter 17—Search

180 17:1 Ensure Usable Search Results

181 17:2 Design Search Engines to Search the Entire Site

181 17:3 Make Upper- and Lowercase Search Terms Equivalent

182 17:4 Provide a Search Option on Each Page

183 17:5 Design Search Around Users’ Terms

184 17:6 Allow Simple Searches

185 17:7 Notify Users when Multiple Search Options Exist

186 17:8 Include Hints to Improve Search Performance

187 17:9 Provide Search Templates 

Headings, Titles, and Labels Links Contributors Table of Contents

xiii
188 Chapter 18—Usability Testing

189 18:1 Use an Iterative Design Approach

190 18:2 Solicit Test Participants’ Comments

190 18:3 Evaluate Web Sites Before and After Making Changes

190 18:4 Prioritize Tasks

191 18:5 Distinguish Between Frequency and Severity

192 18:6 Select the Right Number of Participants

193 18:7 Use the Appropriate Prototyping Technology

194 18:8 Use Inspection Evaluation Results Cautiously

195 18:9 Recognize the ‘Evaluator Effect’

195 18:10 Apply Automatic Evaluation Methods

196 18:11 Use Cognitive Walkthroughs Cautiously

196 18:12 Choosing Laboratory vs. Remote Testing

197 18:13 Use Severity Ratings Cautiously

198 Glossary

205 Appendices

215 Sources

244 Author Index

254 Index 

Headings, Titles, and Labels Link Contributors Table of Contents

xiv

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
The Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines (Guidelines) were 

developed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in 

partnership with the U.S. General Services Administration. This new edition 

of the Guidelines updates the original set of 187 guidelines, and adds 22 new 

ones. Many of the guidelines were edited, and numerous new references 

have been added. There are now 209 guidelines.

The Guidelines were developed to assist those involved in the creation of Web 

sites to base their decisions on the most current and best available evidence. 

The Guidelines are particularly relevant to the design of information-oriented 

sites, but can be applied across the wide spectrum of Web sites.

Who Are the Guidelines for?

The primary audiences for the Guidelines are Web site managers, designers, 

and others involved in the creation or maintenance of Web sites. A 

secondary audience is researchers who investigate Web design issues. This 

resource will help researchers determine what research has been conducted, 

and where little or no research exists. 

Why Were the Guidelines Created?

HHS created this set of guidelines for several reasons:

1) To create better and more usable health and human service Web 

sites. HHS is mandated to provide clear information in an efficient 

and effective manner to patients, health professionals, researchers, and 

the public. Translating the latest Web design research into a practical, 

easy-to-use format is essential to the effective design of HHS’ numerous 

Web sites. The approach taken to produce the Guidelines is consistent 

with HHS’ overall health information dissemination model that involves 

rapidly collecting, organizing, and distributing information in a usable 

format to those who need it.

2) To provide quantified, peer-reviewed Web site design guidelines. This 

resource does not exist anywhere else. Most Web design guidelines are 

lacking key information needed to be effective. 

 For example, many guideline sets:

• Are based on the personal opinions of a few experts;

• Do not provide references to support them;

• Do not provide any indication as to whether a particular guideline 

represents a consensus of researchers, or if it has been derived from a 

one-time, non-replicated study; and

• Do not give any information about the relative importance of 

individual guidelines. 

Introduction

Introduction

xv

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
 By addressing these issues, the Guidelines will help enable organizations to 

make more effective design decisions. Each guideline in this book shows 

a rating of its ’Relative Importance’ to the success of a Web site, and a 

rating of the ’Strength of Evidence’ supporting the guideline. Professional 

Web designers, usability specialists, and academic researchers contributed 

to these ratings. The ratings allow the user to quickly ascertain which 

guidelines have the greatest impact on the success of a Web site, and 

to determine the nature and quality of the supporting evidence. The 

’Relative Importance’ and ’Strength of Evidence’ ratings are unique to this 

set of guidelines.

3) To stimulate research into areas that will have the greatest influence 

on the creation of usable Web sites. There are numerous Web design 

questions for which a research-based answer cannot be given. While 

there are typically more than 1,000 papers published each year related to 

Web design and usability, much of this research is not based on the most 

important (or most common) questions being asked by Web designers. 

By providing an extensive list of sources and ’Strength of Evidence’ ratings 

in the Guidelines, HHS hopes to highlight issues for which the research is 

conclusive and attract researchers’ attention to the issues most in need of 

answers. 

How to Contribute Additional References?

The authors of the Guidelines attempted to locate as many references and source 

documents as possible. However, some important Guidelines may not have been 

created, and some applicable references may have been missed. Readers who 

are aware of an original reference pertaining to an existing guideline, or who 

have a suggestion for a new research-based guideline, should submit an email 

to: info@usability.gov. 

Please include the following information in your email: 

• Reference information—author, title, publication date, source, etc. 

(Remember, books are usually not original references.);

• The guideline to which the reference applies;

• If suggesting a new guideline, a draft of the guideline; and

• A copy of the source (or a link to it), if available. 

This information will help the authors maintain the Guidelines as a current and 

accurate resource. 

Is There an Online Version of these Guidelines?

HHS has created an online version that can be found at www.usability.gov. The 

online version provides users with the opportunity to search for specific topics.

xxIntroduction Headings, Titles, and Labels Link

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

xviIntroduction
Successful use of the Guidelines depends on how they are disseminated and 

used within an organization. Simply providing the Guidelines to designers 

and managers may not be enough to spur the adoption and use of these 

guidelines. 

The Guidelines offer benefits to four key audiences: 

• Designers

The Guidelines provide a clear sense of the range of issues that 

designers—especially those new to the field—need to consider 

when planning and designing a Web site. Applying the Guidelines

will help to reduce the negative impacts of ’opinion-driven’ 

design, and referring to evidence-based guidance can reduce the 

clashes resulting from differences of opinion between design team 

members.

• Usability Specialists

The Guidelines will help usability specialists evaluate the designs of 

Web sites. For example, usability specialists can use the Guidelines 

as a checklist to aid them during their review of Web sites. They 

also can create customized checklists that focus on the ’Relative 

Importance’ and ’Strength of Evidence’ scales associated with each 

guideline. For example, a usability specialist can create a checklist 

that only focuses on the top 25 most important issues related to the 

success of a Web site.

• Managers

The Guidelines will provide managers with a good overview and 

deep understanding of the wide range of usability and Web design 

issues that designers may encounter when creating Web sites.

The Guidelines also provide managers with a ’standard of usability’ 

for their designers. Managers can request that designers follow 

relevant portions of the Guidelines and can use the Guidelines to set 

priorities. For example, during timeframes that require rapid design, 

managers can identify guidelines deemed most important to the 

success of a Web site—as defined by the ’Relative Importance’ score 

associated with each guideline—and require designers to focus on 

implementing those selected guidelines.

• Researchers

Researchers involved in evaluating Web design and Web process 

issues can use this set of Guidelines to determine where new 

research is needed. Researchers can use the sources of evidence 

provided for each guideline to assess the research that has been 

How to Use the Guidelines

Headings, Titles, and Labels Links

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

xvii How to Use the Guidelines
xviiiHow to Use the Guidelines

 conducted, and to determine the need for additional research to 

increase the validity of the previous findings, or to challenge these 

findings. Perhaps more importantly, researchers also can use the 

Guidelines and their sources to formulate new and important research 

questions.

Options for Implementing the Guidelines

There are a variety of ways to use the Guidelines in Web site development 

efforts. Users can read the book from beginning to end to become familiar 

with all of the guidelines. The book also can be used as a reference to answer 

specific Web site design questions. The Guidelines can be customized to fit most 

organizations’ needs. The customization process can be approached in several 

ways:

• Encourage key stakeholders and/or decision makers to review the full 

set of guidelines and identify key guidelines that meet their Web design 

needs. For example, an organization may be developing portal Web 

sites that focus exclusively on linking to other Web sites (as opposed 

to linking to content within its own Web site). Therefore, it may focus 

more on selecting guidelines from the ’designing links’ and ’navigation’ 

chapters and less from the content-related chapters.

• Selected guidelines can be merged with existing standards and 

guidelines currently used within an organization. This may reduce the 

number of documents or online tools that designers must reference, 

and improve the adoption and use of existing standards and the 

Guidelines.

• The ’Relative Importance’ and ’Strength of Evidence’ scales can be used 

to prioritize which guidelines to implement. For example, on page 205 

of this book, the guidelines are listed in order of relative importance. 

Using this list, designers can focus on implementing the 25 or 50 most 

important guidelines. In turn, the ’Strength of Evidence’ ratings on 

page 210 can be used to determine the guidelines in which a designer 

can place the greatest confidence. Conversely, the guidelines with the 

lowest ’Strength of Evidence’ ratings could indicate where more time 

should be devoted during usability testing. To help readers customize 

these guidelines to meet their organization’s needs, an electronic copy 

of the Guidelines is posted at http://usability.gov/.

• Finally, Ben Shneiderman, Ph.D., suggests four ways to enhance the 

application of the Guidelines: education, enforcement, exemption, and 

enhancement. Please read his foreword to consider other ways to 

successfully implement the Guidelines. 

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
xixHow to Use the Guidelines

Considerations Before Using the Guidelines

The guidelines are intended to improve the design and usability of 

information-based Web sites, but also can be applied across the wide 

spectrum of Web sites. When using the guidelines, it is helpful to 

remember that:

• Within each chapter of this book, the guidelines are ordered 

according to their ’Relative Importance’ ratings. That is, the most 

important guidelines are toward the beginning of a chapter and the 

less important ones are toward the end. 

• Readers may have a tendency to think that guidelines with one or 

two bullets on the ’Relative Importance’ scale are not important. 

However, it is crucial to note that all guidelines in this book 

were rated as at least ’somewhat important’ by the review team, 

otherwise they would not have been selected for inclusion in 

the book. Therefore, a guideline with one or two bullets is still 

important, just relatively less so than a guideline with four or five 

bullets.

• The guidelines may not be applicable to all audiences and contexts. 

For example, they may not apply to Web sites used by audiences 

with low literacy skills that have special terminology and layout 

needs. In general, these guidelines apply to English language Web 

sites designed for adults who are between 18 and 75 years of age.

• The guidelines may not adequately consider the experience of the 

designer. For example, a designer may have specialized knowledge 

about designing for a particular audience or context. These 

guidelines are adaptable and are not fixed rules.

• The guidelines may not reflect all evidence from all disciplines 

related to Web design and usability. Considerable effort has been 

made to include research from a variety of fields including human 

factors, cognitive psychology, computer science, usability, and 

technical communication. However, other disciplines may have 

valuable research that is not reflected in the guidelines.

• Some ’Strength of Evidence’ ratings are low because there is a lack 

of research for that particular issue. The ’Strength of Evidence’ scale 

used to rate each guideline was designed to put a high value on 

research-based evidence, but also to acknowledge experience-based 

evidence including expert opinions. Low ’Strength of Evidence’ 

ratings should encourage the research of issues that are not 

currently investigated.

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
xxBackground and Methodology

Background and Methodology

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) ResearchBased Web Design & Usability Guidelines (Guidelines) project began in 

March of 2000. Since that time, each guideline presented in this book has 

undergone an extensive internal and external review. The process used to 

create the Guidelines is presented here.

Step 1: Creating the Initial Set of Guidelines

HHS wanted to develop a set of guidelines that could help designers build 

Web sites that are based on the best available research. The initial set 

of guidelines were drawn from existing Web design guideline and style 

guides, published research articles, research summaries, publicly available 

usability test reports, and lessons learned from in-house usability tests. This 

effort resulted in more than 500 guidelines.

Step 2: Reviewing the Initial Set of Guidelines

The initial seat of 500 guidelines was far too many for Web site designers 

to use effectively. An internal review process was conducted to:

• identify and combine duplicate guidelines.

• identify and resolve guidelines that conflicted with each other; and

• reword unclear guidelines.

Each of the reviewers had experience in Web site design, usability 

engineering, technical communication, software design, computer 

programming and/or human-computer interaction. This internal review 

reduced the initial set of guidelines to 398.

Step 3: Determining the ’Relative Importance’ of Each Guideline

To determine the ’Relative importance’ of each guideline, 16 external 

reviewers were recruited. Half of these reviewers were Web site designers 

and half were usability specialists. Each reviewer evaluated each guideline 

and assigned a rating based on the question, ’How important is this 

guideline to the success of a Web site?’ Those guidelines that were rated 

as having little importance to the success of a Web site were eliminated. 

The set of guidelines now was reduced to 287.

Step 4: Determining the ’Strength of Evidence’ for Each Guideline

The next step was to generate a ’Strength of Evidence’ rating for each 

guideline. To do this, a group of eight usability researchers, practitioners 

and authors were recruited. These reviewers were all published researchers 

with doctoral degrees, experienced peer reviewers, and knowledgeable 

of experimental design. These reviewers constructed a set of criteria for 

judging the strength of the evidence for each guideline, which was used as 

the ’Strength of Evidence’ scale.

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
xxi

Step 5: Finding Graphic Examples for the Guidelines

Introduction Background and Methodology

Most of the guidelines required a graphic example to ensure that users 

clearly understand the meaning of the guideline. The project team 

identified and reviewed several possible examples for each guideline, 

and selected the best examples. During this activity, the number of 

guidelines was further reduced.

Step 6: Grouping, Organizing, and Usability Testing the Guidelines

To ensure that the information about specific Web design issues is easy 

to find, a group of 20 Web site designers were asked to participate in 

a formal ’grouping’ of the guidelines by participating in a card-sorting 

exercise. Each of the twenty individuals put the guidelines into groups 

that reflected how they think about Web design issues, and then 

provided a name for each group. Data from this exercise was analyzed 

with specially developed software and formed the chapters of this book.

Several draft page layouts in print format were developed for this book. 

These drafts were usability tested to determine how best to facilitate 

readers’ ability to locate and understand information on a page. These 

findings, as well as readers’ preferences, served as the basis for the final 

page layout. The final set that was published in 2004 contained 187 

guidelines.

Step 7: Updating the Set of Guidelines

Since publishing the 2004 edition of the Research-Based Web Design 

and Usability Guidelines, the research literature has been continually 

searched for new and useful research-based information. We identified 

new relevant research that enabled us to substantially revise (update) 

21 existing guidelines, and to add 22 new guidelines. Minor editing 

changes were made to a few other guidelines. The new and revised 

guidelines were edited by three different, independent groups of 

computer professionals. After editing, the final number of guidelines 

was 209.

The ’Relative Importance’ ratings were revised based on a new survey in 

which 36 Web site professionals responded to an online survey. Each of 

these people reviewed each of the existing 209 guidelines and rated each 

one on a Likert-like importance scale with the anchors set at ’Important’ 

to ’Very Important.’ 

The ’Strength of Evidence’ ratings were revised for those guidelines 

where new research was reported. In this case, 13 usability professionals 

rated each of the new and revised guidelines, and assigned ’Strength of 

Evidence’ ratings. The raters all were very familiar the research literature, 

all had conducted their own studies, and there was a high level of 

agreement in their ratings (Cronbach’s alpha = .92). The criteria used for 

making the ’Strength of Evidence’ estimates is shown on the next page.

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
xxiiBackground and Methodology

The ’Strength of Evidence’ ratings were revised for those guidelines 

where new research was reported. In this case, 13 usability professionals 

rated each of the new and revised guidelines, and assigned ’Strength of 

Evidence’ ratings. The raters all were very familiar the research literature, 

all had conducted their own studies, and there was a high level of 

agreement in their ratings (Cronbach’s alpha = .92). The criteria used for 

making the ’Strength of Evidence’ estimates is shown below:

5 – Strong Research Support

• Cumulative and compelling, supporting research-based evidence 

• At least one formal, rigorous study with contextual validity 

• No known conflicting research-based findings 

• Expert opinion agrees with the research 

4 – Moderate Research Support

• Cumulative research-based evidence 

• There may or may not be conflicting research-based findings 

• Expert opinion 

 • Tends to agree with the research, and

 • A consensus seems to be building

3 – Weak Research Support

• Limited research-based evidence 

• Conflicting research-based findings may exist 

- and/or - 

• There is mixed agreement of expert opinions

2 – Strong Expert Opinion Support

• No research-based evidence

• Experts tend to agree, although there may not be a consensus 

• Multiple supporting expert opinions in textbooks, style guides, etc.

• Generally accepted as a ’best practice’ or reflects ’state of practice’ 

1 – Weak Expert Opinion Support

• No research-based evidence 

• Limited or conflicting expert opinion

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
Design Process and Evaluation

There are several usability-related issues,

methods, and procedures that require careful consideration when 

designing and developing Web sites. The most important of these 

are presented in this chapter, including ’up-front’ issues such as 

setting clear and concise goals for a Web site, determining a correct 

and exhaustive set of user requirements, ensuring that the Web site 

meets user’s expectations, setting usability goals, and providing useful 

content.

To ensure the best possible outcome, designers should consider a 

full range of user-interface issues, and work to create a Web site that 

enables the best possible human performance. The current research 

suggests that the best way to begin the construction of a Web site is 

to have many different people propose design solutions (i.e., parallel 

design), and then to follow up using an iterative design approach. 

This requires conducting the appropriate usability tests and using the 

findings to make changes to the Web site. 

1

Design Process and Evaluation

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
Guideline: Use all available resources to better 

understand users’ requirements.

Comments: The greater the number of exchanges 

of information with potential users, the better the developers’ understanding 

of the users’ requirements. The more information that can be exchanged 

between developers and users, the higher the probability of having a successful 

Web site. These could include customer support lines, customer surveys and 

interviews, bulletin boards, sales people, user groups, trade show experiences, 

focus groups, etc. Successful projects require at least four (and average five) 

different sources of information. Do not rely too heavily on user intermediaries.

The information gathered from exchanges with users can be used to build 

’use cases.’ Use cases describe the things that users want and need the Web 

site to be able to do. In one study, when compared with traditional functionoriented analyses, use cases provided a specification that produced better user 

performance and higher user preferences.

Sources: Adkisson, 2002; Brinck, Gergle and Wood, 2002; Buller, et al., 

2001; Coble, Karat and Kahn, 1997; Keil and Carmel, 1995; Li and Henning, 

2003; Norman, 1993; Osborn and Elliott, 2002; Ramey, 2000; Vora, 1998; 

Zimmerman, et al., 2002.

1:2 Establish User Requirements 

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

1:1 Provide Useful Content 

Guideline: Provide content that is engaging, relevant, 

and appropriate to the audience.

Comments: Content is the information provided on 

a Web site. Do not waste resources providing easy access and good usability to 

the wrong content. One study found that content is the most critical element 

of a Web site. Other studies have reported that content is more important than 

navigation, visual design, functionality, and interactivity. 

Sources: Asher, 1980; Badre, 2002; Baldwin, Peleg-Bruckner and McClintock, 

1985; Celsi and Olson, 1988; Evans, 1998; Levine, 1996; Nielsen and Tahir, 

2002; Nielsen, 1997b; Nielsen, 2000; Rajani and Rosenberg, 1999; Sano, 1996; 

Sinha, et al., 2001; Spyridakis, 2000; Stevens, 1980.

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Design Process and Evaluation

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

2
Guideline: Ensure that the Web site format meets 

user expectations, especially related to navigation, 

content, and organization.

Comments: One study found that users define 

'usability' as their perception of how consistent, 

efficient, productive, organized, easy to use, 

intuitive, and straightforward it is to accomplish tasks within a system. 

It is important for designers to develop an understanding of their users’ 

expectations through task analyses and other research. Users can have 

expectations based on their prior knowledge and past experience. One 

study found that users acted on their own expectations even when there 

were indications on the screen to counter those expectations.

The use of familiar formatting and navigation schemes makes it easier for 

users to learn and remember the layout of a site. It’s best to assume that 

a certain percentage of users will not use a Web site frequently enough to 

learn to use it efficiently. Therefore, using familiar conventions works best.

Sources: Carroll, 1990; Detweiler and Omanson, 1996; Lynch and Horton, 

2002; McGee, Rich and Dumas, 2004; Spool, et al., 1997; Wilson, 2000.

Example:

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Design Process and Evaluation

1:3 Understand and Meet User’s Expectations

Relative Importance:

Strength of Evidence: 

The Copyright Office Web site meets user expectations—links to the most likely 

user activities or queries (searching records, licensing and registering works, etc.) 

are prominently displayed and logically ordered, and there are very few distractions 

on the page.

3
Guideline: Identify and clearly articulate the primary 

goals of the Web site before beginning the design 

process. 

Comments: Before starting design work, identify the primary goals of the Web 

site (educate, inform, entertain, sell, etc.). Goals determine the audience, 

content, function, and the site’s unique look and feel. It is also a good idea 

to communicate the goals to, and develop consensus for the site goals from, 

management and those working on the Web site. 

Sources: Badre, 2002; Coney and Steehouder, 2000; Detweiler and Omanson, 

1996.

1:5 Set and State Goals 

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Design Process and Evaluation

Guideline: Involve users to improve the completeness 

and accuracy of user requirements.

Comments: One of the basic principles of usercentered design is the early and continual focus on 

users. For this reason, user involvement has become 

a widely accepted principle in the development of 

usable systems. Involving users has the most value when trying to improve the 

completeness and accuracy of user requirements. It is also useful in helping to 

avoid unused or little-used system features. User involvement may improve the 

level of user acceptance, although the research is not yet clear that it does in 

all cases. There is little or no research suggesting that user involvement leads to 

more effective and efficient use of the system. Finally, the research suggests that 

users are not good at helping make design decisions. To summarize, users are 

most valuable in helping designers know what a system should do, but not in 

helping designers determine how best to have the system do it. 

Sources: Barki and Hartwick, 1991; Baroudi, Olson and Ives, 1986; Foster 

and Franz, 1999; Heinbokel, et al., 1996; Ives and Olson, 1984; Kujala, 2003; 

McKeen and Guimaraes, 1997.

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

4 1:4 Involve Users in Establishing User Requirements
Guideline: If user performance is important, make 

decisions about content, format, interaction, and 

navigation before deciding on colors and decorative 

graphics. 

Comments: Focus on achieving a high rate of user 

performance before dealing with aesthetics. Graphics 

issues tend to have little impact, if any, on users’ success rates or speed of 

performance. 

Sources: Baca and Cassidy, 1999; Grose, et al., 1999; Tractinsky, 1997.

1:6 Focus on Performance Before Preference

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Design Process and Evaluation

Guideline: Consider as many user interface issues 

as possible during the design process.

Comments: Consider numerous usability-related issues 

during the creation of a Web site. These can include: the context within which 

users will be visiting a Web site; the experience levels of the users; the types 

of tasks users will perform on the site; the types of computer and connection 

speeds used when visiting the site; evaluation of prototypes; and the results of 

usability tests.

Sources: Bailey, 1996; Buller, et al., 2001; Graham, Kennedy and Benyon, 2000; 

Mayhew, 1992; Miller and Stimart, 1994; Zimmerman, et al., 2002.

1:7 Consider Many User Interface Issues

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

5
6

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Design Process and Evaluation

1:8 Be Easily Found in the Top 30

Guideline: In order to have a high probability of being 

accessed, ensure that a Web site is in the ‘top 30’ 

references presented from a major search engine. 

Comments: One study showed that users usually do not look at Web sites that are 

not in the ’top 30.’ Some of the features required to be in the ‘top 30’ include 

appropriate meta-content and page titles, the number of links to the Web site, as 

well as updated registration with the major search engines. 

Sources: Amento, et al., 1999; Dumais, Cutrell and Chen, 2001; Lynch and Horton, 

2002; Spink, Bateman and Jansen, 1999.

Example: 

The below snippet of html code illustrates one important way of ensuring that a Web 

site will be found by search engines—embedding keyword metatags. These keywords 

are read by search engines and used to categorize Web sites; understanding typical 

users will provide clues as to what keywords should be used.

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

<meta name=”description” content=”The Official Website of the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation”>

<meta name=”title” content=”Federal Bureau of Investigation”>

<meta name=”subject” content=”Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, 

F.B.I., The Bureau, G-man, G-men, Mueller, Intelligence, Terrorism, Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence, Espionage, Crime, Most Wanted, J. 

Edgar Hoover, Department of Justice, Fraud, Money Laundering, Public 

Corruption, Cyber, Fingerprints, Be Crime Smart, Submit A Crime Tip, 

E-Scams, forensics, Kids Page, jobs, careers”>
Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

1:9 Set Usability Goals

Guideline: Set performance goals that include 

success rates and the time it takes users to find 

specific information, or preference goals that address 

satisfaction and acceptance by users.

Comments: Setting user performance and/or preference goals helps developers 

build better Web sites. It can also help make usability testing more effective. 

For example, some intranet Web sites have set the goal that information will be 

found eighty percent of the time and in less than one minute. 

Sources: Baca and Cassidy, 1999; Bradley and Johnk, 1995; Grose, et al., 1999; 

Sears, 1995.

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Guideline: Have several developers independently 

propose designs and use the best elements from 

each design. 

Comments: Do not have individuals make design decisions by themselves or rely 

on the ideas of a single designer. Most designers tend to adopt a strategy that 

focuses on initial, satisfactory, but less than optimal, solutions. Group discussions 

of design issues (brainstorming) do not lead to the best solutions. 

The best approach is parallel design, where designers independently evaluate 

the design issues and propose solutions. Attempt to ‘saturate the design space’ 

before selecting the ideal solution. The more varied and independent the ideas 

that are considered, the better the final product will be. 

Sources: Ball, Evans and Dennis., 1994; Buller, et al., 2001; Macbeth, Moroney 

and Biers, 2000; McGrew, 2001; Ovaska and Raiha, 1995; Zimmerman, et al., 

2002.

1:10 Use Parallel Design

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Design Process and Evaluation

7
Guideline: Use personas to keep the design team 

focused on the same types of users.

Comments: Personas are hypothetical ’stand-ins’ for 

actual users that drive the decision making for interfaces. They are not real people, 

but they represent real people. They are not ’made up,’ but are discovered as a byproduct of an investigative process with rigor and precision. Interfaces should be 

constructed to satisfy the needs and goals of personas.

Some usability specialists feel that designers will have far more success designing 

an interface that meets the goals of one specific person, instead of trying to design 

for the various needs of many. The design team should develop a believable 

persona so that everybody will accept the person. It is usually best to detail two or 

three technical skills to give an idea of computer competency, and to include one 

or two fictional details about the persona’s life. Even though a few observational 

studies have been reported, there are no research studies that clearly demonstrate 

improved Web site success when personas are used.

Keep the number of personas for each Web site relatively small – use three to 

five. For each persona include at least a first name, age, photo, relevant personal 

information, and work and computer proficiency. 

Sources: Cooper, 1999; Goodwin, 2001; Head, 2003.

8

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

1:11 Use Personas

 See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Design Process and Evaluation

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:
Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Optimizing the User Experience

Web sites should be designed to facilitate and 

encourage efficient and effective human-computer interactions. 

Designers should make every attempt to reduce the user’s workload 

by taking advantage of the computer’s capabilities. Users will make the 

best use of Web sites when information is displayed in a directly usable 

format and content organization is highly intuitive. Users also benefit 

from task sequences that are consistent with how they typically do their 

work, that do not require them to remember information for more than 

a few seconds, that have terminology that is readily understandable, 

and that do not overload them with information. 

Users should not be required to wait for more than a few seconds 

for a page to load, and while waiting, users should be supplied with 

appropriate feedback. Users should be easily able to print information. 

Designers should never ‘push’ unsolicited windows or graphics to users.

2

Optimizing the User Experience
Guideline: Do not have unsolicited windows or 

graphics ‘pop-up’ to users. 

Comments: Users have commented that unsolicited 

windows or graphics that ‘pop up’ are annoying and 

distracting when they are focusing on completing 

their original activity.

Sources: Ahmadi, 2000.

10 2:1 Do Not Display Unsolicited Windows or Graphics Links Optimizing the User Experience

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Guideline: Optimize the credibility of informationoriented Web sites. 

Comments: Based on the results of two large surveys, 

the most important Web site-related actions that organizations can do to help 

ensure high Web site credibility are to:

Provide a useful set of frequently asked questions (FAQ) and answers;

Ensure the Web site is arranged in a logical way;

Provide articles containing citations and references;

Show author’s credentials;

Ensure the site looks professionally designed;

Provide an archive of past content (where appropriate);

Ensure the site is as up-to-date as possible;

Provide links to outside sources and materials; and

Ensure the site is frequently linked to by other credible sites.

Sources: Fogg, 2002; Fogg, et al., 2001; Lightner, 2003; Nielsen, 2003.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

2:2 Increase Web Site Credibility

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

 See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines of the rating scales
11

Guideline: Allow users to perform tasks in the same 

sequence and manner across similar conditions. 

Comments: Users learn certain sequences of 

behaviors and perform best when they can be reliably repeated. For 

example, users become accustomed to looking in either the left or right 

panels for additional information. Also, users become familiar with the steps 

in a search or checkout process.

Sources: Bovair, Kieras and Polson, 1990; Czaja and Sharit, 1997; Detweiler 

and Omanson, 1996; Foltz, et al., 1988; Kieras, 1997; Polson and Kieras, 

1985; Polson, Bovair and Kieras, 1987; Polson, Muncher and Engelback, 

1986; Smith, Bubb-Lewis and Suh, 2000; Sonderegger, et al., 1999; Ziegler, 

Hoppe and Fahnrich, 1986.

Example: 

2:3 Standardize Task Sequences

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance: 11Optimizing the User Experience

Drop-down boxes for 

date selection are 

consistent across the 

site, but one page places 

calendars in ‘pop-up’ 

windows, whereas other 

pages in the site show 

the calendars. This can 

confuse users, and 

should be avoided.

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
2:4 Reduce the User’s Workload

Guideline: Allocate functions to take advantage 

of the inherent respective strengths of computers 

and users. 

Comments: Let the computer perform as many tasks as possible, so that users 

can concentrate on performing tasks that actually require human processing 

and input. Ensure that the activities performed by the human and the computer 

take full advantage of the strengths of each. For example, calculating body mass 

indexes, remembering user IDs, and mortgage payments are best performed by 

computers.

Sources: Gerhardt-Powals, 1996; Moray and Butler, 2000; Sheridan, 1997.

Example: 

When looking 

to buy a house, 

users will know 

the value of 

variables necessary 

to calculate a 

monthly payment 

(interest rate, loan 

amount, etc.), but 

are incapable of 

quickly calculating it 

themselves. 

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Links

12

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Optimizing the User Experience

 See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
2:6 Minimize Page Download Time

Guideline: Minimize the time required to 

download a Web site’s pages. 

Comments: The best way to facilitate fast page 

loading is to minimize the number of bytes per page. 

Sources: Barber and Lucas, 1983; Bouch, Kuchinsky and Bhatti, 2000; Byrne, 

et al., 1999; Evans, 1998; Lynch and Horton, 2002; Nielsen, 1997d; Spool, et 

al., 1997; Tiller and Green, 1999.

Links 

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

13Optimizing the User Experience

2:5 Design for Working Memory Limitations

Guideline: Do not require users to remember 

information from place to place on a Web site.

Comments: Users can remember relatively few 

items of information for a relatively short period 

of time. This ’working memory’ capacity tends to 

lessen even more as people become older. One 

study compared the working memory performance of age groups 23-44 

years and 61-68 years. The younger group performed reliably better than 

the older group.

When users must remember information on one Web page for use on 

another page or another location on the same page, they can only 

remember about three or four items for a few seconds. If users must make 

comparisons, it is best to have the items being compared side-by-side so 

that users do not have to remember information—even for a short period of 

time.

Sources: Ahlstrom and Longo, 2001; Baddeley, 1992; Bailey, 2000a; 

Broadbent, 1975; Brown, 1958; Cockburn and Jones, 1996; Curry, McDougall 

and de Bruijn, 1998; Evans, 1998; Kennedy and Wilkes, 1975; LeCompte, 

1999; LeCompte, 2000; MacGregor, 1987; McEneaney, 2001; Nordby, 

Raanaas and Magnussen, 2002; Raanaas, Nordby and Magnussen, 2002; 

Spyridakis, 2000.

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:
Guideline: Let users know if a page is programmed 

to ’time out,’ and warn users before time expires 

so they can request additional time. 

Comments: Some pages are designed to ’time out’ automatically (usually 

because of security reasons). Pages that require users to use them within a 

fixed amount of time can present particular challenges to users who read 

or make entries slowly.

Sources: Koyani, 2001a; United States Government, 1998.

Example: 

2:7 Warn of ‘Time Outs’

Strength of Evidence: 

14 Relative Importance:

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Optimizing the User Experience

 See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
Guideline: Display data and information in a 

format that does not require conversion by 

the user. 

Comments: Present information to users in the 

most useful and usable format possible. Do not 

require users to convert or summarize information in order for it to be 

immediately useful. It is best to display data in a manner that is consistent 

with the standards and conventions most familiar to users. 

To accommodate a multinational Web audience, information should 

be provided in multiple formats (e.g., centigrade and Fahrenheit for 

temperatures) or the user should be allowed to select their preferred formats 

(e.g., the 12-hour clock for American audiences and the 24-hour clock for 

European audiences). 

Do not require users to convert, transpose, compute, interpolate, or 

translate displayed data into other units, or refer to documentation to 

determine the meaning of displayed data. 

Sources: Ahlstrom and Longo, 2001; Casner and Larkin, 1989; Galitz, 2002; 

Gerhardt-Powals, 1996; Navai, et al., 2001; Smith and Mosier, 1986.

Example: 

Links 

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

15Optimizing the User Experience

Recognize that there is a 

difference between the data units 

used in science and medicine 

and those used generally. Data 

should be presented in the 

generally-accepted manner of the 

intended audience—in this case, 

pounds and ounces. 

2:8 Display Information in a Directly Usable Format

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Displaying time in 

a 24-hour clock 

format is not suitable 

for U.S. civilian 

audiences.
Guideline: Prepare information with the expectation 

that it will either be read online or printed.

Comments: Documents should be prepared that are 

consistent with whether users can be expected to 

read the document online or printed. One study 

found that the major reason participants gave for 

deciding to read a document from print or to read it online was the size of 

the document. Long documents (over five pages) were printed, and short 

documents were read online. In addition, users preferred to print information 

that was related to research, presentations, or supporting a point. They favored 

reading it online if for entertainment.

Users generally favored reading documents online because they could do it 

from anywhere at anytime with 24/7 access. Users were inclined to print (a) if 

the online document required too much scrolling, (b) if they needed to refer to 

the document at a later time, or (c) the complexity of the document required 

them to highlight and write comments.

Sources: Shaikh and Chaparro, 2004.

Links

16

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Optimizing the User Experience

2:9 Format Information for Reading and Printing

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Guideline: Provide users with appropriate feedback 

while they are waiting.

Comments: If processing will take less than 10 

seconds, use an hourglass to indicate status. If 

processing will take up to sixty seconds or longer, 

use a process indicator that shows progress toward 

completion. If computer processing will take over one minute, indicate this to 

the user and provide an auditory signal when the processing is complete.

Users frequently become involved in other activities when they know they must 

wait for long periods of time for the computer to process information. Under 

these circumstances, completion of processing should be indicated by a nondisruptive sound (beep).

Sources: Bouch, Kuchinsky and Bhatti, 2000; 

Meyer, Shinar and Leiser, 1990; Smith and 

Mosier, 1986.

Example: 

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

2:10 Provide Feedback when Users Must Wait
Links 

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

17Optimizing the User Experience

2:11 Inform Users of Long Download Times

Guideline: Indicate to users the time required 

to download an image or document at a given 

connection speed. 

Comments: Providing the size and download time 

of large images or documents gives users sufficient 

information to choose whether or not they are 

willing to wait for the file to download. One study concluded that supplying 

users with download times relative to various connection speeds improves 

their Web site navigation performance.

Sources: Campbell and Maglio, 1999; Detweiler and Omanson, 1996; Evans, 

1998; Nielsen, 2000.

Example: 

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
Links

18

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Optimizing the User Experience

2:12 Develop Pages that Will Print Properly

Guideline: If users are likely to print one or more 

pages, develop pages with widths that print 

properly. 

Comments: It is possible to display pages that are too 

wide to print completely on standard 8.5 x 11 inch 

paper in portrait orientation. Ensure that margin to 

margin printing is possible.

Sources: Ahlstrom and Longo, 2001; Evans, 1998; Gerhardt-Powals, 1996; Lynch 

and Horton, 2002; Spyridakis, 2000; Tullis, 2001; Zhang and Seo, 2001. 

Example: 

Sections of this 

page are trimmed 

when printed on 

standard 8.5 x 11 

paper because of 

the design of the 

page.

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:
Guideline: When giving guidance about using a 

Web site, use the users’ terminology to describe 

elements and features. 

Comments: There is varied understanding among 

users as to what many Web site features are 

called, and in some cases, how they are used. 

These features include ’breadcrumbs,’ changing link colors after they’ve 

been clicked, the left and right panels on the homepage, the tabs at the 

top of many homepages, and the search capability. For example, if the term 

’breadcrumb’ is used in the help section, give enough context so that a user 

unfamiliar with that term can understand your guidance. If you refer to the 

’navigation bar,’ explain to what you are referring. Even if users know how 

to use an element, the terms they use to describe it may not be the same 

terms that a designer would use.

Sources: Bailey, Koyani and Nall, 2000; Foley and Wallace, 1974; Furnas, et al., 

1987; Scanlon and Schroeder, 2000.

2:14 Use Users’ Terminology in Help Documentation

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Links 

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

19

Guideline: If reading speed is important, do not 

Optimizing the User Experience

require users to perform other tasks while reading 

from the monitor. 

Comments: Generally, users can read from a 

monitor as fast as they can from paper, unless 

they are required to perform other tasks that 

require human ’working memory’ resources while reading. For example, do 

not require users to look at the information on one page and remember it 

while reading the information on a second page. This can reliably slow their 

reading performance.

Sources: Baddeley, 1986; Evans, 1998; Mayes, Sims and Koonce, 2000; 

Spyridakis, 2000.

2:13 Do Not Require Users to Multitask While Reading

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

 See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
Links

20

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Optimizing the User Experience

Guideline: Provide a link to a complete printable or 

downloadable document if there are Web pages, 

documents, resources, or files that users will want to 

print or save in one operation. 

Comments: Many users prefer to read text from a paper copy of a document. 

They find this to be more convenient, and it allows them to make notes on the 

paper. Users sometimes print pages because they do not trust the Web site to 

have pages for them at a later date, or they think they will not be able to find 

them again.

Sources: Detweiler and Omanson, 1996; Levine, 1996; Lynch and Horton, 2002; 

Nielsen, 1997e.

Example: Clicking on the ‘Print Friendly’ link will open a new browser window that 

allows the user to choose the sections of the document they wish to 

print. This is particularly useful for long documents, where users may 

only be interested in a particular section.

2:15 Provide Printing Options

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:
Links 

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

21

Guideline: Provide assistance for users who need 

Optimizing the User Experience

additional help with the Web site. 

Comments: Users sometimes require special 

assistance. This is particularly important if the site was designed for 

inexperienced users or has many first time users. For example, in one Web 

site that was designed for repeat users, more than one-third of users (thirtysix percent) were first time visitors. A special link was prepared that allowed 

new users to access more information about the content of the site and 

described the best way to navigate the site. 

Sources: Covi and Ackerman, 1995; Morrell, et al., 2002; Nall, Koyani and 

Lafond, 2001; Plaisant, et al., 1997.

Example: 

2:16 Provide Assistance to Users

 See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:
Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Accessibility

3

Accessibility

Web sites should be designed to ensure that 

everyone, including users who have difficulty seeing, hearing, and making 

precise movements, can use them. Generally, this means ensuring that 

Web sites facilitate the use of common assistive technologies. All United 

States Federal Government Web sites must comply with the Section 508 

Federal Accessibility Standards.

With the exception of Guideline 2:7 and Guideline 9:6, all accessibilityrelated guidelines are found in this chapter. The sample of users who 

organized these guidelines assigned these two guidelines to other 

chapters. (See page xxv, Step 7 for more on how the guidelines were 

organized.)

Some of the major accessibility issues to be dealt with include:

• Provide text equivalents for non-text elements;

• Ensure that scripts allow accessibility;

• Provide frame titles;

• Enable users to skip repetitive navigation links;

• Ensure that plug-ins and applets meet the requirements for 

accessibility; and 

• Synchronize all multimedia elements. 

Where it is not possible to ensure that all pages of a site are accessible, 

designers should provide equivalent information to ensure that all users 

have equal access to all information. 

For more information on Section 508 and accessibility, see 

www.section508.gov
23

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Accessibility

Guideline: Ensure that users using assistive 

technology can complete and submit online 

forms.

Comments: Much of the information collected 

through the Internet is collected using online 

forms. All users should be able to access forms and 

interact with field elements such as radio buttons and text boxes.

Sources: Covi and Ackerman, 1995; Morrell, et al., 2002; United States 

Government, 1998.

3:2 Design Forms for Users Using Assistive Technologies

Guideline: If a Web site is being designed for 

the United States government, ensure that it 

meets the requirements of Section 508 of the 

Rehabilitation Act. Ideally, all Web sites should 

strive to be accessible and compliant with Section 508.

Comments: Section 508 requires Federal agencies to ensure that their 

procurement of information technology takes into account the needs of all 

users—including people with disabilities. About eight percent of the user 

population has a disability that may make the traditional use of a Web site 

very difficult or impossible. About four percent have vision-related disabilities, 

two percent have movement-related issues, one percent have hearing-related 

disabilities, and less than one percent have learning-related disabilities.

Compliance with Section 508 enables Federal employees with disabilities to 

have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to that 

provided to others. This also enhances the ability of members of the public 

with disabilities to access information or services from a Federal agency. 

For additional information on Section 508 and accessibility: 

• http://www.section508.gov

• http://www.w3.org/WAI/

Sources: GVU, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1998; United States 

Government, 1998.

3:1 Comply with Section 508

 * Regardless of the ‘Relative Importance’ rating assigned by the reviewers, U.S. 

Federal Web sites must adhere to all Section 508 guidelines (see Guideline 3:1).

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance: *

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance: *
Guideline: To aid those using assistive 

technologies, provide a means for users to skip 

repetitive navigation links. 

Comments: Developers frequently place a series of 

routine navigational links at a standard location—

usually across the top, bottom, or side of a page. For people using assistive 

devices, it can be a tedious and time-consuming task to wait for all of the 

repeated links to be read. Users should be able to avoid these links when they 

desire to do so.

Sources: United States Government, 1998.

Guideline: Ensure that all information conveyed with 

color is also available without color. 

Comments: Never use color as the only indicator for 

critical activities. About eight percent of males and 

about one-half of one percent of females 

have difficulty discriminating colors. Most users 

with color deficiencies have difficulty seeing colors in the green portion of the 

spectrum. 

To accommodate color-deficient users, designers should:

• Select color combinations that can be discriminated by users with color 

deficiencies;

• Use tools to see what Web pages will look like when seen by color 

deficient users; 

• Ensure that the lightness contrast between foreground and background 

colors is high;

• Increase the lightness contrast between colors on either end of the 

spectrum (e.g., blues and reds); and

• Avoid combining light colors from either end of the spectrum with dark 

colors from the middle of the spectrum.

Sources: Bailey, 1996; Chisholm, Vanderheiden and Jacobs, 1999c; Evans, 1998; 

Hess, 2000; Levine, 1996; Murch, 1985; Rigden, 1999; Smith and Mosier, 1986; 

Sullivan and Matson, 2000; Thorell and Smith, 1990; Tullis, 2001; United States 

Government, 1998; Vischeck, 2003; Wolfmaier, 1999.

3:4 Enable Users to Skip Repetitive Navigation Links

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance: *

3:3 Do Not Use Color Alone to Convey Information

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance: *

24

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Accessibility

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Provide a text equivalent for every nonAccessibility

text element that conveys information. 

Comments: Text equivalents should be used for all 

non-text elements, including images, graphical 

representations of text (including symbols), image 

map regions, animations (e.g., animated GIFs), 

applets and programmatic objects, ASCII art, frames, scripts, images used as 

list bullets, spacers, graphical buttons, sounds, stand-alone audio files, audio 

tracks of video, and video.

Sources: Chisholm, Vanderheiden and Jacobs, 1999a; Nielsen, 2000; United 

States Government, 1998.

Example: 

3:5 Provide Text Equivalents for Non-Text Elements

Alt text allows the with visual impairments user to 

understand the meaning of the picture.

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance: *

 * Regardless of the ‘Relative Importance’ rating assigned by the reviewers, U.S. 

Federal Web sites must adhere to all Section 508 guidelines (see Guideline 3:1).

25
Guideline: Provide text-only pages with equivalent 

information and functionality if compliance with 

accessibility provisions cannot be accomplished in 

any other way. 

Comments: When no other solution is available, one option is to design, 

develop, and maintain a parallel Web site that does not contain any graphics. 

The pages, in such a Web site should be readily accessible, and facilitate the use 

of screen readers and other assistive devices.

As a rule, ensure that text-only pages are updated as frequently and contain all of 

the same information as their non-text counterparts. Also inform users that textonly pages are exactly equivalent and as current as non-text counterparts. 

Sources: Chisholm, Vanderheiden and Jacobs, 1999e; 

United States Government, 1998.

3:8 Provide Equivalent Pages

26Accessibility

3:6 Test Plug-Ins and Applets for Accessibility

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Guideline: To ensure accessibility, test any applets, 

plug-ins or other applications required to interpret 

page content to ensure that they can be used by 

assistive technologies. 

Comments: Applets, plug-ins and other software 

can create problems for people using assistive 

technologies, and should be thoroughly tested for accessibility.

Sources: United States Government, 1998.

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance: *

Guideline: When designing for accessibility, ensure 

that the information provided on pages that utilize 

scripting languages to display content or to create 

interface elements can be read by assistive technology.

Comments: Whenever a script changes the content of 

a page, the change must be indicated in a way that 

can be detected and read by a screen reader. Also, if ’mouseovers’ are used, 

ensure that they can be activated using a keyboard.

Sources: United States Government, 1998.

3:7 Ensure that Scripts Allow Accessibility

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance: *

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance: *
Guideline: Organize documents so they are 

readable without requiring an associated style 

sheet.

Comments: Style sheets are commonly used to control Web page layout and 

appearance. Style sheets should not hamper the ability of assistive devices to 

read and logically portray information.

Sources: United States Government, 1998.

3:11 Do Not Require Style Sheets

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance: *

27

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Accessibility

3:9 Provide Client-Side Image Maps

Guideline: To improve accessibility, provide clientside image maps instead of server-side image 

maps.

Comments: Client-side image maps can be made fully accessible, whereas 

server-side image maps cannot be made accessible without employing a 

text alternative for each section of the map. To make client-side image maps 

accessible, each region within the map should be assigned alt text that can 

be read by a screen reader or other assistive device. Designers must ensure 

that redundant text links are provided for each active region of a server-side 

image map.

Sources: United States Government, 1998.

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance: *

3:10 Synchronize Multimedia Elements

Guideline: To ensure accessibility, provide 

equivalent alternatives for multimedia elements 

that are synchronized.

Comments: For multimedia presentations (e.g., a movie or animation), 

synchronize captions or auditory descriptions of the visual track with the 

presentation.

Sources: Ahlstrom and Longo, 2001; Chisholm, Vanderheiden and Jacobs, 

1999b; Galitz, 2002; Mayhew, 1992; United States Government, 1998.

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance: *

 * Regardless of the ‘Relative Importance’ rating assigned by the reviewers, U.S. 

Federal Web sites must adhere to all Section 508 guidelines (see Guideline 3:1).
Guideline: Design Web pages that do not cause the 

screen to flicker with a frequency greater than 2 Hz 

and lower than 55 Hz.

Comments: Five percent of people with epilepsy are photosensitive, and may 

have seizures triggered by certain screen flicker frequencies. Most current 

monitors are unlikely to provoke seizures.

Sources: United States Government, 1998.

3:13 Avoid Screen Flicker

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance: *

28

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Accessibility

3:12 Provide Frame Titles

Guideline: To ensure accessibility, provide frame titles 

that facilitate frame identification and navigation.

Comments: Frames are used to divide the browser 

screen into separate areas, with each area presenting different, but usually 

related, information. For example, a designer may use a frame to place 

navigational links in the left page, and put the main information in a larger 

frame on the right side. This allows users to scroll through the information 

section without disturbing the navigation section. Clear and concise frame titles 

enable people with disabilities to properly orient themselves when frames are 

used.

Sources: Chisholm, Vanderheiden and Jacobs, 1999f; United States 

Government, 1998.

Example: Providing frame titles like that circled will allow users with 

visual impairments to understand the purpose of the frame’s 

content or its function. Note that the right frame does not 

contain a title, and thus poses accessibility concerns.

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance: *

 * Regardless of the ‘Relative Importance’ rating assigned by the reviewers, U.S. 

Federal Web sites must adhere to all Section 508 guidelines (see Guideline 3:1).
Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Hardware and Software 

Hardware and Software 

Designers are rarely free to do whatever comes

to mind. Just as designers consider their users’ needs for specific 

information, they must also consider any constraints imposed on them 

by their users’ hardware, software, and speed of connection to the 

Internet. Today, a single operating system (Microsoft’s XP) dominates

personal computer market. Similarly, only two Web site browsers are 

favored by the vast majority of users. More than ninety percent of users 

have their monitors set to 1024x768, 800x600 or 1280x1024 pixel 

resolution. And while most users at work have high-speed Internet 

access, many home users still connect using dial-up.

Within the constraints of available time, money, and resources, it 

is usually impossible to design for all users. Therefore, identify the 

hardware and software used by your primary and secondary audiences 

and design to maximize the effectiveness of your Web site.

4
30

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Hardware and Software

4:1 Design for Common Browsers

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Guideline: Design, develop and test for the most 

common browsers. 

Comments: Designers should attempt to 

accommodate ninety-five percent of all users. Ensure that all testing of a Web 

site is done using the most popular browsers.

Sources of information about the most commonly used browsers:

• http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html

• http://www.thecounter.com/stats/

Sources: Evans, 1998; Jupitermedia Corporation, 2003; Morrell, et al., 2002; 

Nielsen, 1996b.

Example: 

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

This site, when 

rendered on a 

Macintosh, falls 

apart (right). The 

website should 

display properly 

on all platforms, 

as it does below 

when rendered 

on a PC.
31

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Hardware and Software

4:2 Account for Browser Differences

Guideline: Do not assume that all users will have 

the same browser features, and will have set the 

same defaults. 

Comments: Users with visual impairments tend to select larger fonts, and 

some users may turn off backgrounds, use fewer colors, or overrides font. 

The designer should find out what settings most users are using, and specify 

on the Web site exactly what assumptions were made about the browser 

settings.

Sources: Evans, 1998; Levine, 1996.

Example: 

When using one popular browser, 

moving the mouse over the tabs at 

the top of the page and left-clicking 

will reveal a drop-down menu with 

navigation choices. This functionality 

is not available when using another 

popular browser, where a single left 

click will take you to a new page 

entitled ‘Air, Car & Hotel.’

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:
Guideline: Design the Web site so it will work well 

with the most popular operating systems. 

Comments: Designers should attempt to 

accommodate ninety-five percent of all users. Ensure 

that all testing of a Web site is done using the most 

common operating systems. 

Currently, the most popular operating system is Microsoft’s Windows XP which 

has over 80 of the market share. The second is Windows 2000 (eight percent), 

then Windows 98 (five percent), and the Macintosh (three percent). Designers 

should consult one of the several sources that maintain current figures to help 

ensure that they are designing to accommodate as many users as possible.

Sources: www.thecounter.com., 2006; Jupitermedia Corporation, 2003.

Example: 

Windows XP

Windows 2000

Windows 98

Macintosh

Unknown

Most popular operating systems, as reported by 

the counter.com, for June 2006.

32

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Hardware and Software

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

4:3 Design for Popular Operating Systems

81%

8%

5%

3%

1%

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:
Guideline: Design for monitors with the screen 

resolution set at 1024x768 pixels. 

Comments: Designers should attempt to 

accommodate ninety-five percent of all users. 

As of June 2006, 56% of users have their screen 

resolution set at 1024x768. By designing for 

1024x768, designers will accommodate this most common resolution, as 

well as those at any higher resolution. Ensure that all testing of Web sites is 

done using the most common screen resolutions.

Sources: www.thecounter.com., 2006; Evans, 1998; Jupitermedia 

Corporation, 2003. 

Example: 

4:5 Design for Commonly Used Screen Resolutions

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

33

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Design for the connection speed of 

Hardware and Software

most users. 

Comments: At work in the United States, at least 

eighty-nine percent of users have high speed 

access, while less than eleven percent are using 

fifty-six K (or slower) modems. At home, more than two-thirds of users have 

high speed access. These figures are continually changing. Designers should 

consult one of the several sources that maintain current figures.

Sources: Nielsen/NetRatings, 2006; Forrester Research, 2001; Nielsen, 

1999a; Web Site Optimization, 2003.

4:4 Design for User’s Typical Connection Speed

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:
Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

The Homepage

5

The homepage is different from all other Web 

site pages. A well-constructed homepage will project a good first 

impression to all who visit the site.

It is important to ensure that the homepage has all of the features 

expected of a homepage and looks like a homepage to users. A 

homepage should clearly communicate the site's purpose, and show 

all major options available on the Web site. Generally, the majority of 

the homepage should be visible ’above the fold,’ and should contain a 

limited amount of prose text. Designers should provide easy access to 

the homepage from every page in the site.

The Homepage
35

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Enable users to access the homepage 

The Homepage

from any other page on the Web site. 

Comments: Many users return to the homepage to 

begin a new task or to start a task over again. Create an easy and obvious 

way for users to quickly return to the homepage of the Web site from any 

point in the site. 

Many sites place the organization’s logo on the top of every page and link 

it to the homepage. While many users expect that a logo will be clickable, 

many other users will not realize that it is a link to the homepage. Therefore, 

include a link labeled ‘Home’ near the top of the page to help those users.

Sources: Bailey, 2000b; Detweiler and Omanson, 1996; IBM, 1999; Levine, 

1996; Lynch and Horton, 2002; Nielsen and Tahir, 2002; Spool, et al., 1997; 

Tullis, 2001.

Example: 

5:1 Enable Access to the Homepage

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

This Web page provides links to both the main organization homepage (clickable 

‘National Cancer Institute’ logo in the upper left corner) as well as the suborganization homepage (‘Cancer Control Home’ link placed in the upper right corner). 

These logos and their placement remain constant throughout the Web site.
36

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

The Homepage

5:2 Show All Major Options on the Homepage

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Guideline: Present all major options on the 

homepage. 

Comments: Users should not be required to click 

down to the second or third level to discover the full 

breadth of options on a Web site. Be selective about 

what is placed on the homepage, and make sure the 

options and links presented there are 

the most important ones on the site.

Sources: Farkas and Farkas, 2000; Koyani, 2001a; Nielsen and Tahir, 2002; 

Nielsen, 2001b.

Example: 

All major topic areas and categories are presented at the 

homepage level.

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:
37

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Treat your homepage as the key to 

The Homepage

conveying the quality of your site. 

Comments: In terms of conveying quality, the 

homepage is probably the most important page 

on a Web site. One study found that when asked 

to find high quality Web sites, about half of the 

time participants looked only at the homepage. You will not get a second 

chance to make a good first impression on a user.

Sources: Amento, et al., 1999; Coney and Steehouder, 2000; Mahlke, 2002; 

Nielsen and Tahir, 2002.

Example: This homepage creates a positive first impression:

• Tag line increases users’ understanding of site; 

• Key topic areas are presented in order of importance and are easy 

to scan; and 

• Up-to-date news stories are available.

5:3 Create a Positive First Impression of Your Site

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:
Guideline: Clearly and prominently communicate 

the purpose and value of the Web site on the 

homepage. 

Comments: Most people browsing or searching 

the Web will spend very little time on each site. 

Emphasize what the site offers that is of value to 

users, and how the site differs from key competitors. Many users waste time 

because they misunderstand the purpose of a Web site. In one study, most 

users expected that a site would show the results of research projects, not 

merely descriptions of project methodology.

In some cases the purpose of a Web site is easily inferred. In other cases, it may 

need to be explicitly stated through the use of brief text or a tagline. Do not 

expect users to read a lot of text or to click into the Site to determine a Site’s 

purpose. Indicating what the Site offers that is of value to users, and how the 

Site differs from key competitors is important because most people will spend 

little time on each Site. 

Sources: Coney and Steehouder, 2000; Nall, Koyani and Lafond, 2001; Nielsen, 

2003.

Example: Concise taglines help users understand your site’s purpose.

38

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

The Homepage

5:4 Communicate the Web Site’s Value and Purpose

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:
39

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Limit the amount of prose text on the 

The Homepage

homepage. 

Comments: The first action of most users is to scan 

the homepage for link titles and major headings. 

Requiring users to read large amounts of prose 

text can slow them considerably, or they may 

avoid reading it altogether.

Sources: Bailey, Koyani and Nall, 2000; Farkas and Farkas, 2000; Morkes and 

Nielsen, 1998.

Example: 

5:5 Limit Prose Text on the Homepage

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Clean, prose-free design allows users to quickly discern the primary headings and 

sub-headings without the distraction of paragraphs of text.

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
40

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

The Homepage

Guideline: Ensure that the homepage has the 

necessary characteristics to be easily perceived as a 

homepage. 

Comments: It is important that pages ’lower’ in a site 

are not confused with the homepage. Users have 

come to expect that certain actions are possible 

from the homepage. These actions include, among others, finding important 

links, accessing a site map or index, and conducting a search.

Sources: Farkas and Farkas, 2000; Ivory and Hearst, 2002; Ivory, Sinha and 

Hearst, 2000; Lynch and Horton, 2002; Nall, Koyani and Lafond, 2001; Nielsen 

and Tahir, 2002; Tullis, 2001.

Example: 

5:6 Ensure the Homepage Looks like a Homepage

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

This homepage has characteristics 

that help ensure that it is distinct 

from second and third tier pages:

• Masthead with tagline;

• Distinct and weighted category 

links listed in order of priority; 

and

• All major content categories are 

available.

The second and 

third tier pages 

use a less visually 

imposing masthead 

and specific content.
41

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Limit the homepage to one screenful 

The Homepage

of information, if at all possible. 

Comments: Any element on the homepage that must immediately attract the 

attention of users should be placed ’above the fold.’ Information that cannot 

be seen in the first screenful may be missed altogether—this can negatively 

impact the effectiveness of the Web site. If users conclude that what they 

see on the visible portion of the page is not of interest, they may not bother 

scrolling to see the rest of the page.

Some users take a long time to scroll down ’below the fold,’ indicating a 

reluctance to move from the first screenful to subsequent information. Older 

users and novices are more likely to miss information that is placed below the 

fold. 

Sources: Badre, 2002; IBM, 1999; Lynch and Horton, 2002; Nielsen and Tahir, 

2002; Spyridakis, 2000.

Example: 

5:7 Limit Homepage Length

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Users can view all of the information on this homepage 

without scrolling.

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

42The Homepage

Guideline: Announce major changes to a Web site 

on the homepage—do not surprise users. 

Comments: Introducing users to a redesigned Web site can require some 

preparation of expectations. Users may not know what to do when they are 

suddenly confronted with a new look or navigation structure. Therefore, you 

should communicate any planned changes to users ahead of time. Following 

completion of changes, tell users exactly what has changed and when the 

changes were made. Assure users that all previously available information will 

continue to be on the site.

It may also be helpful to users if you inform them of site changes at other 

relevant places on the Web site. For example, if shipping policies have 

changed, a notification of such on the order page should be provided.

Sources: Levine, 1996; Nall, Koyani and Lafond, 2001.

Example: 

5:8 Announce Changes to a Web Site

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Creating Web pages that introduce a new look or changes in the 

navigation structure is one way of re-orienting users after a site redesign.
43

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

The Homepage

5:9 Attend to Homepage Panel Width

Guideline: Ensure that homepage panels are of a 

width that will cause them to be recognized as 

panels. 

Comments: The width of panels seems to be critical for helping users 

understand the overall layout of a Web site. In one study, users rarely selected 

the information in the left panel because they did not understand that it 

was intended to be a left panel. In a subsequent study, the panel was made 

narrower, which was more consistent with other left panels experienced by 

users. The newly designed left panel was used more.

Sources: Evans, 1998; Farkas and Farkas, 2000; Nall, Koyani and Lafond, 

2001.

Example: 

The width of these panels (wide enough to clearly present links and navigation 

information, but narrow enough so that they do not dominate the page) allow the user 

to recognize them as navigation and content panels. 

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Page Layout

All Web pages should be structured for ease of

comprehension. This includes putting items on the page in an order 

that reflects their relative importance. Designers should place important 

items consistently, usually toward the top and center of the page. 

All items should be appropriately aligned on the pages. It is usually a 

good idea to ensure that the pages show a moderate amount of white 

space—too much can require considerable scrolling, while too little may 

provide a display that looks too ‘busy.’ It is also important to ensure 

that page layout does not falsely convey the top or bottom of the page, 

such that users stop scrolling prematurely. 

When a Web page contains prose text, choose appropriate line lengths. 

Longer line lengths usually will elicit faster reading speed, but users tend 

to prefer shorter line lengths. There are also important decisions that 

need to be made regarding page length. Pages should be long enough 

to adequately convey the information, but not so long that excessive 

scrolling becomes a problem. If page content or length dictates 

scrolling, but the page's table of contents needs to be accessible, then it 

is usually a good idea to use frames to keep the table of contents readily 

accessible and visible in the left panel.

Page Layout

6
Guideline: Create pages that are not considered 

cluttered by users.

Comments: Clutter is when excess items on a 

page lead to a degradation of performance when trying to find certain 

information. On an uncluttered display, all important search targets are 

highly salient, i.e., clearly available. One study found that test participants 

tended to agree on which displays were least cluttered and those that were 

most cluttered.

Sources: Rosenholtz, et al., 2005.

Example:

45

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

6:1 Avoid Cluttered Displays

Page Layout

Relative Importance:

Strength of Evidence: 

Cluttered pages lead to poorlyperforming sites.
6:2 Place Important Items Consistently

Guideline: Put important, clickable items in the 

same locations, and closer to the top of the page, 

where their location can be better estimated.

Comments: Users will try to anticipate where items will appear on their screen. 

They will start ’searching’ a page before the layout appears on their screen. 

When screen items remain constant, users learn their location on a page, and 

use this knowledge to improve task performance. Experienced users will begin 

moving their mouse to the area of the target before the eye detects the item. 

Users can anticipate the location of items near the top much better than those 

farther down the page.

Sources: Badre, 2002; Bernard, 2001; Bernard, 2002; Byrne, et al., 1999; Ehret, 

2002; Hornof and Halverson, 2003.

Example:

Strength of Evidence: 

46 Relative Importance:

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Page Layout

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Important items—in this case, primary navigation tabs—

are consistently placed at the top of each page. 
47

Guideline: Put the most important items at the top 

Page Layout

center of the Web page to facilitate users’ finding 

the information.

Comments: Users generally look at the top center 

of a page first, then look left, then right, and finally 

begin systematically moving down the total Web page. All critical content 

and navigation options should be toward the top of the page. Particularly 

on navigation pages, most major choices should be visible with no, or a 

minimum of, scrolling.

Sources: Byrne, et al., 1999; Detweiler and Omanson, 1996; Faraday, 2000; 

Faraday, 2001; Lewenstein, et al., 2000; Mahajan and Shneiderman, 1997; 

Nielsen, 1996a; Nielsen, 1999b; Nielsen, 1999c; Spyridakis, 2000.

Example:

Relative Importance:

Strength of Evidence: 

6:3 Place Important Items at Top Center

Eye-tracking studies indicate this is the area of the screen where 

most new users first look when a Web site page loads.

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
Guideline: Structure pages so that items can be 

easily compared when users must analyze those 

items to discern similarities, differences, trends, and 

relationships.

Comments: Users should be able to compare two or more items without having 

to remember one while going to another page or another place on the same 

page to view a different item.

Sources: Spool, et al., 1997; Tullis, 1981; Williams, 2000.

Example:

6:4 Structure for Easy Comparison

Strength of Evidence: 

48 Relative Importance:

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Page Layout

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

This page layout is structured to allow users to quickly scan and 

compare data.
49

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Page Layout

Guideline: Establish a high-to-low level of 

importance for information and infuse this 

approach throughout each page 

on the Web site.

Comments: The page layout should help users find and use the most 

important information. Important information should appear higher on the 

page so users can locate it quickly. The least used information should appear 

toward the bottom of the page. Information should be presented in the 

order that is most useful to users. 

People prefer hierarchies, and tend to focus their attention on one level of the 

hierarchy at a time. This enables them to adopt a more systematic strategy 

when scanning a page, which results in fewer revisits. 

Sources: Detweiler and Omanson, 1996; Evans, 1998; Hornof and Halverson, 

2003; Kim and Yoo, 2000; Marshall, Drapeau and DiSciullo, 2001; Nall, 

Koyani and Lafond 2001; Nielsen and Tahir, 2002; Nygren and Allard, 1996; 

Spyridakis, 2000.

Example:

6:5 Establish Level of Importance Relative Importance:

Strength of Evidence: 

Priority information and links appear in order based on users’ 

needs. The order was determined by surveys, log analyses, 

and interviews.
This homepage, 

though quite dense 

with information, gives 

the user’s eyes a rest 

with areas of white 

space. 

This page doesn’t allow for 

quick scanning because of 

it’s density.

6:6 Optimize Display Density

Guideline: To facilitate finding target information on 

a page, create pages that are not too crowded with 

items of information.

Comments: Density can be defined as the number of items per degree of visual 

angle within a visually distinct group. This density either can be crowded with 

many items, or sparse with few items. One study found that locating a target 

in a crowded area took longer than when the target was in a sparse area. Also, 

participants searched and found items in the sparse areas faster than those in 

the crowded areas. Participants used fewer fixations per word in the crowded 

areas, but their fixations were much longer when viewing items in the crowded 

areas. Finally, participants tended to visit sparse areas before dense groups. To 

summarize, targets in sparse areas of the display (versus crowded areas) tended 

to be searched earlier and found faster.

Sources: Halverson and Hornof, 2004.

Example: 

Strength of Evidence: 

50 Relative Importance:

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Page Layout

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
Guideline: Visually align page elements, either 

vertically or horizontally.

Comments: Users prefer consistent alignments for 

items such as text blocks, rows, columns, checkboxes, radio buttons, data 

entry fields, etc. Use consistent alignments across all Web pages.

Sources: Ausubel, 1968; Bailey, 1996; Esperet, 1996; Fowler, 1998; Lawless 

and Kulikowich, 1996; Marcus, Smilonich and Thompson 1995; Mayer, Dyck 

and Cook, 1984; Parush, Nadir and Shtub, 1998; Spyridakis, 2000; Trollip and 

Sales, 1986; Voss, et al., 1986; Williams, 1994; Williams, 2000.

Example:

6:7 Align Items on a Page Relative Importance:

Strength of Evidence: 

51

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Page Layout

The design of these list columns makes them extremely difficult to scan, 

and thus will slow users’ attempts to find information.

These columns 

are horizontally 

aligned, allowing the 

information to fall 

easily to the eye.
Guideline: Use a fluid layout that automatically 

adjusts the page size to monitor resolution settings 

that are 1024x768 pixels or higher.

Comments: When web page layouts are fixed either to the left or centered, 

much of the available screen space is not used. It is best to take advantage 

of as much of the screen space as possible because this will help move 

more information above the fold. There has been no degradation in user 

performance when using the non-fluid layouts. However, most users prefer the 

fluid layout. One 2003 study reported a compliance rate for this guideline of 

twenty-eight percent, and a 2001 study found that only twenty-three percent of 

top Web sites used a fluid layout. Keep in mind that large monitors and higher 

pixel resolutions allow viewing of more than one window at a time. 

Sources: Bernard and Larsen, 2001; Nielsen, 2003.

Example:

6:8 Use Fluid Layouts Relative Importance:

Strength of Evidence: 

52

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Page Layout

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Flexible, or liquid, layouts allow users to adjust Web pages to fit their 

screen space.
Guideline: Ensure that the location of headings 

and other page elements does not create the 

illusion that users have reached the top or bottom 

of a page when they have not.

Comments: In one study, three headings were positioned in the center of a 

page below a section of introductory text­­—the headings were located about 

one inch below the navigation tabs. When users scrolled up the page from 

the bottom and encountered these headings, they tended to stop, thinking 

the headings indicated the top of the page. 

Similarly, users have been found to not scroll to the true bottom of a page to 

find a link because they encountered a block of text in a very small font size. 

This small type led users to believe that they were at the true bottom of the 

page. Other elements that may stop users’ scrolling include horizontal lines, 

inappropriate placement of ’widgets,’ and cessation of background color.

Sources: Bailey, Koyani and Nall, 2000; Ivory, Sinha and Hearst, 2000; 

Marshall, Drapeau and DiSciullo, 2001; Nygren and Allard, 1996; Spool, Klee 

and Schroeder, 2000; Spool, et al., 1997.

Example: When scrolling up the page, the design of this header (bold, 

shadowed, and bordered by bars) might suggest that the user has 

reached the top of the page, when a quick look at the scroll bar will 

indicate that much of the page exists above this section.

53

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Page Layout

6:9 Avoid Scroll Stoppers

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

The design and location of 

this block of graphics might 

suggest to a new user that 

this is the bottom of the 

page, when the scroll bar 

indicates that it is not.
6:10 Set Appropriate Page Lengths

Guideline: Make page-length decisions that support 

the primary use of the Web page.

Comments: In general, use shorter pages for homepages and navigation pages, 

and pages that need to be quickly browsed and/or read online. Use longer 

pages to (1) facilitate uninterrupted reading, especially on content pages; 

(2) match the structure of a paper counterpart; (3) simplify page maintenance 

(fewer Web page files to maintain); and, (4) make pages more convenient to 

download and print.

Sources: Bernard, Baker and Fernandez, 2002; Evans, 1998; Lynch and Horton, 

2002.

Example: 

Relative Importance:

Strength of Evidence: 

54

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Page Layout

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

A shorter page 

is used for this 

homepage so 

that most content 

is visible without 

scrolling. 

The scroll bar 

on each page is 

an indication of 

the amount of 

information hidden 

‘below the fold.’
55

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Limit the amount of white space (areas 

Page Layout

without text, graphics, etc.) on pages that are 

used for scanning and searching.

Comments: ’Density’ is the percentage of the screen filled with text and 

graphics. One study found that higher density is related to faster scanning, 

and has no impact on user accuracy or preference. Another study found that 

users prefer moderate amounts of white space, but the amount of white 

space has no impact on their searching performance. On content (i.e., text)

pages, use some white space to separate paragraphs. Too much separation 

of items on Web pages may require users to scroll unnecessarily.

Sources: Chaparro and Bernard, 2001; Parush, Nadir and Shtub, 1998; Spool, 

et al., 1997; Staggers, 1993; Tullis, 1984.

Example:

6:11 Use Moderate White Space

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

This page facilitates users’ ability to scan for information by limiting 

the amount of white space.
Formatting text into narrow columns with very short

line lengths will slow users’ reading speeds.

Formatting text like this—

roughly 100 characters per 

line—elicits faster reading 

speeds.

56

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Page Layout

6:12 Choose Appropriate Line Lengths

Guideline: If reading speed is most important, use 

longer line lengths (75-100 characters per line). If 

acceptance of the Web site is most important, use 

shorter line lengths (fifty characters per line).

Comments: When designing, first determine if performance or preference is most 

important. Users read faster when line lengths are long. However, they tend to 

prefer shorter line lengths, even though reading shorter lines generally slows 

overall reading speed. One study found that line lengths 

of about twenty characters reliably slowed reading speed. 

When space for text display is limited, display a few longer lines of text rather 

than many shorter lines of text. Always display continuous text in columns 

containing at least fifty characters per line. 

Research done using a paper-based document found that medium line length 

was read fastest. 

Sources: Bailey, 2002; Duchnicky and Kolers, 1983; Dyson and Haselgrove, 2000; 

Dyson and Haselgrove, 2001; Dyson and Kipping, 1998; Evans, 1998; Paterson 

and Tinker, 1940b; Rehe, 1979; Smith and Mosier, 1986; Tinker and Paterson, 

1929; Tullis, 1988; Youngman and Scharff, 1999.

Example: 

Relative Importance:

Strength of Evidence: 
Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Use frames when certain functions 

must remain visible on the screen as the user 

accesses other information on the site.

Comments: It works well to have the functional 

items in one frame and the items that are being 

acted upon in another frame. This is sometimes referred to as a ’simultaneous 

menu’ because making changes in one frame causes the information to 

change in another frame. Side-by-side frames seem to work best, with the 

functions on the left and the information viewing area on the right. 

Keep in mind that frames can be confusing to some users. More than three 

frames on a page can be especially confusing to infrequent and occasional 

users. Frames also pose problems when users attempt to print, and when they 

search pages.

Sources: Ashworth and Hamilton, 1997; Bernard and Hull, 2002; Bernard, 

Hull and Drake, 2001; Detweiler and Omanson, 1996; Kosslyn, 1994; Koyani, 

2001a; Lynch and Horton, 2002; Nielsen, 1996a; Nielsen, 1999b; Powers, et 

al., 1961; Spool, et al., 1997.

Example:

57Page Layout

6:13 Use Frames when Functions Must Remain Accessible

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Multi-variable charting 

applications are 

one example of an 

acceptable use of 

frames. The map of the 

United States in the 

right frame is controlled 

by the menu selections 

in the left frame. As 

such, the left frame 

remains fixed while the 

right frame regenerates 

based upon the userdefined selections in 

the left frame. Such 

use of frames allows 

users to continually view 

the menu selections, 

avoiding use of the 

Back button when 

changing selections and 

eliminating the need for users to maintain this information in their working memory.

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Navigation

7

Navigation refers to the method used to find 

information within a Web site. A navigation page is used primarily to 

help users locate and link to destination pages. A Web site’s navigation 

scheme and features should allow users to find and access information 

effectively and efficiently. When possible, this means designers should 

keep navigation-only pages short. Designers should include site maps, 

and provide effective feedback on the user’s location within the site.

To facilitate navigation, designers should differentiate and group 

navigation elements and use appropriate menu types. It is also 

important to use descriptive tab labels, provide a clickable list of page 

contents on long pages, and add ‘glosses’ where they will help users 

select the correct link. In well-designed sites, users do not get trapped 

in dead-end pages.

Navigation 
59

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Navigation

7:1 Provide Navigational Options

Guideline: Do not create or direct users into pages 

that have no navigational options.

Comments: Many Web pages contain links that 

open new browser windows. When these browser windows open, the Back 

button is disabled (in essence, the new browser window knows nothing of 

the user’s past navigation, and thus is disabled). If the new window opens 

full-screen, users may not realize that they have been redirected to another 

window, and may become frustrated because they cannot press Back to 

return to the previous page. If such links are incorporated into a Web site, 

the newly-opened window should contain a prominent action control that 

will close the window and return the user to the original browser window. 

In addition, designers should not create Web pages that disable the 

browser’s Back button. Disabling the Back button can result in confusion 

and frustration for users, and drastically inhibits their navigation. 

Sources: Detweiler and Omanson, 1996; Lynch and Horton, 2002; Spool, et 

al., 1997; Tullis, 2001; Zimmerman, Slater and Kendall, 2001.

Example: 

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

The link for this document opens a 

new browser window that presents the 

user with a disabled Back button. This 

can confuse users.
60

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Navigation

7:2 Differentiate and Group Navigation Elements

Guideline: Clearly differentiate navigation elements 

from one another, but group and place them in a 

consistent and easy to find place on each page.

Comments: Create a common, Web site-wide 

navigational scheme to help users learn and 

understand the structure of your Web site. Use the same navigation scheme 

on all pages by consistently locating tabs, headings, lists, search, site map, etc. 

Locate critical navigation elements in places that will suggest clickability (e.g., 

lists of words in the left or right panels are generally assumed to be links). 

Make navigational elements different enough from one another so that users 

will be able to understand the difference in their meaning and destination. 

Grouping reduces the amount of time that users need to locate and identify 

navigation elements.

Do not make users infer the label by studying a few items in the group. Finally, 

make it easy for users to move from label to label (link to link) with a single 

eye movement. This best can be done by positioning relevant options close 

together and to using vertical lists.

Sources: Bailey, 2000b; Detweiler and Omanson, 1996; Evans, 1998; 

Farkas and Farkas, 2000; Hornof and Halverson, 2003; Koyani and Nall, 1999; 

Lynch and Horton, 2002; Nielsen and Tahir, 2002; Niemela and Saarinen, 2000.

Example: 

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Navigation elements are 

grouped (high-level topic 

areas across the top of 

the page) and consistently 

placed across the Web 

site.
61

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Navigation

7:3 Use a Clickable ‘List of Contents’ on Long Pages

Guideline: On long pages, provide a ’list of 

contents’ with links that take users to the 

corresponding content farther down the page. 

Comments: For long pages with several distinct 

sections that are not visible from the first screenful, 

add a short, clickable list of the sections (sometimes called ’anchor’ or 

’within-page’ links) at the top of the page. ’Anchor links’ can serve two 

purposes: they provide an outline of the page so users can quickly determine 

if it contains the desired information, and they allow users to quickly navigate 

to specific information. 

Since ’anchor links’ enable a direct link to content below the first screenful, 

they are also useful for getting users to specific information quickly when 

they arrive from a completely different page. 

Sources: Bieber, 1997; Farkas and Farkas, 2000; Haas and Grams, 1998; 

Levine, 1996; Nall, Koyani and Lafond, 2001; Spool, et al., 1997; Spyridakis, 

2000; Williams, 2000; Zimmerman, Slater and Kendall, 2001.

Example: 

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
62

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Navigation

7:4 Provide Feedback on Users’ Location

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Guideline: Provide feedback to let users know where 

they are in the Web site. 

Comments: Feedback provides users with the 

information they need to understand where they 

are within the Web site, and for proceeding to the 

next activity. Examples of feedback include providing 

path and hierarchy information (i.e., ’breadcrumbs’), matching link text to the 

destination page’s heading, and creating URLs that relate to the user’s location 

on the site. Other forms of feedback include changing the color of a link that 

has been clicked (suggesting that destination has been visited), and using 

other visual cues to indicate the active portion of the screen. 

Sources: Evans, 1998; Farkas and Farkas, 2000; IBM, 1999; Lynch and Horton, 

2002; Marchionini, 1995; Nielsen and Tahir, 2002; Spool, et al., 1997.

Example: 

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Color coding the pages 

and navigation menus 

provides effective 

feedback to the user 

about their location in 

the Web site.

This box is used to designate 

the section of the Web site that 

is currently being viewed.
63

Guideline: Place the primary navigation menus 

Navigation

in the left panel, and the secondary and tertiary 

menus together.

Comments: One study found that navigation 

times were faster when the primary menu 

was located in the left panel. Also, navigation 

performance was best when the secondary and tertiary menus were placed 

together. Placing a navigation menu in the right panel was supported 

as a viable design option by both performance and preference measures. 

Users preferred having the primary menu in the left panel, and grouping 

secondary and tertiary menus together, or grouping all three menu levels 

together. The best performance and preference was achieved when all 

three menus were placed in the left panel (placing them all in the right 

panel achieved close to the same performance level).

Sources: Kalbach and Bosenick, 2003; Kingsburg and Andre, 2004. 

Example: 

7:5 Place Primary Navigation Menus in the Left Panel

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Primary and secondary 

navigation is placed consistently 

throughout the site.

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
64

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Navigation

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Guideline: Ensure that tab labels are clearly 

descriptive of their function or destination. 

Comments: Users like tabs when they have labels that 

are descriptive enough to allow error-free selections. When tab labels cannot 

be made clear because of the lack of space, do not use tabs. 

Sources: Allinson and Hammond, 1999; Badre, 2002; Koyani, 2001b.

Example: 

7:6 Use Descriptive Tab Labels

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

These tab labels clearly describe the types of information a user can expect to find on 

the destination pages. 

These tab labels are not as descriptive which leaves the user in doubt about the type of 

information available on the destination pages. 
65

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Ensure that navigation tabs are located 

Navigation

at the top of the page, and look like clickable 

versions of real-world tabs.

Comments: Users can be confused about the use of tabs when they do not 

look like real-world tabs. Real-world tabs are those that resemble the ones 

found in a file drawer. One study showed that users are more likely to find 

and click appropriately on tabs that look like real-world tabs.

Sources: Bailey, Koyani and Nall, 2000; Kim, 1998.

Example: 

7:7 Present Tabs Effectively

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

The design of these navigation tabs provides few clues to suggest that they are 

clickable until a user mouses-over them. Mousing-over is a slow and inefficient way 

for users to discover navigation elements.

These clickable tabs look just like tabs found in office filing cabinets.
66

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Navigation

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Guideline: Do not require users to scroll purely 

navigational pages. 

Comments: Ideally, navigation-only pages should 

contain no more than one screenful of information. Users should not need to 

scroll the page, even a small distance. One study showed that users considered 

the bottom of one screenful as the end of a page, and they did not scroll 

further to find additional navigational options.

Sources: Piolat, Roussey and Thunin, 1998; Schwarz, Beldie and Pastoor, 1983; 

Zaphiris, 2000.

Example: 

7:8 Keep Navigation-Only Pages Short

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Users can view all of the information on these 

navigation pages without scrolling.
67

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Navigation

This is an example of a 

‘sequential’ menu. In this case, 

mousing-over ‘Deputates’ 

invokes the circled sub-menu. 

This is a good example 

of when to use 

‘simultaneous’ 

menus. The user can 

repetitively manipulate 

the many variables 

shown in the left panel 

and view the results 

on the map in the right 

panel without having to 

use the Back button.

Guideline: Use ’sequential’ menus for simple 

forward-moving tasks, and use ’simultaneous’ 

menus for tasks that would otherwise require 

numerous uses of the Back button.

Comments: Most Web sites use familiar ’sequential’ menus that require items 

to be selected from a series of menus in some predetermined order. After 

each selection is made, another menu opens. The final choice is constrained 

by the sum total of all previous choices. 

Simultaneous menus display choices from multiple levels in the menu 

hierarchy, providing users with the ability to make choices from the menu in 

any order. Simultaneous menus are often presented in frames, and are best 

employed in situations where users would have to make extensive use of the 

Back button if presented with a sequential menu.

Sources: Card, Moran and Newell, 1980a; Hochheiser and Shneiderman, 2000.

Example: 

7:9 Use Appropriate Menu Types

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:
68

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Navigation

Guideline: Use site maps for Web sites that have 

many pages.

Comments: Site maps provide an overview of the 

Web site. They may display the hierarchy of the Web site, may be designed to 

resemble a traditional table of contents, or may be a simple index. 

Some studies suggest that site maps do not necessarily improve users’ mental 

representations of a Web site. Also, one study reported that if a site map does 

not reflect users’ (or the domain’s) conceptual structure, then the utility of the 

map is lessened. 

Sources: Ashworth and Hamilton, 1997; Billingsley, 1982; Detweiler and 

Omanson, 1996; Dias and Sousa, 1997; Farkas and Farkas, 2000; Farris, Jones 

and Elgin, 2001; Kandogan and Shneiderman, 1997; 

Kim and Hirtle, 1995; McDonald and Stevenson, 1998; 

McEneaney, 2001; Nielsen, 1996a; Nielsen, 1997a; 

Nielsen, 1999b; Nielsen, 1999c; Nielsen, 1999d; Stanton, 

Taylor and Tweedie, 1992; Tullis, 2001; Utting and 

Yankelovich, 1989.

Example: 

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

This site map effectively 

presents the site’s 

information hierarchy.

The use of 

headers, 

subcategories, 

and 

alphabetization 

make this site 

map easy to 

scan.

7:10 Use Site Maps
69

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Provide ’glosses’ to help users select 

Navigation

correct links. 

Comments: ’Glosses’ are short phrases of 

information that popup when a user places his 

or her mouse pointer close to a link. It provides a 

preview to information behind a link. Users prefer 

the preview information to be located close to the link, but not placed such 

that it disturbs the primary text. However, designers should not rely on the 

’gloss’ to compensate for poorly labeled links.

Sources: Evans, 1998; Farkas and Farkas, 2000; Zellweger, Regli and 

Mackinlay, 2000.

Example: 

7:11 Use ‘Glosses’ to Assist Navigation

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

When a user places his 

or her mouse pointer over 

one of these links (‘News’, 

‘Information’, etc.), a ’gloss’ 

appears to the right that 

provides information about 

the content contained under 

that particular link. 

When a user mousesover the ‘Office of Trust 

Records (OTR)’ link, the 

circled text appears.

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
70

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Navigation

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Guideline: Do not expect users to use breadcrumbs 

effectively. 

Comments: One study reported no difference 

in task completion times and total pages visited between groups that 

had breadcrumbs and those that did not. Participants could have used 

breadcrumbs thirty-two percent of the time, but only did so six percent of the 

time. It is probably not worth the effort to include breadcrumbs unless you 

can show that your Web site’s users use them frequently, either to navigate the 

site, or to understand the site’s hierarchy.

One study found that test participants who received instruction on the use of 

breadcrumbs completed tasks much faster than those who did not. This time 

savings could result in increased productivity for users that search Web sites on 

a daily basis.

Sources: Rogers and Chaparro, 2003; Hull, 2004.

Example: 

7:12 Breadcrumb Navigation

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Breadcrumbs, when used, allow users to quickly navigate your site. 
Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

8

Scrolling and Paging

Designers must decide, early in the design process,

whether to create long pages that require extensive scrolling or 

shorter pages that will require users to move frequently from page to 

page (an activity referred to as paging). This decision will be based 

on considerations of the primary users and the type of tasks being 

performed. For example, older users tend to scroll more slowly than 

younger users; therefore, long scrolling pages may slow them down 

considerably. As another example, some tasks that require users to 

remember where information is located on a page may benefit from 

paging, while many reading tasks benefit from scrolling. 

Generally, designers should ensure that users can move from page to 

page as efficiently as possible. If designers are unable to decide between 

paging and scrolling, it is usually better to provide several shorter pages 

rather than one or two longer pages. The findings of usability testing 

should help confirm or negate that decision. 

When scrolling is used, a Web site should be designed to allow the 

fastest possible scrolling. Users only should have to scroll through a few 

screenfuls, and not lengthy pages. Designers should never require users 

to scroll horizontally.

Scrolling and Paging
8:2 Use Scrolling Pages For Reading Comprehension 

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

72Scrolling and Paging

Guideline: Use an appropriate page layout to 

eliminate the need for users to scroll horizontally. 

Comments: Horizontal scrolling is a slow and tedious 

way to view an entire screen. Common page layouts including fluid and leftjustified may require some users to scroll horizontally if their monitor resolution 

or size is smaller than that used by designers.

Sources: Bernard and Larsen, 2001; Lynch and Horton, 2002; Nielsen and Tahir, 

2002; Spyridakis, 2000; Williams, 2000.

Example: 

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

800 x 600. 

Note the 

scroll bar

These Web pages 

require users to 

scroll horizontally.

640 x 480. 

Note the 

scroll bar

8:1 Eliminate Horizontal Scrolling
8:4 Scroll Fewer Screenfuls 73

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Facilitate fast scrolling by highlighting 

Scrolling and Paging

major items.

Comments: Web pages will move quickly or slowly 

depending on how users elect to scroll. Some 

users click on the arrows at the ends of the scroll 

bar, which can be slow but does allow most information to be read during 

the scrolling process. Other users drag the scroll box, which tends to be 

much faster. When the scroll box is dragged, the information may move 

too fast on the screen for users to read prose text, but they can read major 

headings that are well-designed and clearly placed. Keep in mind that older 

users (70 and over) will scroll much more slowly than younger users (39 and 

younger).

Sources: Bailey, Koyani and Nall, 2000; Koyani and Bailey, 2005; Koyani, et al., 

2002.

Example: 

8:2 Facilitate Rapid Scrolling While Reading

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Bold, large text and an accompanying graphic are effectively used to draw the user’s 

attention during fast scrolling.

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
8:2 Use Scrolling Pages For Reading Comprehension 

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

74Scrolling and Paging

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Guideline: Use longer, scrolling pages when users 

are reading for comprehension. 

Comments: Make the trade-off between paging and 

scrolling by taking into consideration that retrieving 

new linked pages introduces a delay that can 

interrupt users’ thought processes. Scrolling allows 

readers to advance in the text without losing the context of the message as 

may occur when they are required to follow links. 

However, with pages that have fast loading times, there is no reliable 

difference between scrolling and paging when people are reading for 

comprehension. For example, one study showed that paging participants 

construct better mental representations of the text as a whole, and are better 

at remembering the main ideas and later locating relevant information on a 

page. In one study, paging was preferred by inexperienced users.

Sources: Byrne, et al., 1999; Campbell and Maglio, 1999; Piolat, Roussey and 

Thunin, 1998; Schwarz, Beldie and Pastoor, 1983; Spool, et al., 1997; Spyridakis, 

2000.

8:3 Use Scrolling Pages For Reading Comprehension 

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Guideline: If users’ system response times are 

reasonably fast, use paging rather than scrolling.

Comments: Users should be able to move from 

page to page by selecting links and without having to scroll to find important 

information. 

Sources: Nielsen, 1997e; Piolat, Roosey and Thunin, 1998; Schwarz, Beldie and 

Pastoor, 1983.

8:4 Use Paging Rather Than Scrolling

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:
75

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

8:5 Scroll Fewer Screenfuls

Guideline: If users are looking for specific 

Scrolling and Paging

information, break up the information into 

smaller portions (shorter pages). 

Comments: For many Web sites, users deal best with smaller, well-organized 

pages of information rather than lengthy pages because scrolling can take 

a lot of time. Older users tend to scroll much more slowly than younger 

users. One study found that Internet users spend about thirteen percent of 

their time scrolling within pages. Even though each event takes little time, 

cumulative scrolling adds significant time.

Sources: Detweiler and Omanson, 1996; Lynch and Horton, 2002; Nielsen, 

1996a; Spool, et al., 1997; Spyridakis, 2000.

Example: 

The singlepage design 

of this 

document 

requires 

users to 

scroll more 

than twentyseven 

screenfuls.

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Good design of a long, content-rich document. This single 

document is divided into numerous sections, resulting in each 

page being no 

longer than four 

screenfuls.
Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Headings, Titles, and Labels

9

Most users spend a considerable amount of time 

scanning rather than reading information on Web sites. Well-designed 

headings help to facilitate both scanning and reading written material. 

Designers should strive to use unique and descriptive headings, and 

to use as many headings as necessary to enable users to find what 

they are looking for—it is usually better to use more rather than fewer 

headings. Headings should be used in their appropriate HTML order, 

and it is generally a good idea not to skip heading levels.

Designers should ensure that each page has a unique and descriptive 

page title. When tables are used, designers should make sure that 

descriptive row and column headings are included that enable users 

to clearly understand the information in the table. It is occasionally 

important to highlight certain critical information.

Headings, Titles, and Labels
77

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Ensure that category labels, including 

Headings, Titles, and Labels

links, clearly reflect the information and items 

contained within the category. 

Comments: Category titles must be understood by typical users. Users will 

likely have difficulty understanding vague, generalized link labels, but will 

find specific, detailed links, and descriptors easier to use.

Sources: Evans, 1998; Landesman and Schroeder, 2000; Mahajan and 

Shneiderman, 1997; Marshall, Drapeau and DiSciullo, 2001; Nall, Koyani, and 

Lafond, 2001; Spyridakis, 2000; Zimmerman, et al., 2002.

Example: 

These labels are clear and distinct, allowing users to distinguish paths quickly.

9:1 Use Clear Category Labels

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:
Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Put a descriptive, unique, concise, and 

meaningfully different title on each Web page.

Comments: Title refers to the text that is in the 

browser title bar (this is the bar found at the very top of the browser screen). 

Titles are used by search engines to identify pages. If two or more pages have 

the same title, they cannot be differentiated by users or the Favorites capability 

of the browser. If users bookmark a page, they should not have to edit the title 

to meet the characteristics mentioned above. 

Remember that some search engines only list the titles in their search results 

page. Using concise and meaningful titles on all pages can help orient users as 

they browse a page or scan hot lists and history lists for particular URLs. They 

can also help others as they compile links to your pages. 

To avoid confusing users, make the title that appears in the heading of the 

browser consistent with the title in the content area of the pages.

Sources: Evans, 1998; Levine, 1996; Nielsen and Tahir, 2002; Spyridakis, 2000; 

Williams, 2000.

Example: 

9:2 Provide Descriptive Page Titles

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

These titles are unique, concise, and consistent with the titles 

in the content area.

78Headings, Titles, and Labels
Guideline: Use descriptive headings liberally 

throughout a Web site. 

Comments: Well-written headings are an important 

tool for helping users scan quickly. Headings 

should conceptually relate to the information or 

functions that follow them. 

Headings should provide strong cues that orient users and inform them 

about page organization and structure. Headings also help classify 

information on a page. Each heading should be helpful in finding the desired 

target. 

The ability to scan quickly is particularly important for older adults because 

they tend to stop scanning and start reading more frequently. If headings are 

not descriptive or plentiful enough, the user may start reading in places that 

do not offer the information they are seeking, thereby slowing them down 

unnecessarily.

Sources: Bailey, Koyani and Nall, 2000; Evans, 1998; Flower, Hayes and 

Swarts, 1983; Gerhardt-Powals, 1996; Hartley and Trueman, 1983; Ivory and 

Hearst, 2002; Ivory, Sinha and Hearst, 2000; Lorch and Lorch, 1995; Mayer, 

Dyck and Cook, 1984; Meyer, 1984; Morkes and Nielsen, 1998; Morrell, 

et al., 2002; Murphy and Mitchell, 1986; Nielsen, 1999c; Nielsen, 1999d; 

Schultz and Spyridakis, 2002; Spyridakis, 1989; Spyridakis, 2000; Zimmerman 

and Prickett, 2000.

Example: 

Spending time during 

the design process to 

ensure that the site 

contains many carefully 

written headings and 

sub-headings will 

save users time as 

they rapidly locate the 

information for which 

they are searching.

9:3 Use Descriptive Headings Liberally

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

79

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Headings, Titles, and Labels

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
Guideline: Use headings that are unique from one 

another and conceptually related to the content they 

describe. 

Comments: Using poor headings (mismatches 

between what users were expecting and what they 

find) is a common problem with Web sites. Ensure 

that headings are descriptive and relate to the content they introduce. 

If headings are too similar to one another, users may have to hesitate and reread to decipher the difference. Identifying the best headings may require 

extensive usability testing and other methods.

Sources: Bailey, Koyani and Nall, 2000; Gerhardt-Powals, 1996; Morkes and 

Nielsen, 1998; Williams, 2000.

Example: 

9:4 Use Unique and Descriptive Headings

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

These headings are well-designed—they are unique from one 

another and descriptive of the information to which they link.

80

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Headings, Titles, and Labels

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
Guideline: Visually distinguish (i.e., highlight) 

important page items that require user attention, 

particularly when those items are displayed 

infrequently. 

Comments: Items to highlight might include recently changed data, data 

exceeding acceptable limits, or data failing to meet some other defined 

criteria. Highlight is used here in its general sense, meaning to emphasize 

or make prominent. Highlighting is most effective when used sparingly, i.e., 

highlighting just a few items on a page that is otherwise relatively uniform in 

appearance.

Sources: Ahlstrom and Longo, 2001; Engel and Granda, 1975; Levine, 1996; 

Myers, 1985.

Example: Formatting this text in underline, bold, and red draws 

attention to the most pressing deadline and instructions.

9:5 Highlight Critical Data

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance: 81

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Headings, Titles, and Labels
Guideline: Ensure that data tables have clear, concise, 

and accurate row and column headings. 

Comments: Use row and column headings to indicate 

unique cell contents. Users require clear and concise 

table headings in order to make efficient and 

effective use of table information. Row and column 

headings will indicate to screen readers how data points should be labeled or 

identified, so the user can understand the significance of the cell in the overall 

scheme of the table. 

Sources: Bransford and Johnson, 1972; Chisholm, Vanderheiden and Jacobs, 

1999d; Detweiler and Omanson, 1996; Lynch and Horton, 2002; United States 

Government, 1998; Wright, 1980.

Example: 

9:6 Use Descriptive Row and Column Headings

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

An example of poor table heading design. The non-expert user will have little idea what 

is meant by ‘R’, ‘J.’, and ‘Pt.’ Unless space constraints dictate otherwise, always use row 

and column headers that are descriptive enough to be understood by non-expert users.

An example of good table heading design. The non-expert user will have 

no problem understanding these descriptive row and column headers. 

82

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Headings, Titles, and Labels
83

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Headings, Titles, and Labels

9:7 Use Headings in the Appropriate HTML Order

Guideline: Use headings in the appropriate HTML 

order. 

Comments: Using the appropriate HTML heading 

order helps users get a sense of the hierarchy of 

information on the page. The appropriate use of 

H1-H3 heading tags also allows users of assistive technologies to understand 

the hierarchy of information.

Sources: Detweiler and Omanson, 1996; Spool, et al., 1997.

Example: 

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

H2

H1

H2

H2

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
Guideline: Provide users with good ways to reduce 

their available options as efficiently as possible. 

Comments: Users seem willing to reduce their 

options quickly. Provide all options clearly so that 

users can focus first on selecting what they consider 

to be the most important option. 

Sources: Bailey, Koyani, and Nall, 2000.

Example: By providing three different options for selecting desired information, 

users can select the one most important to them.

9:8 Provide Users with Good Ways to Reduce Options

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

84

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Headings, Titles, and Labels

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
Links

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

10

Linking means that users will select and click on 

a hypertext link on a starting page (usually the homepage), which then 

causes a new page to load. Users continue toward their goal by finding 

and clicking on subsequent links. 

To ensure that links are effectively used, designers should use 

meaningful link labels (making sure that link names are consistent with 

their targets), provide consistent clickability cues (avoiding misleading 

cues), and designate when links have been clicked.

Whenever possible, designers should use text for links rather than 

graphics. Text links usually provide much better information about the 

target than do graphics.

Links
‘COOL’ refers to an application that allows users to search for all 

jobs within the Department of Commerce (not just the Census 

Bureau.) This link does a poor job in explaining itself. The other 

circled links aren’t as descriptive as they could be.

Guideline: Use link labels and concepts that are 

meaningful, understandable, and easily differentiated 

by users rather than designers.

Comments: To avoid user confusion, use link labels that clearly differentiate 

one link from another. Users should be able to look at each link and learn 

something about the link’s destination. Using terms like ’Click Here’ can be 

counterproductive.

Clear labeling is especially important as users navigate down through the 

available links. The more decisions that users are required to make concerning 

links, the more opportunities they have to make a wrong decision.

Sources: Bailey, Koyani and Nall, 2000; Coney and Steehouder, 2000; Evans, 

1998; Farkas and Farkas, 2000; IEEE; Larson and Czerwinski, 1998; Miller and 

Remington, 2000; Mobrand and Spyridakis, 2002; Nielsen and Tahir, 2002; 

Spool, et al., 1997; Spyridakis, 2000.

Example: 

10:1 Use Meaningful Link Labels

Strength of Evidence: 

86 Relative Importance:

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Links
87

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Provide links to other pages in the Web 

Links

site with related content. 

Comments: Users expect designers to know their 

Web sites well enough to provide a full list of options to related content.

Sources: Koyani and Nall, 1999.

Example: 

10:2 Link to Related Content

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Guideline: Make the link text consistent with the title 

or headings on the destination (i.e., target) page. 

Comments: Closely matched links and destination 

targets help provide the necessary feedback to users 

that they have reached the intended page.

If users will have to click more than once to get to a specific target destination, 

avoid repeating the exact same link wording over and over because users can 

be confused if the links at each level are identical or even very similar. In one 

study, after users clicked on a link entitled ’First Aid,’ the next page had three 

options. One of them was again titled ’First Aid.’ The two ’First Aid’ links went 

to different places. Users tended to click on another option on the second page 

because they thought that they had already reached ’First Aid.’

Sources: Bailey, Koyani and Nall, 2000; Levine, 1996; Mobrand and Spyridakis, 

2002.

Example: 

10:3 Match Link Names with Their Destination Pages

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Link text in the left navigation panel is identical to the headings 

found on the destination page. 

Links

88
89

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Ensure that items that are not clickable 

do not have characteristics that suggest that they 

are clickable.

Comments: Symbols usually must be combined with at least one other cue 

that suggests clickability. In one study, users were observed to click on a 

major heading with some link characteristics, but the heading was not 

actually a link.

However, to some users bullets and arrows may suggest clickability, even 

when they contain no other clickability cues (underlining, blue coloration, 

etc.). This slows users as they debate whether the items are links. 

Sources: Bailey, Koyani and Nall, 2000; Evans, 1998; Spool, et al., 1997.

Example: 

10:4 Avoid Misleading Cues to Click

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

These items appear clickable, but are not. This design may 

confuse users because the items are underlined and are 

demonstratively different, and thus attract the users’ attention. 

This is a good example of misleading the user—blue text and 

underlined text placed at the top center of the page, and yet 

none of these are clickable. 

Two of these 

graphics are 

not clickable—if a user 

mouses over one of them, 

they are likely to think that 

they are all not clickable. 

If one graphic is clickable, 

they should all be clickable. 

Links
90

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

If the user misses the ‘Hours’ 

link in the left panel, they still 

have a chance to find the 

header in the content panel.

Guideline: Ensure that important content can be 

accessed from more than one link. 

Comments: Establishing more than one way to access 

the same information can help some users find what they need. When certain 

information is critical to the success of the Web site, provide more than one link 

to the information. Different users may try different ways to find information, 

depending on their own interpretations of a problem and the layout of a page. 

Some users find important links easily when they have a certain label, while 

others may recognize the link best with an alternative name.

Sources: Bernard, Hull and Drake, 2001; Detweiler and Omanson, 1996; Ivory, 

Sinha and Hearst, 2000; Ivory, Sinha and Hearst, 2001; Levine, 1996; Nall, 

Koyani and Lafond, 2001; Nielsen and Tahir, 2002; Spain, 1999; Spool, Klee and 

Schroeder, 2000.

Example: 

10:5 Repeat Important Links

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Multiple links 

provide users with 

alternative routes 

for finding the same 

information.

Links
91

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Use text links rather than image links. 

Comments: In general, text links are more easily 

recognized as clickable. Text links usually download faster, are preferred by 

users, and should change colors after being selected. It is usually easier to 

convey a link’s destination in text, rather than with the use of an image.

In one study, users showed considerable confusion regarding whether or not 

certain images were clickable. This was true even for images that contained 

words. Users could not tell if the images were clickable without placing 

their cursor over them (’minesweeping’). Requiring users to ’minesweep’ to 

determine what is clickable slows them down.

Another benefit to using text links is that users with text-only and deactivated 

graphical browsers can see the navigation options. 

Sources: Detweiler and Omanson, 1996; Farkas and Farkas, 2000; Koyani 

and Nall, 1999; Mobrand and Spyridakis, 2002; Nielsen, 2000; Spool, et al., 

1997; Zimmerman, et al., 2002.

Example: 

10:6 Use Text for Links

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

The meaning 

of these three 

images are fairly 

clear, even if the 

accompanying 

text was not 

present.

The meanings of 

these two image links 

are not obvious at 

first glance.

Links
92

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Use color changes to indicate to users 

when a link has been visited. 

Comments: Generally, it is best to use the default text 

link colors (blue as an unvisited location/link and purple as a visited location/

link). Link colors help users understand which parts of a Web site they have 

visited. In one study, providing this type of feedback was the only variable 

found to improve the user’s speed of finding information. If a user selects one 

link, and there are other links to the same target, make sure all links to that 

target change color.

One 2003 study indicated a compliance rate of only thirty-three percent for 

this guideline; a 2002 study showed a compliance rate of thirty-five percent.

Sources: Evans, 1998; Nielsen and Tahir, 2002; Nielsen, 1996a; Nielsen, 1999b; 

Nielsen, 1999c; Nielsen, 2003; Spool, et al., 2001, Tullis 2001.

Example: 

10:7 Designate Used Links

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

A poor design choice. Unvisited 

links are in green, whereas 

visited links are in blue—users 

expect blue to denote an 

unvisited link.

A good design choice—unvisited links are 

shown in blue, and visited links are shown in 

purple. Note the conventional use of colors for 

visited and unvisited links.

Links
93

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Links

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

With at least seven non-traditional colors for links, 

the clickability cues for users might lead to confusion 

as to which links have been visited or not.

Guideline: Provide sufficient cues to clearly 

indicate to users that an item is clickable.

Comments: Users should not be expected to move 

the cursor around a Web site (’minesweeping’) 

to determine what is clickable. Using the eyes 

to quickly survey the options is much faster than ’minesweeping.’ Similarly, 

relying on mouseovers to designate links can confuse newer users, and slow 

all users as they are uncertain about which items are links.

Be consistent in your use of underlining, bullets, arrows, and other symbols 

such that they always indicate clickability or never suggest clickability. For 

example, using images as both links and as decoration slows users as it forces 

them to study the image to discern its clickability.

Items that are in the top center of the page, or left and right panels have a 

high probability of being considered links. This is particularly true if the linked 

element looks like a real-world tab or push button.

Sources: Bailey, 2000b; Bailey, Koyani and Nall, 2000; Farkas and Farkas, 

2000; Lynch and Horton, 2002; Nielsen, 1990; Tullis, 2001.

Example: 

10:8 Provide Consistent Clickability Cues

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

A bulleted list of blue, underlined text. 

These are very strong clickability cues 

for users.
Guideline: When using embedded links, the link text 

should accurately describe the link’s destination. 

Comments: Users tend to ignore the text that 

surrounds each embedded link; therefore, do not 

create embedded links that use the surrounding text 

to add clues about the link’s destination.

Sources: Bailey, Koyani and Nall, 2000; Bernard and Hull, 2002; Card, et al., 

2001; Chi, Pirolli and Pitkow, 2000; Evans, 1998; Farkas and Farkas, 2000; 

Mobrand and Spyridakis, 2002; Sawyer and Schroeder, 2000; Spool, et al., 1997.

Example: These embedded links are well designed—because the entire 

organization name is a link, the user does not have to read the 

surrounding text to understand the destination of the embedded link.

10:9 Ensure that Embedded Links are Descriptive

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

In this example, the user must read the surrounding text to gain clues as to the link’s 

destination. In many cases, users will not read that text.

Headings, Titles, and Labels

94

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Links
Guideline: ’Pointing-and-clicking,’ rather than 

mousing over, is preferred when selecting menu 

items from a cascading menu structure. 

Comments: One study found that when compared with the mouseover 

method, the ’point-and-click’ method takes eighteen percent less time, elicits 

fewer errors, and is preferred by users.

Sources: Chaparro, Minnaert and Phipps, 2000.

Example: 

10:10 Use ‘Pointing-and-Clicking’ 

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Headings, Titles, and Labels

95

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Links

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

The below site relies on users to mouse over the main links to reveal 

the sub-menu links (shown extending to the right in purple and black). 

The use of these mouseover methods is slower than ‘pointing-andclicking.’ 
Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Guideline: Make text links long enough to be 

understood, but short enough to minimize 

wrapping. 

Comments: A single word text link may not give 

enough information about the link’s destination. A 

link that is several words may be difficult to read 

quickly, particularly if it wraps to another line. Generally, it is best if text links do 

not extend more than one line. However, one study found that when users scan 

prose text, links of nine to ten words elicit better performance than shorter or 

longer links. Keep in mind that it is not always possible to control how links will 

look to all users because browser settings and screen resolutions can vary.

Sources: Card, et al., 2001; Chi, Pirolli and Pitkow, 2000; Evans, 1998; Levine, 

1996; Nielsen and Tahir, 2002; Nielsen, 2000; Sawyer and Schroeder, 2000; 

Spool, et al., 1997.

Example: 

10:11 Use Appropriate Text Link Lengths

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Text links should 

not wrap to a 

second line. They 

should be used 

to highlight a 

particular word or 

short phrase in a 

sentence, not an 

entire sentence.

Whenever possible, 

text links should only 

cover one line.

Links

96
97

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Indicate to users when a link will move 

them to a different location on the same page or 

to a new page on a different Web site. 

Comments: One study showed that users tend 

to assume that links will take them to another 

page within the same Web site. When this assumption is not true, users can 

become confused. Designers should try to notify users when they are simply 

moving down a page, or leaving the site altogether.

Sources: Nall, Koyani and Lafond, 2001; Nielsen and Tahir, 2002; Spool, et al., 

1997.

Example: 

10:12 Indicate Internal vs. External Links

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Add URL 

addresses below 

links to help 

users determine 

where they are 

going. By seeing 

.gov and .com 

the user is also 

alerted to the 

type of site they 

will visit.

Clicking an outside link 

leads to this ‘interim’ page 

that warns users of their 

imminent transfer to a 

non-whitehouse.gov Web 

site. 

‘Exit disclaimer’ 

graphic informs user 

that the link will take 

them to a new Web 

site.

Links
Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Guideline: If any part of an image is clickable, 

ensure that the entire image is clickable or that the 

clickable sections are obvious. 

Comments: Users should not be required to use 

the mouse pointer to discover clickable areas of 

images. For example, in a map of the United States, 

if individual states are clickable, sufficient cues should be given to indicate the 

clickable states.

Sources: Detweiler and Omanson, 1996; Levine, 1996; Lim and Wogalter, 2000.

Example: 

Dramatically 

different colors 

delineate clickable 

regions. 

The use of white 

space between 

clickable regions 

in this image map 

define the boundaries 

of each individual 

‘hot’ area.

10:13 Clarify Clickable Regions of Images

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Links

98
99

Guideline: Provide links to supportive information. 

Comments: Use links to provide definitions 

and descriptions to clarify technical concepts or jargon, so that less 

knowledgeable users can successfully use the Web site. For example, 

provide links to a dictionary, glossary definitions, and sections dedicated to 

providing more information.

Sources: Farkas and Farkas, 2000; Levine, 1996; Morrell, et al., 2002; 

Zimmerman and Prickett, 2000.

Example: 

10:14 Link to Supportive Information

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Clicking on a 

highlighted word 

brings up a ‘pop-up’ 

box which provides 

the user with the 

definition of the 

selected word.

Links

The highlighted links below direct the user 

to a page with a definition of the word.

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Text Appearance

11

Text Appearance

There are several issues related to text 

characteristics that can help ensure a Web site communicates effectively 

with users:

• Use familiar fonts that are at least 12-points;

• Use black text on plain, high-contrast backgrounds; and

• Use background colors to help users understand the grouping of 

related information. 

Even though it is important to ensure visual consistency, steps should 

be taken to emphasize important text. Commonly used headings 

should be formatted consistently, and attention-attracting features, such 

as animation, should only be used when appropriate.
101

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: When users are expected to rapidly 

read and understand prose text, use black text on 

a plain, high-contrast, non-patterned background. 

Comments: Black text on a plain background 

elicited reliably faster reading performance 

than on a medium-textured background. When 

compared to reading light text on a dark background, people read black 

text on a white background up to thirty-two percent faster. In general, the 

greater the contrast between the text and background, the easier the text is 

to read.

Sources: Boyntoin and Bush, 1956; Bruce and Green, 1990; Cole and Jenkins, 

1984; Evans, 1998; Goldsmith, 1987; Gould, et al., 1987a; Gould, et al., 

1987b; Jenkins and Cole, 1982; Kosslyn, 1994; Muter and Maurutto, 1991; 

Muter, 1996; Scharff, Ahumada and Hill, 1999; Snyder, et al., 1990; Spencer, 

Reynolds and Coe, 1977a; Spencer, Reynolds and Coe, 1977b; Treisman, 

1990; Williams, 2000.

Example: 

101 Text Appearance

11:1 Use Black Text on Plain, High-Contrast Backgrounds

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:
Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: When users must read a lot of 

information, use lower-case fonts and appropriate 

capitalization to ensure the fastest possible reading 

speed.

Comments: Using ’mixed-case’ fonts for reading prose text means that most 

letters will be lowercase, with all letters that should be capitalized being in 

uppercase. Most users have had considerable experience reading lowercase 

letters and are therefore very proficient at it.

Sources: Larson, 2004.

Example:

This block of text is an example of displaying continuous 

(prose) text using mixed upper- and lowercase letters. 

It’s not difficult to read. This is called sentence case.

ThIS block of text is an example of displaying

continuous (prose) text using all uppercase

letters. It’s more difficult to read. This is not

called sentence case.

11:3 Use Mixed-Case for Prose Text

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Guideline: Ensure that the format of common items 

is consistent from one page to another.

Comments: The formatting convention chosen 

should be familiar to users. For example, telephone 

numbers should be consistently punctuated (800-

555-1212), and time records might be consistently 

punctuated with colons (HH:MM:SS).

Sources: Ahlstrom and Longo, 2001; Engel and Granda, 1975; Mayhew, 1992; 

Smith and Mosier, 1986; Tufte, 1983.

11:2 Format Common Items Consistently

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

102Text Appearance

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
Guideline: Ensure visual consistency of Web site 

elements within and between Web pages. 

Comments: Two studies found that the number 

of errors made using visually inconsistent displays is reliably higher than 

when using visually consistent displays. Visual consistency includes the size 

and spacing of characters; the colors used for labels, fonts and backgrounds; 

and the locations of labels, text and pictures. Earlier studies found that tasks 

performed on more consistent interfaces resulted in (1) a reduction in task 

completion times; (2) a reduction in errors; (3) an increase in user satisfaction; 

and (4) a reduction in learning time.

However, users tend to rapidly overcome some types of inconsistencies. For 

example, one study found that the use of different-sized widgets (such as 

pushbuttons, entry fields, or list boxes) does not negatively impact users’ 

performance or preferences.

Sources: Adamson and Wallace, 1997; Adkisson, 2002; Badre, 2002;

Card, Moran and Newell, 1983; Cockburn and Jones, 1996; Eberts and 

Schneider, 1985; Ehret, 2002; Grudin, 1989; Nielsen, 1999d; Osborn and 

Elliott, 2002; Ozok and Salvendy, 2000; Parush, Nadir and Shtub, 1998; 

Schneider and Shiffrin, 1977; Schneider, Dumais and Shiffrin, 1984; Tullis, 

2001.

Example: 

11:4 Ensure Visual Consistency

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

An example of good visual consistency: Location and size of pictures, 

title bar, and font all contribute to visual consistency.

Headings, Titles, and Labels Links

103

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Text Appearance
Headings, Titles, and Labels

104

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Guideline: Use bold text only when it is important 

to draw the user’s attention to a specific piece of 

information.

Comments: In the following example with the Field Identifiers bolded on the left, 

users spent about four times as long looking at the bold Field Identifiers than the 

non-bold Field Values. In the example on the right, participants spent more time 

looking at the bolded Field Values. In addition, the non-bold Field Values elicited 

better search accuracy rates than did the bold Field Values. In situations like this 

example, it is probably best to not use bold for either field identifiers or field 

values. In general, bold text should be used sparingly.

Sources: Joseph, Knott and Grier, 2002. 

Example: 

Field Identifiers Field Values Field Identifiers Field Values 

Previous Bill $33.84 Previous Bill $33.84

Previous Payment $32.75 Previous Payment $32.75

Balance $1.09 Balance $1.09 

Current Charges $18.89 Current Charges $18.89

Total Billed $19.98 Total Billed $19.98

Penalty $4.53 Penalty $4.53

Amount Due $24.51 Amount Due $24.51

Field Identifiers Field Values

Previous Bill $33.84

Previous Payment $32.75

Balance $1.09

Current Charges $18.89

Total Billed $19.98

Penalty $4.53

Amount Due $24.51

11:5 Use Bold Text Sparingly

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Text Appearance

The bottom example proves easier to read than either of the top two examples.
Headings, Titles, and Labels

105

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Use attention-attracting features with 

caution and only when they are highly relevant.

Comments: Draw attention to specific parts of 

a Web page with the appropriate (but limited) 

use of moving or animated objects, size 

differential between items, images, brightly-colored items, and varying font 

characteristics.

Not all features of a Web site will attract a user’s attention equally. The 

following features are presented in order of the impact they have on users:

• Movement (e.g., animation or ’reveals’) is the most effective attentiongetting item. Research suggests that people cannot stop themselves 

from initially looking at moving items on a page. However, if the 

movement is not relevant or useful, it may annoy the user. If movement 

continues after attracting attention, it may distract from the information 

on the Web site. 

• Larger objects, particularly images, will draw users’ attention before 

smaller ones. Users fixate on larger items first, and for longer periods of 

time. However, users will tend to skip certain kinds of images that they 

believe to be ads or decoration.

• Users look at images for one or two seconds, and then look at the 

associated text caption. In many situations, reading a text caption to 

understand the meaning of an image is a last resort. Parts of images or 

text that have brighter colors seem to gain focus first.

Having some text and graphic items 

in brighter colors, and others in 

darker colors, helps users determine 

the relative importance of elements. 

Important attention-attracting font 

characteristics can include all 

uppercase, bolding, italics, underlining, 

and increased font size.

Sources: Campbell and Maglio, 1999; 

Evans, 1998; Faraday and Sutcliffe, 

1997; Faraday, 2000; Faraday, 2001; 

Galitz, 2002; Hillstrom and Yantis, 1994; 

Lewis and Walker, 1989; McConkie and 

Zola, 1982; Nygren and Allard, 1996; 

Treisman, 1988; Williams, 2000.

Example: 

11:6 Use Attention-Attracting Features when Appropriate

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Text Appearance
Headings, Titles, and Labels

106

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Guideline: Use a familiar font to achieve the best 

possible reading speed. 

Comments: Research shows no reliable differences 

in reading speed or user preferences for twelve point Times New Roman or 

Georgia (serif fonts), or Arial, Helvetica, or Verdana (sans serif fonts). 

Sources: Bernard and Mills, 2000; Bernard, Liao and Mills, 2001a; Bernard, et al., 

2002; Bernard, et al., 2001; Boyarski, et al., 1998; Evans, 1998; Tullis, Boynton 

and Hersh, 1995; Williams, 2000.

Example: Using unfamiliar fonts may slow reading speeds.

11:7 Use Familiar Fonts

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Text Appearance
Headings, Titles, and Labels

107

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Use at least a 12-point font (e.g., 

typeface) on all Web pages.

Comments: Research has shown that fonts smaller than 12 points elicit 

slower reading performance from users. For users over age 65, it may be 

better to use at least fourteen-point fonts. Never use less than nine-point 

font on a Web site.

Traditional paper-based font sizes do not translate well to Web site design. 

For instance, Windows Web browsers display type two to three points larger 

than the same font displayed on a Macintosh. User-defined browser settings 

may enlarge or shrink designer-defined font sizes. Defining text size using 

pixels will result in differently-sized characters depending upon the physical 

size of the monitor’s pixels and its set resolution, and presents accessibility 

issues to those individuals who must specify large font settings.

Sources: Bailey, 2001; Bernard and Mills, 2000; Bernard, Liao and Mills, 

2001a; Bernard, Liao and Mills, 2001b; Bernard, et al., 2002; Ellis and 

Kurniawan, 2000; Galitz, 2002; Ivory and Hearst, 2002; Tinker, 1963; Tullis, 

2001; Tullis, Boynton and Hersh, 1995.

Example: 

11:8 Use at Least 12-Point Font

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Text Appearance

Examples of cross-platform text-size differences generated on a variety of 

browsers and platforms by using HTML text in a one-cell table with a width 

of 100 pixels.
Headings, Titles, and Labels

108

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Guideline: When using color-coding on your Web 

site, be sure that the coding scheme can be quickly 

and easily understood.

Comments: One study found that participants were able to answer questions 

significantly faster when the interface was color-coded, but only when 

information about the color-coding was provided. When both color-coding and 

information about how to interpret the colors were provided, user performance 

improved by forty percent. Be sure that the information provided does not 

require the user to read and comprehend a lot of text to understand it.

Sources: Resnick and Fares, 2004; Wu and Yuan, 2003. 

Example:

11:9 Color-Coding and Instructions

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Text Appearance

The key in the 

bottom left brings 

clarification to the 

highlighted sizes 

in this Men’s 

General Sizing 

Guidelines.
Headings, Titles, and Labels

109

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

11:10 Emphasize Importance

Guideline: Change the font characteristics to 

emphasize the importance of a word or short 

phrase. 

Comments: Font characteristics that are different from the surrounding text 

will dominate those that are routine. Important font characteristics include 

bolding, italics, font style (serif vs. sans serif), font size (larger is better to 

gain attention), and case (upper vs. lower). When used well, text style can 

draw attention to important words.

The use of differing font characteristics has negative consequences as 

well–reading speed can decrease by almost twenty percent, and thus 

should be used sparingly in large blocks of prose. Do not use differing font 

characteristics to show emphasis for more than one or two words or a short 

phrase. Do not use underlining for emphasis because underlined words on 

the Web are generally considered to be links. 

Sources: Bouma, 1980; Breland and Breland, 1944; DeRouvray and Couper, 

2002; Evans, 1998; Faraday, 2000; Foster and Coles, 1977; Lichty, 1989; 

Marcus, 1992; Paterson and Tinker, 1940a; Poulton and Brown, 1968; Rehe, 

1979; Spool, et al., 1997; Tinker and Paterson, 1928; Tinker, 1955; Tinker, 

1963; Vartabedian, 1971; Williams, 2000.

Example: Limited use of bolding effectively emphasizes important topic categories.

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Text Appearance
Headings, Titles, and Labels

110

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Guideline: Do not use two (or more) different 

ways to highlight the same information on 

one page.

Comments: One study found that participants were able to complete tasks faster 

when the interface contained either color-coding or a form of ranking, but not 

both. The presence of both seemed to present too much information, and 

reduced the performance advantage by about half.

Sources: Bandos and Resnick, 2004; Resnick and Fares, 2004. 

Example:

11:11 Highlighting Information

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Text Appearance

“Which model has the smallest trunk?” Users were able to complete the 

focused tasks faster when the diagram contained either color-coding 

or ranking, but not both. It seems that the presence of both identifiers 

presented too much information and users had trouble indentifying the 

information they needed.
Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

12

Lists

Lists are commonly found on Web sites. 

These may be lists of, for example, people, drugs, theaters, or 

restaurants. Each list should be clearly introduced and have a descriptive 

title. A list should be formatted so that it can be easily scanned. The 

order of items in the list should be done to maximize user performance, 

which usually means that the most important items are placed toward 

the top of the list. If a numbered list is used, start the numbering 

at ‘one,’ not ‘zero.’ Generally only the first letter of the first word is 

capitalized, unless a word that is usually capitalized is shown in the list.

Lists
112

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Lists

Guideline: Arrange lists and tasks in an order 

that best facilitates efficient and successful user 

performance. 

Comments: Designers should determine if there is an 

order for items that will facilitate use of the Web site. 

If there is, ensure that the site is formatted to support 

that order, and that all pages follow the same order. For example, ensure that 

lists of items, sets of links, and a series of tabs are in a meaningful order.

Where no obvious order applies, organize lists alphabetically or numerically. 

Keep in mind that it is the user’s logic that should prevail rather than the 

designer’s logic.

Sources: Bransford and Johnson, 1972; Detweiler and Omanson, 1996; Engel 

and Granda, 1975; Evans, 1998; Flower, Hayes and Swarts, 1983; Halgren 

and Cooke, 1993; Morkes and Nielsen, 1998; Nygren and Allard, 1996; Ozok 

and Salvendy, 2000; Redish, Felker and Rose, 1981; Smith and Mosier, 1986; 

Spyridakis, 2000.

Example: 

12:1 Order Elements to Maximize User Performance

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

112Lists

Ordering list by region and then 

alphabetically 

by country 

allows users 

to rapidly 

find desired 

information.

This list should be ordered to read 

down columns, not across rows.

If most of your 

users will be 

looking for the 

same item, then 

place it at the top 

of your list. 
113

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Lists

Guideline: Place a list’s most important items at 

the top.

Comments: Experienced users usually look first at 

the top item in a menu or list, and almost always 

look at one of the top three items before looking 

at those farther down the list. Research indicates 

that users tend to stop scanning a list as soon as they see something 

relevant, thus illustrating the reason to place important items at the 

beginning of lists.

Sources: Byrne, et al., 1999; Carroll, 1990; Evans, 1998; Faraday, 2001; 

Isakson and Spyridakis, 1999; Lewenstein, et al., 2000; Nielsen, 1996a; 

Nielsen, 1999b; Nielsen, 1999c; Spyridakis, 2000.

Example: 

12:2 Place Important Items at Top of the List

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

This listing 

assists users by 

breaking out the 

top ten requests 

in a separate 

link. The entire 

collection is then 

listed next. This 

tactic can save 

users time when searching for popular items or topics.

This extensive list of titles 

contains the most commonly 

used titles at the top of 

the list and also in their 

alphabetically-correct position 

further down the list. This 

avoids the need for users to 

scroll through titles such as 

‘His Highness.’

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
114

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Lists

Guideline: Make lists easy to scan and understand. 

Comments: The use of meaningful labels, effective 

background colors, borders, and white space allow 

users to identify a set of items as a discrete list.

Sources: Chaparro and Bernard, 2001; Detweiler and Omanson, 1996; Levine, 

1996; Nielsen and Tahir, 2002; Nygren and Allard, 1996; Spyridakis, 2000; 

Treisman, 1982.

Example: 

These Web sites use background colors and 

thin white lines between information groups 

to make these lists easy to scan.

12:3 Format Lists to Ease Scanning Relative Importance:

Strength of Evidence: 
115

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Display a series of related items in a 

Lists

vertical list rather than as continuous text. 

Comments: A well-organized list format tends to 

facilitate rapid and accurate scanning. One study indicated that users scan 

vertical lists more rapidly than horizontal lists. Scanning a horizontal list 

takes users twenty percent longer than scanning a vertical list.

Sources: Mayhew, 1992; Nygren and Allard, 1996; Smith and Mosier, 1986; 

Tullis, 1984; Wright, 1977.

Example: 

Bulleted lists are easier to scan and understand.

12:4 Display Related Items in Lists

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

The Office of Data makes available for download

Annual Production Statistics, Monthly 

Production Statistics, Weekly Production 

Statistics, and Quarterly Consumption 

Projections.

The Office of Data makes available for download:

• Annual Production Statistics

• Monthly Production Statistics

• Weekly Production Statistics

• Quarterly Consumption Projections

Horizontal lists are more difficult to scan and understand.

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
116

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Lists

Guideline: Provide an introductory heading 

(i.e., word or phrase) at the top of each list. 

Comments: Providing a descriptive heading allows 

users to readily understand the reason for having a list of items, and how 

the items relate to each other. The heading helps to inform users how items 

are categorized, or any prevailing principle or theme. Users are able to use 

lists better when they include headings.

Sources: Bransford and Johnson, 1972; Bransford and Johnson, 1973; 

Detweiler and Omanson, 1996; Engel and Granda, 1975; Levine, 1996; 

Redish, 1993; Smith and Goodman, 1984; Smith and Mosier, 1986.

Example: 

12:5 Introduce Each List

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:
Guideline: When items are numbered, start the 

numbering sequence at ‘one’ rather than ‘zero.’ 

Comments: Do not start the numbering with a 

‘zero.’ When counting, people start with ‘one,’ not ‘zero.’

Sources: Engel and Granda, 1975; Smith and Mosier, 1986.

Moving 

“Times” up 

into the split 

menu of fonts 

is one version of an adaptive menu.

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Use static menus to elicit the fastest 

Lists

possible speed when accessing menu items. 

Comments: To elicit the fastest possible human performance, designers 

should put the most frequently used menus times in the first few positions 

of a menu. Designers should determine the location of items within a menu 

based on the frequency of use of each item. Adaptable menus, where 

users are allowed to change the order of menu items, elicits reasonably 

fast performance as well. The slowest performance is achieved when an 

adaptive menu, where the computer automatically changes the position 

of menu items, is used. One study found that users prefer having static 

menus, rather than adaptive menus.

Sources: Findlater and McGrenere, 2004; McGrenere, Baecker and Booth, 

2002.

Example: 

12:6 Use Static Menus

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

12:7 Start Numbered Items at One

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

117
118

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Lists

Guideline: Use bullet lists to present items of equal 

status or value, and numbered lists if a particular 

order to the items is warranted. 

Comments: Bullet lists work best when the items do not contain an inherent 

sequence, order, or rank. Numbered lists assign each item in the list an 

ascending number, making the numerical order readily apparent. Numbered 

lists are especially important when giving instructions.

Sources: Coney and Steehouder, 2000; Detweiler and Omanson, 1996; Lorch 

and Chen, 1986; Narveson, 2001; Spyridakis, 2000.

Example: 

Use bullets if your list items 

are of equal value, or if they 

have no discernable order.

Using numbered 

lists is appropriate 

when items are in 

a proscribed order, 

such as this list of 

‘Top 10’ searches.

12:8 Use Appropriate List Style

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:
119

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Capitalize the first letter of only the 

Lists

first word of a list item, a list box item, check box 

labels, and radio button labels. 

Comments: Only the first letter of the first word 

should be capitalized unless the item contains 

another word that would normally be capitalized.

Sources: Bailey, 1996; Fowler, 1998; Marcus, Smilonich and Thompson, 1995; 

Microsoft, 1992.

Example: 

12:9 Capitalize First Letter of First Word in Lists

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Screen-Based Controls (Widgets)

13

Screen-Based Controls (Widgets)

In order to interact with a Web site, users 

usually require the use of screen-based controls (sometimes known 

as ’widgets’). Besides the pervasive link, commonly used screen-based 

controls include pushbuttons, radio buttons, check boxes, drop-down 

lists and entry fields. Designers should ensure that they use familiar 

widgets in a conventional or commonly-used manner. 

When pushbuttons are used, ensure that they look like pushbuttons 

and that they are clearly labeled. In some cases, the pushbuttons will 

need to be prioritized to facilitate their proper use. 

Radio buttons are used to select from among two or more mutuallyexclusive selections. Check boxes should be used to make binary 

choices, e.g., ’yes’ or ’no.’ Drop-down lists are generally used to select 

one item from among many. To speed user performance, show default 

values when appropriate, and do not limit the number of viewable list 

box options.

Entry fields are used when completing forms and entering text 

into search boxes. Designers should try to minimize the amount of 

information entered by users. Each entry field should be clearly and 

consistently labeled, with the labels placed close to the entry fields. 

Designers should also clearly distinguish between ‘required’ and 

‘optional’ data entry fields, and attempt to minimize the use of the 

Shift key.

To facilitate fast entry of information, designers should automatically 

place the cursor in the first data entry field, provide labels for each field 

(e.g., pounds, miles, etc.), and provide auto-tabbing functionality. In 

order to increase accuracy of data entry, partition long data items into 

smaller units, enable the software to automatically detect errors, and do 

not require case-sensitive data entries. Showing users their data entries 

can increase accuracy. For experienced users, the fastest possible entry 

of information will come from allowing users to use entry fields instead 

of selecting from list boxes.
Headings, Titles, and Labels Links

121

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Screen-Based Controls (Widgets)

13:1 Distinguish Required and Optional Data Entry Fields

Guideline: Distinguish clearly and consistently 

between required and optional data entry fields. 

Comments: Users should be able to easily 

determine which data entry fields are required and 

which are optional. Many Web sites are currently 

using an asterisk in front of the label for required 

fields. Other sites are adding the word ’required’ near the label. One study 

found that bolded text is preferred when compared to the use of chevrons 

(>>>), checkmarks, or color to indicate required fields.

Sources: Bailey, 1996; Fowler, 1998; Morrell, et al., 2002; Tullis and Pons, 

1997.

Example: 

Asterisks (*) 

and labeling 

data entry field 

names with 

'required' are 

two popular 

and effective 

methods of 

distinguishing 

between 

optional and 

required data 

entry fields.

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:
Headings, Titles, and Labels

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Guideline: Ensure that a pushbutton’s label clearly 

indicates its action.

Comments: The label of a pushbutton should clearly 

indicate the action that will be applied when the pushbutton is clicked. 

Common pushbutton labels include ’Update,’ ’Go,’ ’Submit,’ ’Cancel,’ ’Enter,’ 

’Home,’ ’Next,’ and ’Previous.’

Sources: Bailey, 1996; Fowler, 1998; Marcus, Smilonich and Thompson, 1995.

Example: 

Effective use of short 

phrases leaves no 

doubt in the user’s 

mind as to what will 

happen when the pushbutton 

is clicked.

13:2 Label Pushbuttons Clearly

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Screen-Based Controls (Widgets)

122
Headings, Titles, and Labels

123

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Ensure that data entry labels are worded 

consistently, so that the same data item is given 

the same label if it appears on different pages.

Comments: If possible, employ consistent labeling 

conventions. For example, do not use single 

words or phrases for some labels and short sentences for others, or use verbs 

for some and nouns for others.

Sources: Evans, 1998; Mahajan and Shneiderman, 1997; Smith and Mosier, 1986.

13:3 Label Data Entry Fields Consistently

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Guideline: Treat upper- and lowercase letters as 

equivalent when users are entering codes.

Comments: Do not make user-entered codes case 

sensitive unless there is a valid reason for doing 

so (such as increased security of passwords). If 

required, clearly inform users if they must enter 

codes in a case specific manner. When retaining data entered by users, show 

the data as it was entered by the user.

Sources: Ahlstrom and Longo, 2001; Smith and Mosier, 1986.

Example: 

13:4 Do Not Make User-Entered Codes Case Sensitive

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Screen-Based Controls (Widgets)

A capital “H” is all that 

keeps a user from finding 

this Help page.
Headings, Titles, and Labels

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Guideline: Display an associated label for each data 

entry field to help users understand what entries are 

desired. 

Comments: Employ descriptive labels that clearly, concisely, and unambiguously 

define the required entry. Make labels distinct enough so that readers do not 

confuse them with the data entries themselves. This can be done by bolding 

the labels or providing other visual cues, such as an asterisk.

Do not create new jargon when labeling data entry fields. Use common terms 

(e.g., male, female) rather than arbitrary labels (e.g., Group 1, Group 2). If 

the meaning of a proposed label is in doubt, conduct usability testing with an 

appropriate sample of qualified users.

Sources: Pew and Rollins, 1975; Smith and Mosier, 1986.

Example: 

A good design:

Each data entry field 

has an associated 

descriptive label.

13:5 Label Data Entry Fields Clearly

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Screen-Based Controls (Widgets)

124
Headings, Titles, and Labels

125

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Do not require users to enter the same 

information more than once.

Comments: Requiring re-entry of data imposes 

an additional task on users, and increases the possibility of entry errors. 

When entries made by users on one page are required on another page, the 

computer should retrieve the original entries, rather than requiring re-entry 

of the same information. In general, require users to make as few entries as 

possible.

Sources: Czaja and Sharit, 1997; Smith and Mosier, 1986; Zimmerman, et al., 

2002.

Example: Clicking this button will prompt the server to copy information from 

the ‘Billing Address’ column to the ‘Shipping Address’ column, thus 

eliminating the need for users to re-input the data (if it is the same).

This Web site 

minimizes user 

data entry by 

remembering IDs.

13:6 Minimize User Data Entry

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Screen-Based Controls (Widgets)
Headings, Titles, and Labels

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Ensure that labels are close enough to 

their associated data entry fields so that users will 

recognize the label as describing the data entry field. 

Comments: All labels and related information should 

be close to the data entry field to enable users to 

easily relate the label and entries required.

Sources: Engel and Granda, 1975; Evans, 1998; Galitz, 2002; Smith and Mosier, 

1986.

Example: Placing labels very close to the data entry fields 

allows users 

to rapidly 

relate the 

label and 

the required 

entries.

Placing labels away from the data 

entry field slows users’ entry rates.

13:7 Put Labels Close to Data Entry Fields

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Screen-Based Controls (Widgets)

126
Headings, Titles, and Labels

127

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Create data entry fields that are large 

enough to show all of the entered data without 

scrolling.

Comments: Users should be able to see their 

entire entry at one time. There always will be 

some users who will enter more data than can be 

seen without scrolling; however, try to minimize the need to scroll or move 

the cursor to see all the data for that field. If there is a character limit for a 

particular field, state that near the entry field.

Designers should be particularly aware of the length of data entry fields used 

for entering search terms. One study found that this entry field should be 

at least 35-40 characters long to accommodate ninety-five percent of search 

terms being used. 

Sources: Bailey, 1996; Bailey and Wolfson, 2005; Czaja and Sharit, 1997; 

Fowler, 1998.

Example: 

13:8 Allow Users to See Their Entered Data

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

The text expands vertically so that a 

user can see even very long entries 

without having to scroll horizontally.

Data entry fields should be wide 

enough so that the user can see 

their entire entry without scrolling.

Screen-Based Controls (Widgets)

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
Headings, Titles, and Labels

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Guideline: Provide radio buttons when users need to 

choose one response from a list of mutually exclusive 

options.

Comments: Radio buttons should be used when there 

is a need to select from among mutually exclusive 

items. Users should be able to click on the button 

or its text label to make their selection. Assign one of the radio button choices 

as the default when appropriate. One study reported that for making mutually 

exclusive selections, radio buttons elicit reliably better performance than dropdown lists. Radio buttons are also preferred over both open lists and dropdown lists.

Sources: Bailey, 1983; Bailey, 1996; Fowler, 1998; Galitz, 2002; Johnsgard, et al., 

1995; Marcus, Smilonich and Thompson, 1995; Tullis and Kodimer, 1992.

Example: 

13:9 Use Radio Buttons for Mutually Exclusive Selections

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

If a user must be 

constrained to 

selecting one item in 

a list, employ radio 

buttons rather than 

Screen-Based Controls (Widgets)

check boxes.

Only one option is clickable for each individual task below.

128
Headings, Titles, and Labels

129

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Use widgets that are familiar to your 

users, and employ them in their commonly used 

manner. 

Comments: Do not assume that all users are familiar with all available 

widgets. Unfamiliar widgets will slow some users, and cause others not to 

use the widget because they do not know how to make it work properly. For 

instance, one study showed that some users, particularly older users, do not 

know how to use a drop-down list.

In choosing widgets, designers typically consider such issues as the amount 

of available screen ’real estate,’ reducing the number of user clicks, and 

whether the user will be choosing one from among many items, or several 

items at once. Usability test the performance and acceptability of widgets to 

ensure they do not confuse or slow users.

Sources: Bailey, Koyani and Nall, 2000; Nall, Koyani and Lafond, 2001.

Example: 

13:10 Use Familiar Widgets

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

The circled widget is used in an unconventional manner. Users might 

expect this widget to be a text entry box. However, when a user 

places their 

cursor in the 

entry area, it 

invokes the 

linked text in 

the box at left 

from which 

the user must 

select the car 

type. A dropdown box 

would be a 

more suitable 

widget. 

Screen-Based Controls (Widgets)

Users do not expect 

radio buttons to be 

used in this manner.
Headings, Titles, and Labels

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Guideline: Use the computer to detect errors made 

by users.

Comments: Do not expect that users always will make 

correct entries. Anticipate possible user errors, and when possible, allocate 

responsibility to the computer to identify these mistakes and suggest corrections. 

For example, if a date is entered as ’February 31,’ the computer should generate 

an error message asking for a revised entry. 

Design the site’s search engine (and other places where users enter data) to 

accommodate common misspellings and certain other errors.

Sources: Bailey and Koyani, 2004; Bailey, 1983; Pew and Rollins, 1975; Smith 

and Mosier, 1986.

Example:

13:11 Anticipate Typical User Errors

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Screen-Based Controls (Widgets)

130
Headings, Titles, and Labels

131

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Partition long data items into shorter 

sections for both data entry and data display.

Comments: Partitioning long data items can 

aid users in detecting entry errors, and can reduce erroneous entries. For 

example, it is easier to enter and verify a ten digit telephone number when 

entered as three groups, NNN-NNN-NNNN. Similarly, ZIP+4 codes and 

Social Security numbers are best partitioned.

Sources: Mayhew, 1992; Smith and Mosier, 1986.

Example: The ‘Phone Number’ entry field is partitioned correctly. However, the 

‘ZIP+4’ field should be broken out into two fields (one five digits long, 

and one four digits long, separated by a hyphen).

13:12 Partition Long Data Items

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Screen-Based Controls (Widgets)

In this example, 

the first and last 

names, along with 

the social security 

number, should be 

partitioned.
Headings, Titles, and Labels

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Guideline: Design data entry transactions so that 

users can stay with one entry method as long as 

possible.

Comments: Do not have users shift back and forth between data entry 

methods. Requiring users to make numerous shifts from keyboard to mouse to 

keyboard can substantially slow their entry speed.

Sources: Czaja and Sharit, 1997; Engel and Granda, 1975; Foley and Wallace, 

1974; Smith and Mosier, 1986.

Example: In this example, data entry methods are used consistently so that users do 

not have to shift back and forth between mouse entry and keyboard entry.

This design forces 

users to switch 

between keyboard 

entry and mouse entry 

methods, and will slow 

the user’s data entry 

task.

13:13 Use a Single Data Entry Method

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Screen-Based Controls (Widgets)

132
Headings, Titles, and Labels

133

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Use location and highlighting to 

prioritize pushbuttons.

Comments: If one pushbutton in a group of 

pushbuttons is used more frequently than the others, put that button in the 

first position. Also make the most frequently used button the default action, 

i.e., that which is activated when users press the Enter key.

One study reported that designers should place the button most likely 

to be clicked on the left side of a two-button set of buttons. This button 

arrangement allows the user to read the first button label, and since it is the 

most likely selection, click on that button immediately. Some users look at 

the left and then right button before making a selection, preferring to be 

fully informed before submitting a response.

Sources: Bailey, 1996; Fowler, 1998; Marcus, Smilonich and Thompson, 1995; 

Walker and Stanley, 2004.

Example: The ‘Search’ button is placed in the first position.

13:14 Prioritize Pushbuttons

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Screen-Based Controls (Widgets)
Headings, Titles, and Labels

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Use a check box control to allow users 

to select one or more items from a list of possible 

choices. 

Comments: Each check box should be able to be 

selected independently of all other check boxes. 

One study showed that for making multiple 

selections from a list of non-mutually exclusive items, check boxes elicit the 

fastest performance and are preferred over all other widgets. Users should be 

able to click on either the box or the text label.

Sources: Bailey, 1996; Fowler, 1998; Galitz, 2002; Johnsgard, et al., 1995; 

Marcus, Smilonich and Thompson, 1995.

Example: 

13:15 Use Check Boxes to Enable Multiple Selections

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Check boxes are most 

appropriately used in these 

examples because users may 

wish to order more than one 

product or select more than one 

file format. Convention dictates 

that check boxes be used when 

more than one item in a list may 

be selected.

Screen-Based Controls (Widgets)

134
Headings, Titles, and Labels

135

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: When using data entry fields, specify 

the desired measurement units with the field 

labels rather than requiring users to enter them.

Comments: Designers should include units such as minutes, ounces, or 

centimeters, etc. as part of the data entry field label. This will reduce the 

number of keystrokes required of users (speeding the data entry process), 

and reduce the chance of errors. 

Sources: Pew and Rollins, 1975; Smith and Mosier, 1986.

Example: 

13:16 Label Units of Measurement

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Screen-Based Controls (Widgets)

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
Headings, Titles, and Labels

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: When using open lists, show as many 

options as possible.

Comments: Scrolling to find an item in a list box 

can take extra time. In one study, an open list that 

showed only three (of five) options was used. To see 

the hidden two items, users had to scroll. The need 

to scroll was not obvious to users who were not familiar with list boxes, and 

slowed down those that did know to scroll.

Sources: Bailey, Koyani and Nall, 2000; Zimmerman, et al., 2002.

Example: 

This open list 

shows as many 

options as possible 

given the amount 

of available screen 

real estate.

Despite plenty of screen 

real estate, only four of the 

six items in this list box are 

visible.

13:17 Do Not Limit Viewable List Box Options

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Screen-Based Controls (Widgets)

This site, even though the product is available in only four states, 

lists all 50, including the U.S. Virgin Islands. Only those four states 

provide 

counties, 

which are 

necessary 

before the 

“Submit” 

button can 

be chosen. 

This 

could be 

potentially 

confusing 

to users.

136
Headings, Titles, and Labels

137

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Display default values whenever a 

likely default choice can be defined. 

Comments: When likely default values can be defined, offer those values to 

speed data entry. The initial or default item could be the most frequently 

selected item or the last item selected by that user. In general, do not use 

the default position to display a heading or label for that widget.

Sources: Ahlstrom and Longo, 2001; Bailey, 1996; Fowler, 1998; Marcus, 

Smilonich and Thompson, 1995; Smith and Mosier, 1986.

Example: 

13:18 Display Default Values

Screen-Based Controls (Widgets)

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
13:19 Place Cursor in First Data Entry Field

Guideline: Place (automatically) a blinking cursor at 

the beginning of the first data entry field when a 

data entry form is displayed on a page.

Comments: Users should not be required to move the 

mouse pointer to the first data entry field and click 

on the mouse button to activate the field. Designers 

should consider, however, that programming this automatic cursor placement 

might negatively impact the performance of screen reader software.

Sources: Ahlstrom and Longo, 2001; Smith and Mosier, 1986.

Example: 

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

These two Web sites 

automatically place the cursor 

in the first data entry field.

Guideline: Ensure that double-clicking on a link will 

not cause undesirable or confusing results. 

Comments: Many users double-click on a link when 

only one click is needed. Developers cannot stop 

users from double-clicking, but they should try to 

reduce the negative consequences of this behavior. 

Usability testing has indicated that if users start with quick double-clicks, they 

tend to continue to do this for most of the test. Sometimes, when both clicks 

are detected by the computer, the first click selects one link and the second 

click selects a second link, causing unexpected (i.e., puzzling) results.

Sources: Bailey, Koyani and Nall, 2000; Fakun and Greenough, 2002.

13:20 Ensure that Double-Clicking Will Not Cause Problems

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Headings, Titles, and Labels Link

138

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Screen-Based Controls (Widgets)
Guideline: Use open lists rather than drop-down 

lists to select one from many.

Comments: Generally, the more items users can 

see in a list (without scrolling), the faster their 

responses will be, and the fewer omission errors 

they will make. Ideally, users should be able to see 

all available items without scrolling.

When compared with drop-down lists, open lists tend to elicit faster 

performance primarily because drop-down lists require an extra click to 

open. However, if a list is extremely long, a drop-down list may be better. 

The available research does not indicate the upper number limit of items 

that should be displayed in a list.

Sources: Bailey, 1996; Fowler, 1998; Marcus, Smilonich and Thompson, 1995.

Example: In this example, the designers opted to use a drop-down list to 

conserve screen real estate. This is a trade-off, however, as a 

drop-down list will slow users when compared with an open list.

13:21 Use Open Lists to Select One from Many

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Headings, Titles, and Labels Links

139

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Screen-Based Controls (Widgets)

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
Headings, Titles, and Labels

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Require users to enter information using 

data entry fields (instead of selecting from list boxes) 

if you are designing to speed human performance.

Comments: At least two studies have compared the 

effectiveness of text entry versus selection (list boxes) 

for entering dates and making airline reservations. 

Both studies found text entry methods were faster and preferred over all other 

methods. However, use of text entry fields tends to elicit more errors.

Sources: Bailey, 1996; Czaja and Sharit, 1997; Fowler, 1998; Gould, et al., 1988; 

Gould, et al., 1989; Greene, et al., 1988; Greene, et al., 1992; Marcus, Smilonich 

and Thompson, 1995; Tullis and Kodimer, 1992.

Example: 

13:22 Use Data Entry Fields to Speed Performance

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

If users’ entries cannot be easily defined or 

constrained (for example, their street address 

or a particular search term), use entry fields. 

However, if entries can be defined and errors 

reduced (state or country of residence) use 

list boxes. Be aware that alternating between 

these two entry methods will slow the user.

Guideline: Never use one radio button alone.

Comments: Use at least two radio buttons together. 

If users can choose not to activate any of the radio 

button choices, provide a choice labeled ’None.’

Sources: Bailey, 1996; Fowler, 1998; Marcus, 

Smilonich and Thompson, 1995.

13:23 Use a Minimum of Two Radio Buttons

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Screen-Based Controls (Widgets)

140
Headings, Titles, and Labels

141

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Provide auto-tabbing functionality for 

frequent users with advanced Web interaction skills. 

Comments: Auto-tabbing can significantly reduce 

data entry times for frequent users by not 

requiring them to manually tab from field to field.

Sources: Ahlstrom and Longo, 2001; Pew and Rollins, 1975; Smith and 

Mosier, 1986.

13:24 Provide Auto-Tabbing Functionality

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Guideline: Design data entry transactions to 

minimize use of the Shift key.

Comments: If possible, designers should not require 

users to enter characters that require the use the Shift key. Using the Shift 

key imposes a demand for extra user attention and time. For example, the 

designer can include symbols such as the dollar or percent sign near data 

entry fields rather than requiring users to enter those characters. Designers 

also can treat upper- and lowercases as equivalent when entered by users.

Sources: Card, Moran and Newell, 1980b; John, 1996; Smith and Mosier, 1986.

13:25 Minimize Use of the Shift Key

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Screen-Based Controls (Widgets)

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Graphics, Images, and Multimedia

14

Graphics are used on many, if not most, Web 

pages. When used appropriately, graphics can facilitate learning. An 

important image to show on most pages of a site is the organization’s 

logo. When used appropriately, images, animation, video, and audio 

can add tremendous value to a Web site. When animation is used 

appropriately, it is a good idea to introduce the animation before it begins. 

Many images require a large number of bytes that can take a long time 

to download, especially at slower connection speeds. When images must 

be used, designers should ensure that the graphics do not substantially 

slow page download times. Thumbnail versions of larger images allow 

users to preview images without having to download them. 

Sometimes it is necessary to label images to help users understand 

them. Usability testing should be used to help ensure that Web site 

images convey the intended message. In many cases, the actual data 

should be included with charts and graphs to facilitate fast and accurate 

understanding. 

It is usually not a good idea to use images as the entire background of 

a page. Complex background images tend to slow down page loading, 

and can interfere with reading the foreground text.

Experienced users tend to ignore graphics that they consider to be 

advertising. Designers should ensure that they do not create images that 

look like banner ads. Also, they should be careful about placing images 

in locations that are generally used for advertisements.

Graphics, Images, and Multimedia
Headings, Titles, and Labels

143

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

14:1 Use Simple Background Images

Guideline: Use background images sparingly and 

make sure they are simple, especially if they are 

used behind text. 

Comments: Background images can make it difficult for users to read 

foreground text. A single, large, complex background image (including a 

picture) can substantially slow page download rates. If background images 

must be employed, use small, simple images with ’tiling,’ and/or keep the 

image resolution as low as possible.

Sources: Boyntoin and Bush, 1956; Cole and Jenkins, 1984; Detweiler and 

Omanson, 1996; Hackman and Tinker, 1957; Jenkins and Cole, 1982; 

Levine, 1996; Levy, et al., 1996; Spencer, Reynolds and Coe, 1977a; Spencer, 

Reynolds and Coe, 1977b; Tinker and Paterson, 1931; Tinker, 1963.

Example: Complex graphics can obscure text, making it very difficult for 

users to read the site’s content.

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Graphics, Images, and Multimedia
Headings, Titles, and Labels

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Guideline: Ensure that all clickable images are either 

labeled or readily understood by typical users. 

Comments: Occasional or infrequent users may not 

use an image enough to understand or remember its meaning. Ensure that 

images and their associated text are close together so that users can integrate 

and effectively use them together. Additionally, alt text should accompany 

every clickable image.

Sources: Booher, 1975; Evans, 1998; Hackman and Tinker, 1957; Spool, et al., 

1997; Tinker and Paterson, 1931; Vaughan, 1998; Williams, 2000.

Example: 

The addition 

of labels is 

essential 

for a user to 

understand 

the clickable 

image links.

14:2 Label Clickable Images

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Graphics, Images, and Multimedia

144
Headings, Titles, and Labels

145

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Take steps to ensure that images on 

the Web site do not slow page download times 

unnecessarily.

Comments: User frustration increases as the 

length of time spent interacting with a system 

increases. Users tolerate less delay if they believe 

the task should be easy for the computer. One study reported that users 

rated latencies of up to five seconds as ’good.’ Delays over ten seconds were 

rated as ’poor.’ Users rate pages with long delays as being less interesting 

and more difficult to scan. One study reported no relationship between slow 

page download times and users giving up.

To speed download times, use several small images rather than a single large 

image on a page; use interlacing or progressive images; and use several of 

the same images. Designers should also minimize the number of different 

colors used in an image and put HEIGHT and WIDTH pixel dimension tags 

in an image reference. To achieve faster response time for users with dial-up 

modems, limit page size to less than 30,000 bytes.

Sources: Bouch, Kuchinsky and Bhatti, 2000; Farkas and Farkas, 2000; 

Marchionini, 1995; Martin and Corl, 1986; Nielsen, 1996a; Nielsen, 1997a; 

Nielsen, 1999c; Nielsen, 2000; Perfetti, 2001; Ramsay, Barbesi and Preece, 

1998; Schroeder, 2003; Sears, Jacko and Borella, 1997; Selvidge, Chaparro 

and Bender, 2001; Shneiderman, 1984; Tullis, 2001.

Example: 

14:3 Ensure that Images Do Not Slow Downloads 

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Graphics, Images, and Multimedia

The entire main 

content area - the 

background, text 

and photo is one 

large image. The 

page would load 

much quicker if 

normal html had 

been used here.
Guideline: Use video, animation, and audio only 

when they help to convey, or are supportive of, the 

Web site’s message or other content.

Comments: Multimedia elements (such as video, 

animation, and audio) can easily capture the 

attention of users; therefore, it is important to have 

clear and useful reasons for using multimedia to avoid unnecessarily distracting 

users. Some multimedia elements may take a long time to download, so it is 

important that they be worth the wait. 

Used productively, multimedia can add great value to a site’s content and help 

direct users’ attention to the most important information and in the order that 

it is most useful.

Sources: Campbell and Maglio, 1999; Chen and Yu, 2000; Faraday and Sutcliffe, 

1997; Faraday, 2000; Faraday, 2001; Harrison, 1995; Nielsen, 2000; Park and 

Hannafin, 1993; Reeves and Rickenberg, 2000; Spinillo and Dyson, 2000/2001; 

Sundar, Edgar and Mayer, 2000.

14:4 Use Video, Animation, and Audio Meaningfully

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Guideline: Place your organization’s logo in a 

consistent place on every page.

Comments: Users are frequently unaware when they 

click through to a different Web site. Having a logo on each page provides a 

frame of reference throughout a Web site so that users can easily confirm that 

they have not left the site. Ideally, the logo should be in the same location on 

each page: many designers place the logo in the top left corner.

Sources: Adkisson, 2002; Farkas and Farkas, 2000; Marchionini, 1995; Nall, 

Koyani and Lafond, 2001; Nielsen, 1999d; Omanson, Cline and Nordhielm, 

2001; Omanson, et al., 1998; Osborn and Elliott, 2002; Spool, et al., 1997.

Example: 

14:5 Include Logos

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Headings, Titles, and Labels Link

146

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Graphics, Images, and Multimedia
Headings, Titles, and Labels Links

147

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Do not make important images 

Graphics, Images, and Multimedia

look like banner advertisements or gratuitous 

decorations. 

Comments: In a recent study, a graphic 

developed to inform users about access to live 

help was not clicked because many users thought it was an advertisement. 

Even though the graphic was larger than most other graphics on the page, 

some users missed the item completely because the graphic looked too 

much like a decoration or a banner advertisement.

Sources: Ahmadi, 2000; Badre, 2002; Bayles, 2002; Benway, 1998; Ellis and 

Kurniawan, 2000.

Example: 

14:6 Graphics Should Not Look like Banner Ads

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

This graphic, which contains three major, linked headers, looks like a 

banner advertisement. Consequently, users may skip over this design 

element, thus missing the headers. 

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
Headings, Titles, and Labels

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Do not fill the entire first screenful with 

one image if there are screensful of text information 

below the fold. 

Comments: Large graphics that cover most of the screen at the top of the page 

suggest to users that there is no more information below the graphic. In one 

study, because a graphic filled the screen, some users did not use the scrollbar 

to scroll down to more content. In fact, some users did not even suspect that 

more information might be located below the fold.

Sources: Bailey, Koyani and Nall, 2000; Chen and Yu, 2000; Golovchinsky 

and Chignell, 1993; Nielsen and Tahir, 2002.

Example: As the scroll bar shows, there are several additional screenfuls of 

information below this large navigation graphic. Users may not look 

at the scroll bar, thus missing that information.

14:7 Limit Large Images Above the Fold

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Graphics, Images, and Multimedia

148
Headings, Titles, and Labels

149

Guideline: Ensure that Web site images convey the 

intended message to users, not just to designers. 

Comments: Users and designers tend to differ 

in what they think is appropriate to convey a 

message. When attempting to select the best 

graphic from a set of graphics, users tend to 

select those that most other users would have selected (i.e., those that look 

familiar), while most developers favor graphics that look more artistic. One 

study found that seventy-five percent of users are able to find information on 

a content and link-rich site, whereas only seventeen percent could find the 

same information on a graphic-intensive site.

Sources: Ahmadi, 2000; Evans, 1998; Nielsen and Tahir, 2002; Spool, et al., 

1997.

Example: The new IRS site (left) 

is content and link-rich, 

allowing users to find 

information much faster 

than the old, graphic-heavy 

IRS site (right).

14:8 Ensure Web Site Images Convey Intended Messages

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Graphics, Images, and Multimedia

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
Headings, Titles, and Labels

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Guideline: Use images only when they are critical to 

the success of a Web site. 

Comments: Ensure that a Web site’s graphics add 

value and increase the clarity of the information on the site. Certain graphics 

can make some Web sites much more interesting for users, and users may be 

willing to wait a few extra seconds for them to load. Users tend to be most 

frustrated if they wait several seconds for a graphic to download, and then 

find that the image does not add any value. Some decorative graphics are 

acceptable when they do not distract the user.

Sources: Badre, 2002; Evans, 1998; Nielsen, 1997e; Nielsen, 1999b; Nielsen, 2000; 

Nielsen, 2003; Spool, et al., 1997; Wen and Beaton, 1996; Williams, 2000.

Example: The placement of this image disrupts the left justification of the 

other page elements and it is visually distracting, drawing the user’s 

attention from the site’s content.

14:9 Limit the Use of Images

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

This image is 

unrelated to the 

accompanying 

content.

Graphics, Images, and Multimedia

150
Headings, Titles, and Labels

151

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Placing the mouse 

pointer over a data 

point invokes this 

box with detailed 

information.

Guideline: Include actual data values with 

graphical displays of data when precise reading 

of the data is required.

Comments: Adjacent numeric annotation might 

be added to the ends of displayed bars on a bar 

graph, or to mark the points of a plotted curve. 

Some displays may require complete data annotation while others may 

require annotation only for selected data elements.

Sources: Pagulayan and Stoffregen, 2000; Powers, et al., 1961; Smith and 

Mosier, 1986; Spool, et al., 1997; Tufte, 1983.

Example: 

14:10 Include Actual Data with Data Graphics

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Graphics, Images, and Multimedia
Headings, Titles, and Labels

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Guideline: Use a graphic format to display data 

when users must monitor changing data. 

Comments: Whenever possible, the computer 

should handle data monitoring and should call 

abnormalities to the users’ attention. When that is 

not possible, and a user must monitor data changes, graphic displays will make 

it easier for users to detect critical changes and/or values outside the normal 

range.

Sources: Hanson, et al., 1981; Kosslyn, 1994; Powers, et al., 1961; Smith and 

Mosier, 1986; Tullis, 1981.

Example: 

14:11 Display Monitoring Information Graphically

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Graphics, Images, and Multimedia

152
Headings, Titles, and Labels

153

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Provide an introductory explanation for 

animation prior to it being viewed. 

Comments: Providing an explanation of animation 

before it begins will help users better integrate the animation and associated 

content. In other words, briefly explain to users what they are about to 

see before they see it. Also, allow animation to be user-controlled. The 

user should be able to pause, stop, replay, or ignore animation or other 

multimedia elements.

Sources: Evans, 1998; Faraday and Sutcliffe, 1999.

Example: 

14:12 Introduce Animation

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Each video clip is accompanied by text that explains to the user what they 

are about to view. In addition, this Web site allows the user to control when 

to start the video clip.

Graphics, Images, and Multimedia
Headings, Titles, and Labels

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Graphics, Images, and Multimedia

Guideline: Use images that look like real-world items 

when appropriate. 

Comments: Images (e.g., pushbuttons and navigation 

tabs) are likely to be considered as links when they are designed to emulate 

their real-world analogues. If a designer cannot make such images emulate realworld objects, the image may require at least one additional clickability cue, 

such as a descriptive label (like ’Home’ or ’Next’) or placement on the page. 

A text label can help inform users about a link’s destination, but in one study 

some users missed this type of image link, even those that contained words, 

because the words were not underlined.

Sources: Ahmadi, 2000; Bailey, 2000b; Galitz, 2002; Nolan, 1989.

Example: 

These control items are 

designed to look like real-world 

items. The buttons below, for 

example, look like the buttons 

you might find on an Automated 

Teller Machine. The control 

item image to the right controls 

video on a Web site, and thus is 

designed to look like a control on 

a VCR or DVD player.

14:13 Emulate Real-World Objects

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance: 154
Headings, Titles, and Labels

155

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: When viewing full-size images is not 

critical, first provide a thumbnail of the image.

Comments: By providing thumbnails of larger 

images, users can decide whether they want 

to wait for the full image to load. By using 

thumbnails, those who do not need or want to 

see the full image are not slowed down by large image downloads. Link the 

thumbnail image to the full-size copy.

Sources: Levine, 1996; Nielsen and Tahir, 2002.

Example: 

14:14 Use Thumbnail Images to Preview Larger Images

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Graphics, Images, and Multimedia

When one of the thumbnail images is clicked on the left, a new 

window pops up with a larger image and a brief description. This 

also offers a high resolution jpg file of the same image.

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
Headings, Titles, and Labels

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Graphics, Images, and Multimedia

Guideline: To facilitate learning, use images rather 

than text whenever possible. 

Comments: The superiority of pictures over text in 

a learning situation appears to be strong. For example, pictures of common 

objects are recognized and recalled better than their textual names. Exceptions 

seem to occur when the items are conceptually very similar (e.g., all animals 

or tools), or when items are presented so quickly that learners cannot create 

verbal labels.

Sources: Golovchinsky and Chignell, 1993; Krull and Watson, 2002; Levy, et 

al., 1996; Lieberman and Culpepper, 1965; Nelson, Reed and Walling, 1976; 

Paivio and Csapo, 1969; Paivio, Rogers and Smythe, 1968; Rodden, et al., 2001; 

Williams, 1993.

Example: 

14:15 Use Images to Facilitate Learning

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

These illustrations 

facilitate faster learning 

of key concepts.

156
Headings, Titles, and Labels

157

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Photographs of people may or may 

not help build trust in Web sites.

Comments: In one e-commerce study, having a 

labeled photograph on the Web site was perceived as more trustworthy 

than having a photograph with no label. Further, having a photograph with 

no label was perceived as more trustworthy than having no photograph at 

all. Highly experienced users showed the same degree of trust as users that 

were moderately experienced or inexperienced. 

However, another study recommended that photos not be used to increase 

the trustworthiness of a Web site. They found that the presence of a photo 

did not affect the trust of a site, or user preferences for a site.

Sources: Riegelsberger, Sasse and McCarthy, 2003; Steinbrück, et al., 2002.

Example:

14:16 Using Photographs of People

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Graphics, Images, and Multimedia

Photographs 

of people are 

used widely 

and very 

differently 

throughout 

the Federal 

government.
Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Writing Web Content

15

“Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary 

words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a 

drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary 

parts.”– William Strunk Jr., in Elements of Style

Content is the most important part of a Web site. 

If the content does not provide the information needed by users, 

the Web site will provide little value no matter how easy it is to use 

the site. 

When preparing prose content for a Web site, use familiar words and 

avoid the use of jargon. If acronyms and abbreviations must be used, 

ensure that they are clearly understood by typical users and defined on 

the page.

Minimize the number of words in a sentence and sentences in a 

paragraph. Make the first sentence (the topic sentence) of each 

paragraph descriptive of the remainder of the paragraph. Clearly state 

the temporal sequence of instructions. Also, use upper- and lowercase 

letters appropriately, write in an affirmative, active voice, and limit prose 

text on navigation pages.

Writing Web Content
Headings, Titles, and Labels

159

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: When describing an action or task 

that has a natural order or sequence (assembly 

instructions, troubleshooting, etc.), structure 

the content so that the sequence is obvious and 

consistent.

Comments: Time-based sequences are easily understood by users. 

Do not force users to perform or learn tasks in a sequence that is unusual 

or awkward.

Sources: Czaja and Sharit, 1997; Farkas, 1999; Krull and Watson, 2002; 

Morkes and Nielsen, 1998; Nielsen, 2000; Smith and Mosier, 1986; Wright, 

1977.

Example: 

15:1 Make Action Sequences Clear

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Writing Web Content
Headings, Titles, and Labels

160

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Guideline: Do not use words that typical users may 

not understand. 

Comments: Terminology plays a large role in the 

user’s ability to find and understand information. Many terms are familiar to 

designers and content writers, but not to users. In one study, some users did 

not understand the term ’cancer screening.’ Changing the text to ’testing for 

cancer’ substantially improved users’ understanding.

To improve understanding among users who are accustomed to using the 

jargon term, it may be helpful to put that term in parentheses. A dictionary 

or glossary may be helpful to users who are new to a topic, but should not be 

considered a license to frequently use terms typical users do not understand.

Sources: Cockburn and Jones, 1996; Evans, 1998; Horton, 1990; Mayhew, 1992; 

Morkes and Nielsen, 1997; Morkes and Nielsen, 1998; Nall, Koyani and Lafond, 

2001; Schramm, 1973; Spyridakis, 2000; Tullis, 2001; Zimmerman and Prickett, 

2000; Zimmerman, et al., 2002.

Example: These Web pages, often visited by the public, do not use 

language that is accessible and free of jargon.

15:2 Avoid Jargon

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Writing Web Content
Headings, Titles, and Labels

161

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Use words that are frequently seen 

and heard. 

Comments: Use words that are familiar to, and 

used frequently by, typical users. Words that are more frequently seen and 

heard are better and more quickly recognized. There are several sources of 

commonly used words (see Kucera and Francis, 1967 and Leech et al., 2001 

in the Sources section).

Familiar words can be collected using open-ended surveys, by viewing search 

terms entered by users on your site or related sites, and through other forms 

of market research.

Sources: Furnas, et al., 1987; Kucera and Francis, 1967; Leech, Rayson and 

Wilson, 2001; Spyridakis, 2000; Whissell, 1998.

Example: 

15:3 Use Familiar Words

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Writing Web Content

Studies have shown that using “Dictionary” 

instead of “Glossary” provides much more 

positive feedback for your typical user.
Headings, Titles, and Labels

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Do not use unfamiliar or undefined 

acronyms or abbreviations on Web sites.

Comments: Acronyms and abbreviations should 

be used sparingly and must be defined in order 

to be understood by all users. It is important to 

remember that users who are new to a topic are 

likely to be unfamiliar with the topic’s related acronyms and abbreviations. 

Use the following format when defining acronyms or abbreviations: Physician 

Data Query (PDQ). Acronyms and abbreviations are typically defined on first 

mention, but remember that users may easily miss the definition if they scroll 

past it or enter the page below where the acronym or abbreviation is defined.

Sources: Ahlstrom and Longo, 2001; Evans, 1998; Morrell, et al., 2002; Nall, 

Koyani and Lafond, 2001; Nielsen and Tahir, 2002; Tullis, 2001.

Example: 

15:4 Define Acronyms and Abbreviations

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Undefined acronyms on a homepage may leave users 

confused regarding the site’s contents or purpose. 

This detailed, highly-technical content page is designed for experts and not 

novice users. However, the designer has still defined each acronym and 

abbreviation on the page.

Writing Web Content

162
Headings, Titles, and Labels

163

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Show complete words rather than 

Writing Web Content

abbreviations whenever possible. 

Comments: The only times to use abbreviations are 

when they are significantly shorter, save needed space, and will be readily 

understood by typical users. If users must read abbreviations, choose only 

common abbreviations.

Sources: Ahlstrom and Longo, 2001; Engel and Granda, 1975; Evans, 1998; 

Smith and Mosier, 1986.

Example: 

15:5 Use Abbreviations Sparingly

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

If abbreviations are in 

common usage (DoD) 

then it is acceptable to 

use them. However, if 

an abbreviation is not in 

common usage (DARS, 

DFARS, AKSS), the 

complete title should be 

used.
Headings, Titles, and Labels

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Guideline: Display continuous (prose) text using 

mixed upper- and lowercase letters.

Comments: Reading text is easier when capitalization 

is used conventionally to start sentences and to indicate proper nouns and 

acronyms. If an item is intended to attract the user’s attention, display the 

item in all uppercase, bold, or italics. Do not use these methods for showing 

emphasis for more than one or two words or a short phrase because they slow 

reading performance when used for extended prose.

Sources: Breland and Breland, 1944; Engel and Granda, 1975; Mills and 

Weldon, 1987; Moskel, Erno and Shneiderman, 1984; Poulton and Brown, 

1968; Smith and Mosier, 1986; Spyridakis, 2000; Tinker and Paterson, 1928; 

Tinker, 1955; Tinker, 1963; Vartabedian, 1971; Wright, 1977.

Example: 

Reading text is easier when capitalization is used conventionally 

to start sentences and to indicate proper nouns and acronyms. 

If an item is intended to attract the user’s attention, display the 

item in all UPPERCASE, bold, or italics. Do not use these methods 

for showing emphasis for more than one or two words or a short 

phrase because they slow reading performance when used for 

extended prose.

READING TEXT IS EASIER WHEN CAPITALIZATION IS USED 

CONVENTIONALLY TO START SENTENCES AND TO INDICATE 

PROPER NOUNS AND ACRONYMS. IF AN ITEM IS INTENDED 

TO ATTRACT THE USER’S ATTENTION, DISPLAY THE ITEM IN ALL 

UPPERCASE, BOLD, OR ITALICS. DO NOT USE THESE METHODS 

FOR SHOWING EMPHASIS FOR MORE THAN ONE OR TWO 

WORDS OR A SHORT PHRASE BECAUSE THEY SLOW READING 

PERFORMANCE WHEN USED FOR EXTENDED PROSE.

15:6 Use Mixed Case with Prose

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Writing Web Content

164
Headings, Titles, and Labels

165

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: To optimize reading comprehension, 

minimize the number of words in sentences, and 

the number of sentences in paragraphs. 

Comments: To enhance the readability of prose 

text, a sentence should not contain more than 

twenty words. A paragraph should not contain 

more than six sentences.

Sources: Bailey, 1996; Bailey, Koyani and Nall, 2000; Bouma, 1980; Chervak, 

Drury and Ouellette, 1996; Evans, 1998; Kincaid, et al., 1990; Marcus, 1992; 

Mills and Caldwell, 1997; Nielsen, 1997c; Palmquist and Zimmerman, 1999; 

Rehe, 1979; Spyridakis, 2000; Zimmerman and Clark, 1987.

Example: This example shows how to optimize reading comprehension. 

The number of words in a sentence is minimized, and there 

are few sentences in each paragraph.

15:7 Limit the Number of Words and Sentences

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Writing Web Content
Headings, Titles, and Labels Link

166Writing Web Content

Guideline: Do not put a lot of prose text on 

navigation pages.

Comments: When there are many words on 

navigation pages, users tend to rapidly scan for 

specific words or begin clicking on many different 

links, rather than reading the text associated with 

the links.

Sources: Bailey, Koyani and Nall, 2000; Evans, 1998; Morkes and Nielsen, 1998; 

Nielsen, 2000; Spyridakis, 2000.

Example: 

15:8 Limit Prose Text on Navigation Pages

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

The lack of prose text allows navigation elements to 

take center stage on this navigation page. 

The large 

volume of prose 

text forces 

navigation links 

(the primary 

purpose of the 

page) into the 

left panel. 

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
15:10 Write Instructions in the Affirmative

Guideline: As a general rule, write instructions 

in affirmative statements rather than negative 

statements.

Comments: When giving instructions, strive to 

tell users what to do (see a dentist if you have 

a toothache), rather than what to avoid doing 

(avoid skipping your dentist appointment if you have a toothache). If the 

likelihood of making a wrong step is high or the consequences are dire, 

negative voice may be clearer to the user.

Sources: Greene, 1972; Herriot, 1970; Krull and Watson, 2002; Palmquist 

and Zimmerman, 1999; Smith and Mosier, 1986; Wright, 1977; 

Zimmerman and Clark, 1987.

Example: 

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

An example of negative voice pointing out consequences to the user.

Guideline: Compose sentences in active rather 

than passive voice. 

Comments: Users benefit from simple, direct 

language. Sentences in active voice are typically more concise than 

sentences in passive voice. Strong verbs help the user know who is acting 

and what is being acted upon. In one study, people who had to interpret 

federal regulation language spontaneously translated passive sentences into 

active sentences in order to form an understanding of the passages.

Sources: Flower, Hayes and Swarts, 1983; Horton, 1990; Palermo and Bourne, 

1978; Palmquist and Zimmerman, 1999; Redish, Felker and Rose, 1981; 

Smith and Mosier, 1986; Spinillo and Dyson, 2000/2001; Spyridakis, 2000; 

Wright, 1977; Zimmerman and Clark, 1987.

Example: Active voice example Passive voice example

15:9 Use Active Voice

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

John hit the baseball. The baseball was hit by John.

Headings, Titles, and Labels Links

167

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Writing Web Content
Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

15:11 Make First Sentences Descriptive

Headings, Titles, and Labels Link

168Writing Web Content

Guideline: Include the primary theme of a 

paragraph, and the scope of what it covers, in the 

first sentence of each paragraph. 

Comments: Users tend to skim the first one or two 

sentences of each paragraph when scanning text.

Sources: Bailey, Koyani and Nall, 2000; Lynch and Horton, 2002; Morkes and 

Nielsen, 1997; Morkes and Nielsen, 1998; Spyridakis, 2000.

Example: 

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Descriptive first sentences set the tone for each of these paragraphs, 

and provide users with an understanding of the topic of each section 

of text.

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
Content Organization

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

16

After ensuring that content is useful, well-written, 

and in a format that is suitable for the Web, it is important to ensure 

that the information is clearly organized. In some cases, the content 

on a site can be organized in multiple ways to accommodate multiple 

audiences.

Organizing content includes putting critical information near the top 

of the site, grouping related elements, and ensuring that all necessary 

information is available without slowing the user with unneeded 

information. Content should be formatted to facilitate scanning, and to 

enable quick understanding.

Content Organization
Headings, Titles, and Labels

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Content Organization

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Guideline: Organize information at each level of the 

Web site so that it shows a clear and logical structure 

to typical users. 

Comments: Designers should present information in a structure that reflects user 

needs and the site’s goals. Information should be well-organized at the Web site 

level, page level, and paragraph or list level.

Good Web site and page design enables users to understand the nature of the 

site’s organizational relationships and will support users in locating information 

efficiently. A clear, logical structure will reduce the chances of users becoming 

bored, disinterested, or frustrated

Sources: Benson, 1985; Clark and Haviland, 1975; Detweiler and Omanson, 

1996; Dixon, 1987; Evans, 1998; Farkas and Farkas, 2000; Keyes, 1993; Keyes, 

Sykes and Lewis, 1988; Lynch and Horton, 2002; Nielsen and Tahir, 2002; 

Redish, 1993; Redish, Felker and Rose, 1981; Schroeder, 1999; Spyridakis, 

2000; Tiller and Green, 1999; Wright, 1987; Zimmerman and Akerelrea, 2002; 

Zimmerman, et al., 2002.

Example: This design clearly illustrates to the user the logical structure of the Web 

site. The structure is built on the user’s needs—namely, completing a form in 

ten steps.

16:1 Organize Information Clearly

Strength of Evidence: 

170 Relative Importance:
Headings, Titles, and Labels

171

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Structure each content page to 

Content Organization

facilitate scanning: use clear, well-located 

headings; short phrases and sentences; and 

small readable paragraphs. 

Comments: Web sites that are optimized for scanning can help users find 

desired information. Users that scan generally read headings, but do not read 

full text prose–this results in users missing information when a page contains 

dense text.

Studies report that about eighty percent of users scan any new page. Only 

sixteen percent read each word. Users spend about twelve percent of their 

time trying to locate desired information on a page.

To facilitate the finding of information, place important headings high in 

the center section of a page. Users tend to scan until they find something 

interesting and then they read. Designers should help users ignore large 

chunks of the page in a single glance. Keep in mind that older users (70 

and over) will tend to scan much more slowly through a web page than will 

younger users (ages 39 and younger).

Sources: Bailey, Koyani and Nall, 2000; Byrne, et al., 1999; Evans, 1998; 

Koyani and Bailey, 2005; Koyani, et al., 2002; Morkes and Nielsen, 1997; 

Morkes and Nielsen, 1998; Nielsen, 1997e; Nielsen, 2000; Schriver, 1997; 

Spool, et al., 1997; Spyridakis, 2000; Sticht, 1985; Sullivan and Flower, 1986; 

Toms, 2000; Zimmerman, et al., 1996.

Example: This page facilitates scanning.

16:2 Facilitate Scanning

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:
Headings, Titles, and Labels

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Content Organization

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Guideline: Ensure that all needed information is 

available and displayed on the page where and 

when it is needed.

Comments: Users should not have to remember data 

from one page to the next or when scrolling from 

one screenful to the next. Heading information 

should be retained when users scroll data tables, or repeated often enough so 

that header information can be seen on each screenful.

Sources: Engel and Granda, 1975; Smith and Mosier, 1986; Spyridakis, 2000; 

Stewart, 1980; Tullis, 1983.

Example: 

16:3 Ensure that Necessary Information is Displayed

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

This header row disappears as users scroll down the table. This can 

negatively effect users’ performance on the site by exceeding their 

‘working memory’ capacity.

172
Headings, Titles, and Labels

173

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Group all related information and 

Content Organization

functions in order to decrease time spent 

searching or scanning.

Comments: All information related to one topic should be grouped together. 

This minimizes the need for users to search or scan the site for related 

information. Users will consider items that are placed in close spatial 

proximity to belong together conceptually. Text items that share the same 

background color typically will be seen as being related to each other.

Sources: Ahlstrom and Longo, 2001; Cakir, Hart and Stewart, 1980; Faraday, 

2000; Gerhardt-Powals, 1996; Kahn, Tan and Beaton, 1990; Kim and Yoo, 

2000; Nall, Koyani and Lafond, 2001; Niemela and Saarinen, 2000; Nygren 

and Allard, 1996; Spyridakis, 2000.

Example: This site organizes information well by grouping core navigation 

elements and key topic areas. These features allow users to search 

and scan for information faster.

16:4 Group Related Elements

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:
Headings, Titles, and Labels

174

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Content Organization

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

A topic such as Lung Cancer, one of the most common cancer 

types, is one click off 

of the homepage of 

this cancer site.

Guideline: To allow users to efficiently find what they 

want, design so that the most common tasks can 

be successfully completed in the fewest number of 

clicks.

Comments: Critical information should be provided 

as close to the homepage as possible. This reduces 

the need for users to click deep into the site and make additional decisions on 

intervening pages. The more steps (or clicks) users must take to find the desired 

information, the greater the likelihood they will make an incorrect choice. 

Important information should be available within two or three clicks of the 

homepage.

One study found that the time to complete a task was closely related to the 

number of clicks made by users. It appears that users will keep clicking as long 

as they feel like they are getting closer to their goal. Another study showed that 

when users were trying to find a target, they were no more likely to quit after 

three clicks than after 12 clicks.

Sources: Evans, 1998; Levine, 1996; Nall, Koyani and Lafond, 2001;

Nielsen and Tahir, 2002; Porter, 2003; Spyridakis, 2000; Zimmerman, et al., 

2002; Zimmerman, et al., 1996. 

Example: 

16:5 Minimize the Number of Clicks or Pages

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:
Headings, Titles, and Labels

175

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Design quantitative information to 

Content Organization

reduce the time required to understand it.

Comments: Make appropriate use of tables, 

graphics, and visualization techniques to hasten 

the understanding of information. Presenting 

quantitative information in a table (rather than a 

graph) generally elicits the best performance; however, there are situations 

where visualizations will elicit even better performance. Usability testing can 

help to determine when users will benefit from using tabular data, graphics, 

tables, or visualizations.

Sources: Chen and Yu, 2000; Galitz, 2002; Gerhardt-Powals, 1996; Kosslyn, 

1994; Meyer, 1997; Meyer, Shamo and Gopher, 1999; Meyer, Shinar and 

Leiser, 1997; Tufte, 1983.

Example: 

This is a case where displaying information 

using graphs and bars allows users to 

discern the importance of data much more 

quickly than when it is presented in a table 

format.

Presenting numerical 

data as bar charts may 

speed up the user’s 

understanding of data.

16:6 Design Quantitative Content for Quick Understanding

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:
Headings, Titles, and Labels

176

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Content Organization

Guideline: Limit page information only to that which 

is needed by users while on that page.

Comments: Do not overload pages or interactions 

with extraneous information. Displaying too 

much information may confuse users and hinder 

assimilation of needed information. Allow users to 

remain focused on the desired task by excluding information that task analysis 

and usability testing indicates is not relevant to their current task. When user 

information requirements cannot be precisely anticipated by the designer, allow 

users to tailor displays online.

Sources: Ahlstrom and Longo, 2001; Engel and Granda, 1975; GerhardtPowals, 1996; Mayhew, 1992; Morkes and Nielsen, 1998; Powers, et al., 1961; 

Smith and Mosier, 1986; Spyridakis, 2000; Stewart, 1980; Tullis, 1981; Tullis, 

2001; Zhang and Seo, 2001.

Example: An example of extraneous information. In this case, the user is looking for 

a weather forecast for Manchester, United Kingdom. The site provides this 

information, but also indicates tonight’s vacation weather for Prague—this 

information is extraneous to the user’s original task.

16:7 Display Only Necessary Information

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Headings, Titles, and Labels

176Content Organization
Headings, Titles, and Labels

177

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Provide information in multiple 

Content Organization

formats if the Web site has distinct audiences 

who will be interested in the same information.

Comments: Information can be provided in 

varying formats and at different levels of detail 

on the same site. For example, information about 

cancer can be presented in differing ways for physicians and patients.

When segmenting content for two or more distinct groups of users, allow 

users from each audience to easily access information intended for other 

audiences. One study showed that users want to see information that is 

intended for a health professional audience, as well as for a patient or 

consumer audience. Users want access to all versions of the information 

without first having to declare themselves as a health professional, a 

patient, a caregiver, etc. To accommodate these users, audiences were not 

segmented until they reached a page where links to multiple versions of a 

document (i.e., technical, non­-technical) were provided.

Sources: Evans, 1998; Gerhardt-Powals, 1996; Nall, Koyani and Lafond, 2001; 

Williams, 2000; Zimmerman and Prickett, 2000; Zimmerman, et al., 2002.

Example: 

16:8 Format Information for Multiple Audiences

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

These are examples of ways to 

provide different audiences access 

to information.

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Use color to help users understand what 

does and does not go together. 

Comments: Color coding permits users to rapidly scan 

and quickly perceive patterns and relationships among items. Items that share 

the same color will be considered as being related to each other, while items 

with prominent color differences will seem to be different. 

People can distinguish up to ten different colors that are assigned to different 

categories, but it may be safer to use no more than five different colors for 

category coding. If more than ten different colors are used, the effects of any 

particular relationship will be lost.

Do not use color alone to convey information.

Sources: Carter, 1982; Christ, 1975; Engel and Granda, 1975; Haubner and 

Neumann, 1986; Murch, 1985; Nygren and Allard, 1996; Smith, 1962; Smith, 

1963; Smith, Farquhar and Thomas, 1965.

Example: 

16:9 Use Color for Grouping

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Headings, Titles, and Labels Link

178Content Organization

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

17

Search

Many Web sites allow users to search for 

information contained in the site. Users access the search capability 

by entering one or more keywords into an entry field—usually termed 

a ’search box.’ When there are words in the Web site that match the 

words entered by users, users are shown where in the Web site those 

words can be found.

Each page of a Web site should allow users to conduct a search. Usually 

it is adequate to allow simple searches without providing for the use 

of more advanced features. Users should be able to assume that both 

upper- and lowercase letters will be considered as equivalent when 

searching. The site’s search capability should be designed to respond to 

terms typically entered by users. Users should be notified when multiple 

search capabilities exist. 

Where many users tend to conduct similar searches, sometimes it works 

best to provide search templates. Users tend to assume that any search 

they conduct will cover the entire site and not a subsite. The results 

presented to users as a result of searching should be useful and usable.

Search
180

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Search

17:1 Ensure Usable Search Results

Guideline: Ensure that the results of user searches 

provide the precise information being sought, and in 

a format that matches users’ expectations.

Comments: Users want to be able to use the results of a search to continue 

solving their problem. When users are confused by the search results, or do 

not immediately find what they are searching for, they become frustrated.

Sources: Amento, et al., 1999; Bailey and Koyani, 2004; Dumais, Cutrell and 

Chen, 2001; Nielsen, 2001a; Nielsen, et al., 2000; Pollock and Hockley, 1996; 

Rosenfeld and Morville, 2002; Spool, et al., 1997.

Example: Returned search results in the main panel contain snippets of the searched 

page with the user’s search terms highlighted (allowing the user to gain a 

sense of the context in which the terms are used) and a clustered list of 

related search terms is contained in the left panel.

These search results are difficult 

to use. There is no discernable 

order and no ability to sort results 

by characteristics (e.g., price, 

size, etc.)

17:1 Ensure Usable Search Results

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
17:6 Allow Simple Searches

Guideline: Treat user-entered upper- and 

lowercase letters as equivalent when entered as 

search terms. 

Comments: For example, ’STRING,’ ’String,’ 

and ’string’ should be recognized and accepted 

equally by the Web site. When searching, users will 

generally be indifferent to any distinction between upper- and lowercase. 

The site should not compel a distinction that users do not care or know about, 

or that the user may find difficult to make. In situations when case actually is 

important, allow users to specify case as a selectable option in the string search.

Sources: Smith and Mosier, 1986.

17:3 Make Upper- and Lowercase Search Terms Equivalent 

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

181

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Design search engines to search the 

Search

entire site, or clearly communicate which part of 

the site will be searched.

Comments: Designers may want to allow users to 

control the range of their searches. However, users 

tend to believe that a search engine will search the entire Web site. Do not 

have search engines search only a portion of the site without clearly informing 

users which parts of the site are being searched.

Keep in mind that what a designer may consider to be the entirety of a site 

may not be the same as what the user thinks is the ’whole’ site. For example, 

many large sites have various subsections that are maintained by different 

designers, so the user may think of a site as something that designers think of 

as several sites. Make sure it is clear to users what part(s) of the Web site are 

being searched. Provide a means for users to narrow the scope of searches on 

large Web sites by providing easy access to specific subsites when searching.

Sources: Bailey and Koyani, 2004; Spool, et al., 1997.

Example: 

This design allows users to easily bound 

their search to a selected subsection of 

the Web site, or to run an unbounded 

search by selecting the ‘All of SSA’ 

menu choice.

17:2 Design Search Engines to Search the Entire Site

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:
182Search

Guideline: Provide a search option on each page 

of a content-rich Web site. 

Comments: A search option should be provided on 

all pages where it may be useful–users should not 

have to return to the homepage to conduct a search. 

Search engines can be helpful on content-rich Web 

sites, but do not add value on other types of sites.

Designers should be careful not to rely too heavily on search engines. They are 

not a substitute for good content organization, and do not always improve 

users’ search performance. Designers should carefully consider the advantages 

and disadvantages of including a search engine, and whether their Web site 

lends itself to automated searches. 

Sources: Detweiler and Omanson, 1996; Farkas and Farkas, 2000; Levine, 1996; 

Nielsen, 1996a; Nielsen, 1997e; Nielsen, 1999d; Spool, et al., 1997.

Example: As users delve deeper into the site’s content, the search capability 

remains immediately available.

17:4 Provide a Search Option on Each Page

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

182Search

17:4 Provide a Search Option on Each Page

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
183

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

17:6 Allow Simple Searches

Guideline: Construct a Web site’s search engine 

Search

to respond to users’ terminology.

Comments: Users seem to rely on certain 

preferred keywords when searching. They 

will generally conduct one or two searches 

before trying another site or search engine (or 

abandoning the search altogether). Therefore, it is important that users 

succeed on their first try. 

Determining the keywords users are using may require considerable data 

collection. Designers should make use of search engine logs, surveys, and 

other techniques to determine the preferred search words for their site, and 

make information relevant to those terms easy to find through the site’s 

search engine. Keep in mind that designers’ preferred keywords may not 

match users’ preferred keywords, and content writers may overestimate the 

specialized vocabulary of their audience. For the most common searches, 

provide a ’best bets’ set of results. Ensure that the ’best bets’ do not appear 

as advertising or paid links.

In addition to responding to users’ keywords, try to design the site’s search 

engine to accommodate common misspellings, extra spaces, alternative 

punctuation, misused plurals, and other common user search errors.

Sources: Bailey and Koyani, 2004; Dumais, Cutrell and Chen, 2001; Egan, et 

al., 1989; Evans, 1998; Hooke, DeLeo and Slaughter, 1979; Koyani and Nall, 

1999; Schiano, Stone and Bectarte, 2001; Spyridakis, 2000.

Example: 

17:5 Design Search Around Users’ Terms

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

A search for 

“tongue cancer” 

also returns 

results on Oral 

Cancer, Head 

and Neck Cancer, 

and Lip and Oral 

Cavity Cancer.
184 17:1 Ensure Usable Search Results

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Search

Guideline: Structure the search engine to 

accommodate users who enter a small number of 

words. 

Comments: The search function should be easy to use and allow for users 

to be successful when searching. Most users tend to employ simple search 

strategies. They rarely use advanced search features (such as Boolean 

operators), so it is important not to rely on those to improve the effectiveness 

of the site’s search engine. If most of the site’s users are inexperienced Web 

searchers, provide simple instructions and examples to help guide users’ 

searching and use of the search results.

Provide a box (entry field) for entering search terms that is at least 35 to 40 

characters wide. Users will self-detect more errors when they see what they 

have entered.

Sources: Bailey and Koyani, 2004; Bayles and Bernard, 1999; Koyani and Nall, 

1999; Nielsen, 2001a; Nielsen, et al., 2000; Pollock and Hockley, 1996; Spink, 

Bateman and Jansen, 1999; Spool, Schroeder and Ojakaar, 2001.

Example: 

17:6 Allow Simple Searches

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

This search page is far too complex for the average user. Such advanced search 

capabilities are best presented on a page dedicated to advanced searches. 

Simple search engines 

will accommodate most 

users’ search strategies.
17:6 Allow Simple Searches 185

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: If more than one type of search 

Search

option is provided, ensure that users are aware 

of all the different types of search options and 

how each is best used.

Comments: Most users assume that a Web site 

has only one type of search. In one study, when 

there were multiple search types available, users tended to miss some of the 

search capabilities. 

Sources: Bailey, Koyani and Nall, 2000; Levy, et al., 1996.

Example: 

17:7 Notify Users when Multiple Search Options Exist

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

These sites all offer multiple ways of searching.

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
186 17:1 Ensure Usable Search Results

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Search

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Guideline: Include specific hints to improve search 

performance.

Comments: A major tradeoff that must be 

considered in the design of a search input 

interface is related to the need to provide sufficient 

instructions for users to take advantage of the power 

of the search engine, while keeping in mind the reluctance of users to read 

instructions. 

One study found a direct link between the content of search hints and task 

effectiveness. When syntactic information was included in the search hint, 

participants achieved significantly greater syntactic performance. When 

semantic information was included in the search hint, participants achieved 

significantly greater semantic performance. In addition, participants’ 

confidence that their queries would retrieve the correct answer was reliably 

enhanced by the presence of semantic search hints (but not syntactic hints). 

The presence of examples improved semantic performance, but had no effect 

on syntactic performance. When hints contained more than one type of 

information (syntactic, semantic, or examples), performance was generally 

lower than when only one hint type was presented. Also, participants were 

able to complete the search tasks faster when only one hint was presented.

Sources: Bandos and Resnick, (2004).

Example: 

17:8 Include Hints to Improve Search Performance

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

This site provides search hints to assist the user.
17:6 Allow Simple Searches 187

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Search

17:9 Provide Search Templates

Guideline: Provide templates to facilitate the 

use of search engines.

Comments: Search templates assist users in 

formulating better search queries. A template consists of predefined 

keywords that help users select their search terms. The keywords can be 

used directly, or can help users formulate their own queries. Each template 

should be organized as a hierarchy of predefined keywords that could help 

to restrict the users’ initial search sets, and improve the relevance of the 

returned ’hits.’ One study reported that people using templates find seventy 

percent more target Web sites than those not using templates.

Sources: Fang and Salvendy, 1999.

Example: 

Strength of Evidence: 

Relative Importance:

Some ‘search template’ examples include:

To find information on ’human error’ use

errors fault miscalculation

slips blunder slip-up

mistakes inaccuracy

To find information on ’usability testing’ use

user interface testing cognitive walkthroughs

performance testing automatic tests

heuristics evaluations remote testing
Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Usability Testing

18

There are two major considerations when 

conducting usability testing. The first is to ensure that the best possible 

method for testing is used. Generally, the best method is to conduct 

a test where representative participants interact with representative 

scenarios. The tester collects data on the participant’s success, speed of 

performance, and satisfaction. The findings, including both quantitative 

data and qualitative observations information, are provided to designers 

in a test report. Using ’inspection evaluations,’ in place of well-controlled 

usability tests, must be done with caution. Inspection methods, such as 

heuristic evaluations or expert reviews, tend to generate large numbers 

of potential usability ’problems’ that never turn out to be actual usability 

problems. 

The second major consideration is to ensure that an iterative approach 

is used. After the first test results are provided to designers, they should 

make changes and then have the Web site tested again. Generally, the 

more iterations, the better the Web site.

Usability Testing
18:3 Prioritize Tasks 189

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Usability Testing 

Guideline: Develop and test prototypes through 

an iterative design approach to create the most 

useful and usable Web site. 

Comments: Iterative design consists of creating 

paper or computer prototypes, testing the 

prototypes, and then making changes based on 

the test results. The ’test and make changes’ process is repeated until the 

Web site meets performance benchmarks (usability goals). When these 

goals are met, the iterative process ends. 

The iterative design process helps to substantially improve the usability of 

Web sites. One recent study found that the improvements made between 

the original Web site and the redesigned Web site resulted in thirty percent 

more task completions, twenty-five percent less time to complete the tasks, 

and sixty-seven percent greater user satisfaction. A second study reported 

that eight of ten tasks were performed faster on the Web site that had been 

iteratively designed. Finally, a third study found that forty-six percent of 

the original set of issues were resolved by making design changes to the 

interface.

Sources: Badre, 2002; Bailey, 1993; Bailey and Wolfson, 2005; Bradley and 

Johnk, 1995; Egan, et al., 1989; Hong, et al., 2001; Jeffries, et al., 1991; Karat, 

Campbell, and Fiegel, 1992; LeDoux, Connor and Tullis, 2005; Norman and 

Murphy, 2004; Redish and Dumas, 1993; Tan, et al., 2001.

18:1 Use an Iterative Design Approach

Strength of Evidence:

Relative Importance:

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
18:2 Solicit Test Participants’ Comments

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

190Usability Testing

Guideline: Solicit usability testing participants’ 

comments either during or after the performance 

of tasks.

Comments: Participants may be asked to give their 

comments either while performing each task (’think 

aloud’) or after finishing all tasks (retrospectively). 

When using the ’think aloud’ method, participants report on incidents as soon 

as they happen. When using the retrospective approach, participants perform 

all tasks uninterrupted, and then watch their session video and report any 

observations (critical incidents).

Studies have reported no significant difference between the ’think aloud’ versus 

retrospective approaches in terms of the number of useful incident reports 

given by participants. However, the reports (with both approaches) tended to 

be positively biased and ’think aloud’ participants may complete fewer tasks. 

Participants tend not to voice negative reports. In one study, when using the 

’think aloud’ approach, users tended to read text on the screen and verbalize 

more of what they were doing rather than what they were thinking.

Sources: Bailey, 2003; Bowers and Snyder, 1990; Capra, 2002; Hoc and Leplat, 

1983; Ohnemus and Biers, 1993; Page and Rahimi, 1995; Van Den Haak, De 

Jong, and Schellens, 2003; Wright and Converse, 1992. 

18:2 Solicit Test Participants’ Comments

Strength of Evidence:

Relative Importance:

Guideline: Conduct ’before and after’ studies 

when revising a Web site to determine changes in 

usability.

Comments: Conducting usability studies prior to 

and after a redesign will help designers determine if 

changes actually made a difference in the usability 

of the site. One study reported that only twenty-two percent of users were able 

to buy items on an original Web site. After a major redesign effort, eighty-eight 

percent of users successfully purchased products on that site.

Sources: John and Marks, 1997; Karat, 1994a; Ramey, 2000; Rehman, 2000; 

Williams, 2000; Wixon and Jones, 1996.

18:3 Evaluate Web Sites Before and After Making Changes

Strength of Evidence:

Relative Importance:
18:3 Prioritize Tasks 

Guideline: Distinguish between frequency and 

severity when reporting on usability issues and 

problems.

Comments: The number of users affected 

determines the frequency of a problem. To be 

most useful, the severity of a problem should 

be defined by analyzing difficulties encountered by individual users. Both 

frequency and severity data can be used to prioritize usability issues that 

need to be changed. For example, designers should focus first on fixing 

those usability issues that were shown to be most severe. Those usability 

issues that were encountered by many participants, but had a severity rating 

of ‘nuisance,’ should be given much less priority.

Sources: Woolrych and Cockton, 2001.

18:5 Distinguish Between Frequency and Severity

Strength of Evidence:

Relative Importance:

191

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Give high priority to usability issues 

Usability Testing 

preventing ‘easy’ tasks from being easy.

Comments: When deciding which usability issues to 

fix first, address the tasks that users believe to be easy but are actually difficult. 

The Usability Magnitude Estimation (UME) is a measure that can be used to 

assess user expectations of the difficulty of each task. Participants judge how 

difficult or easy a task will be before trying to do it, and then make a second 

judgment after trying to complete the task. Each task is eventually put into 

one of four categories based on these expected versus actual ratings: 

• Tasks that were expected to be easy, but were actually difficult;

• Tasks that were expected to be difficult, but were actually easy;

• Tasks that were expected to be easy and were actually easy; and

• Tasks that were expected to be difficult and were difficult to 

complete.

Sources: Rich and McGee, 2004. 

18:4 Prioritize Tasks 

Strength of Evidence:

Relative Importance:

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales
192 18:2 Solicit Test Participants’ Comments

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Usability Testing

Guideline: Select the right number of participants 

when using different usability techniques. Using too 

few may reduce the usability of a Web site; using 

too many wastes valuable resources. 

Comments: Selecting the number of participants to 

use when conducting usability evaluations depends 

on the method being used: 

Inspection evaluation by usability specialists: 

 – The typical goal of an inspection evaluation is to have usability experts 

separately inspect a user interface by applying a set of broad usability 

guidelines. This is usually done with two to five people. 

 – The research shows that as more experts are involved in evaluating the 

usability of the product, the greater the number of usability issues will 

be identified. However, for every true usability problem identified, there 

will be at least one usability issue that is not a real problem. Having more 

evaluators does decrease the number of misses, but is also increases 

the number of false positives. Generally, the more expert the usability 

specialists, the more useful the results.

Performance usability testing with users:

 – Early in the design process, usability testing with a small number of users 

(approximately six) is sufficient to identify problems with the information 

architecture (navigation) and overall design issues. If the Web site has 

very different types of users (e.g., novices and experts), it is important to 

test with six or more of each type of user. Another critical factor in this 

preliminary testing is having trained usability specialists as the usability test 

facilitator and primary observers. 

 – Once the navigation, basic content, and display features are in place, 

quantitative performance testing (measuring times, wrong pathways, 

failure to find content, etc.) can be conducted to ensure that usability 

objectives are being met. To measure each usability objective to a 

particular confidence level, such as ninety-five percent, requires a larger 

number of users in the usability tests. 

 – When the performance of two sites is compared (i.e., an original site and a 

revised site), quantitative usability testing should be employed. Depending 

on how confident the usability specialist wants to be in the results, the 

tests could require a larger number of participants. 

•

•

18:6 Select the Right Number of Participants

Strength of Evidence:

Relative Importance:
18:3 Prioritize Tasks 193

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

 – It is best to perform iterative cycles of usability testing over the course 

Usability Testing 

of the Web site’s development. This enables usability specialists and 

designers to observe and listen to many users.

Sources: Bailey, 1996; Bailey, 2000c; Bailey, 2000d; Brinck and Hofer, 2002; 

Chin, 2001; Dumas, 2001; Gray and Salzman, 1998; Lewis, 1993; Lewis, 

1994; Nielsen and Landauer, 1993; Perfetti and Landesman, 2001; Virzi, 

1990; Virzi, 1992.

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Guideline: Create prototypes using the most 

appropriate technology for the phase of the 

design, the required fidelity of the prototype, and 

skill of the person creating the prototype.

Comments: Designers can use either paper-based 

or computer-based prototypes. Paper-based 

prototyping appears to be as effective as computer-based prototyping 

when trying to identify most usability issues. Several studies have shown 

that there was no reliable difference in the number of usability issues 

detected between computer and paper prototypes. However, usability test 

participants usually prefer interacting with computer-based prototypes. 

Paper prototypes can be used when it is necessary to view and evaluate 

many different (usually early) design ideas, or when computer-based 

prototyping does not support the ideas the designer wants to implement, or 

when all members of the design team need to be included–even those that 

do not know how to create computer-based prototypes. 

Software tools that are available to assist in the rapid development of 

prototypes include PowerPoint, Visio, including other HTML base tools. 

PowerPoint can be used to create medium fidelity prototypes. These 

prototypes can be both interactive and dynamic, and are useful when the 

design requires more than a ’pencil-and-paper’ prototype.

 

Sources: Sefelin, Tscheligi and Giller, 2003; Silvers, Voorheis and Anders, 2004; 

Walker, Takayama and Landay, 2002. 

18:7 Use the Appropriate Prototyping Technology

Strength of Evidence:

Relative Importance:
18:2 Solicit Test Participants’ Comments

Guideline: Use inspection evaluation results 

with caution.

Comments: Inspection evaluations include heuristic 

evaluations, expert reviews, and cognitive 

walkthroughs. It is a common practice to conduct 

an inspection evaluation to try to detect and resolve 

obvious problems before conducting usability tests. Inspection evaluations 

should be used cautiously because several studies have shown that they appear 

to detect far more potential problems than actually exist, and they also tend to 

miss some real problems. On average, for every hit there will be about 1.3 false 

positives and .5 misses.

Another recent study concluded that the low effectiveness of heuristic 

evaluations as a whole was worrisome because of the low problem detection 

rate (p=.09), and the large number of evaluators required (16) to uncover 

seventy-five percent of the potential usability issues.

Another difficulty when conducting heuristic evaluations is that evaluators 

frequently apply the wrong heuristic, which can mislead designers that are 

trying to fix the problem. One study reported that only thirty-nine percent of 

the heuristics were appropriately applied. 

Evaluators seem to have the most success identifying usability issues that can be 

seen by merely looking at the display, and the least success finding issues that 

require users to take several steps (clicks) to a target.

Heuristic evaluations and expert reviews may best be used to identify potential 

usability issues to evaluate during usability testing. To improve somewhat 

on the performance of heuristic evaluations, evaluators can use the ’usability 

problem inspector’ (UPI) method or the ’Discovery and Analysis Resource’ 

(DARe) method.

Sources: Andre, Hartson and Williges, 2003; Bailey, Allen and Raiello, 1992; 

Catani and Biers, 1998; Cockton and Woolrych 2001; Cockton and Woolrych, 

2002; Cockton, et al., 2003; Fu, Salvendy and Turley, 1998; Fu, Salvendy and 

Turley, 2002; Law and Hvannberg, 2002; Law and Hvannberg, 2004; Nielsen 

and Landauer, 1993; Nielsen and Mack, 1994; Rooden, Green and Kanis, 

1999; Stanton and Stevenage, 1998; Virzi, Sorce and Herbert, 1993; Wang and 

Caldwell, 2002.

194

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Usability Testing

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

18:8 Use Inspection Evaluation Results Cautiously 

Strength of Evidence:

Relative Importance:
18:3 Prioritize Tasks 

Guideline: Use appropriate automatic evaluation 

methods to conduct initial evaluations on Web sites.

Comments: An automatic evaluation method is 

one where software is used to evaluate a Web 

site. An automatic evaluation tool can help find 

certain types of design difficulties, such as pages 

that will load slowly, missing links, use of jargon, potential accessibility 

problems, etc. While automatic evaluation methods are useful, they should 

not be used as a substitute for evaluations or usability testing with typical 

users. There are many commercially available automatic evaluation methods 

available for checking on a variety of Web site parameters.

Sources: Brajnik, 2000; Campbell and Stanley, 1963; Gray and Salzman, 1998; 

Holleran, 1991; Ivory and Hearst, 2002; Ramey, 2000; Scholtz, 1998; World 

Wide Web Consortium, 2001.

18:10 Apply Automatic Evaluation Methods 

Strength of Evidence:

Relative Importance:

195

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Guideline: Beware of the ’evaluator effect’ when 

Usability Testing 

conducting inspection evaluations.

Comments: The ’evaluator effect’ occurs when 

multiple evaluators evaluating the same interface detect markedly different 

sets of problems. The evaluators may be doing an expert review, heuristic 

evaluation, or cognitive walkthrough. 

The evaluator effect exists for evaluators who are novice or experienced, 

while detecting cosmetic and severe problems, and when evaluating simple 

or complex Web sites. In fact, when using multiple evaluators, any one 

evaluator is unlikely to detect the majority of the ’severe’ problems that will 

be detected collectively by all evaluators. Evaluators also tend to perceive 

the problems they detected as more severe than the problems detected by 

others.

The main cause of the ’evaluator effect’ seems to be that usability evaluation is a 

complex cognitive activity that requires evaluators to exercise difficult judgments.

 

Sources: Hertzum and Jacobsen, 2001; Jacobsen, Hertzum and John, 1998; 

Molich, et al., 1998; Molich, et al., 1999; Nielsen and Molich, 1990; Nielsen, 

1992; Nielsen, 1993; Redish and Dumas, 1993; Selvidge, 2000.

18:9 Recognize the ‘Evaluator Effect’

Strength of Evidence:

Relative Importance:
18:2 Solicit Test Participants’ Comments

Guideline: Use cognitive walkthroughs with caution.

Comments: Cognitive walkthroughs are often 

conducted to resolve obvious problems before 

conducting performance tests. The cognitive 

walkthrough appears to detect far more potential 

problems than actually exist, when compared with 

performance usability testing results. Several studies have shown that only 

about twenty-five percent of the potential problems predicted by the cognitive 

walkthrough were found to be actual problems in a performance test. About 

thirteen percent of actual problems in the performance test were missed 

altogether in the cognitive walkthrough. Cognitive walkthroughs may best be 

used to identify potential usability issues to evaluate during usability testing. 

 

Sources: Blackmon, et al., 2002; Desurvire, Kondziela and Atwood, 1992; 

Hassenzahl, 2000; Jacobsen and John, 2000; Jeffries and Desurvire, 1992; John 

and Mashyna, 1997; Karat, 1994b; Karat, Campbell and Fiegel, 1992; Spencer, 

2000.

196

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Usability Testing

18:11 Use Cognitive Walkthroughs Cautiously

Strength of Evidence:

Relative Importance:

Guideline: Testers can use either laboratory or 

remote usability testing because they both elicit 

similar results.

Comments: In laboratory-based testing, the 

participant and the tester are in the same physical 

location. In remote testing, the tester and the 

participant are in different physical locations. Remote testing provides 

the opportunity for participants to take a test in their home or office. It is 

convenient for participants because it requires no travel to a test facility. 

Studies have evaluated whether remote testing is as effective as traditional, 

lab-based testing. To date, they have found no reliable differences between 

lab-based and remote testing in terms of the number of types of usability 

issues identified. Also, they report no reliable differences in task completion 

rate, time to complete the tasks, or satisfaction scores.

 

Sources: Brush, Ames and Davis, 2004; Hartson, et al., 1996; Thompson, 

Rozanski and Rochester, 2004; Tullis, et al., 2002.

18:12 Choosing Laboratory vs. Remote Testing

Strength of Evidence:

Relative Importance:
18:3 Prioritize Tasks 197

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Usability Testing 

See page xxii 

for detailed descriptions 

of the rating scales

Guideline: Use severity ratings with caution.

Comments: Most designers would like usability 

specialists to prioritize design problems that they 

found either by inspection evaluations or expert 

reviews. So that they can decide which issues to 

fix first, designers would like the list of potential 

usability problems ranked by each one’s ‘severity level’. The research 

literature is fairly clear that even highly experienced usability specialists 

cannot agree on which usability issues will have the greatest impact on 

usability. 

One study had 17 expert review and usability test teams evaluate and test 

the same Web page. The teams had one week to do an expert review, 

or two weeks to do a usability test. Each team classified each usability 

issue as a minor problem, serious problem, or critical problem. There was 

considerable disagreement in which problems the teams judged as minor, 

serious or critical, and there was little agreement on which were the ’top five 

problems’. Another study reported that heuristic evaluators overestimated 

severity twenty-two percent of the time, and underestimated severity 

seventy-eight percent of the time when compared with usability testing 

results.

Sources: Bailey, 2005; Catani and Biers, 1998; Cockton and Woolrych, 2001; 

Dumas, Molich and Jeffries, 2004; Hertzum and Jacobsen, 2001; Jacobsen, 

Hertzum and John, 1998; Law and Hvannberg, 2004; Molich, 2005.

18:13 Use Severity Ratings Cautiously 

Strength of Evidence:

Relative Importance:
Glossary

198

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Above the fold

The region of a Web page that is visible 

without scrolling. The area above the 

fold will vary according to a user’s 

monitor size and their resolution settings. 

The region above the fold is called a 

screenful.

Active voice

Active voice makes subjects do something 

(to something). For example, in ‘Jill 

selected the link,’ the verb ‘selected’ is in 

the active voice.

Anchor links

Anchor links can be used on content 

pages that contain several (usually three 

or more) screenfuls of information. 

Anchor links allow users to skip through 

textual information, resulting in a more 

efficient information-finding process. 

Anchor links are best arranged as a 

table of contents for the page. See also 

‘Within-page links.’

Applet

A mini-software program that a Java- or 

Active X-enabled browser downloads and 

uses automatically.

Assistive technologies

Technologies (software or hardware) 

that increase, maintain, or improve the 

functional capabilities of individuals 

with disabilities when interacting with 

computers or computer-based systems.

Auto-tabbing

A Web site feature whereby the data 

entry cursor automatically moves from 

one entry field to the next as a user 

enters a pre-determined number of 

characters. For instance, when entering 

phone number data in three separate 

entry fields of three digits, three digits, 

four digits, the data entry cursor would 

auto-tab from the first field to the second 

field once the user has entered three 

digits, and again from the second field to 

the third field once the user has entered 

another three digits.

Banner

Banners are graphic images that 

commonly function as Web-based 

billboards. Banner ads generally appear 

toward the top-center of the screen, and 

are used as attention-grabbing links to 

other sites.

Breadcrumbs

Breadcrumbs are a navigation element 

that allows users to orient themselves 

within a Web site, or efficiently move 

to one of the intermediate pages. 

Breadcrumbs are usually placed near the 

top of the page (generally immediately 

beneath the browser’s address bar). 

For example, if users are reading about 

the features and benefits of ‘widget x,’ 

breadcrumbs might show the following 

information: 

 Home > Products > Widget x > 

 Features/Benefits

Breadcrumbs allow users to find their way 

to the homepage and ensure that they 

won’t easily become lost. Breadcrumbs 

should be designed so that users can click 

on any of the words in the breadcrumb 

string to jump to that section of the Web 

site.

Card sorting

A method used to identify categories that 

are inherent in a set of items. The goal 

of card sorting is to understand how a 

typical user views a given set of items. 

Card sorting can be done manually by 

writing items on individual paper cards, 

and then asking users to group together 

similar cards. This also can be done using 

many different software systems. The 

grouping information from all card sorters 

is then combined and analyzed using 

cluster analysis software.

Cascading menu

A menu structure where submenus open 

when the user selects a choice from a

Glossary

Headings, Titles, and Labels Link Glossary

198
Glossary

199

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

menu. Cascading menus are particularly 

useful in hierarchically-complex Web sites. 

Check box

A control element that a user can click 

to turn an option on or off. When the 

option is on, an ‘X’ or ‘3’ appears in the 

box. Check boxes are conventionally used 

when users may select one or more items 

from a list of items.

Clickability cues

A visual indication that a given word 

or item on a Web page is clickable. 

Cues that can be used to indicate the 

clickability of an item include color, 

underlining, bullets, and arrows.

Client-side

Occurring on the client side of a clientserver system. JavaScript scripts are clientside because they are executed by the 

user’s browser (the client). In contrast, 

CGI scripts are server-side because they 

run on the Web server.

Cognitive walkthrough

An inspection method for evaluating the 

design of a user interface, with special 

attention to how well the interface 

supports ‘exploratory learning,’ i.e., 

first-time use without formal training. 

The evaluation is done by having a 

group of evaluators go step-by-step 

through commonly used tasks. It can 

be performed by evaluators in the early 

stages of design, before performance 

testing is possible.

Connection speed

The maximum rate at which Web pages 

are downloaded to a user’s computer. 

Connection speed is often quoted in bps 

(bits per second). Common connection 

speeds include dial-up (modem) at 

56,000 bps, DSL/cable at 500,000 bps 

or higher, and T1 at 1,500,000 bps or 

higher.

Content page

A Web page designed to convey specific 

information to a user. Content pages 

are often found two or three clicks 

deep within a Web site. The defining 

characteristic of a content page is a 

reliance on text, graphics, and pictures 

that are designed to convey information 

on a given subject to users.

Continuous text

In a Web context, continuous text 

comprises sentences and paragraphs. See 

also ‘Prose Text.’

Data entry field

A visually well-defined location on a page 

where users may type data.

Density, page

A measure of the percentage of the 

screen that is filled with text and 

graphics. .

Destination page

The location in a Web site where a given 

user goes after clicking on a link. See also 

‘Target page.’

Download time

The amount of time required for a 

requested page to fully appear on a user’s 

screen.

Drop-down list

Screen-based controls in which one 

list item shows, and the remaining list 

items are hidden until users click on a 

downward-facing arrow. Drop-down lists 

allow designers to preserve screen real 

estate while maintaining the ability to 

present a full suite of options to users.

Embedded link

A link that is found in the middle of prose 

or continuous text. Embedded links are 

often used to provide users with the 

definitions of terms or to lead them to 

supporting or related information.

Entry field

The entry field, which is also known as a 

data or text entry field, is employed when 

users are required to make text or data 

entries, including keywords, commands, 

quantities, etc.

Headings, Titles, and Labels Links

199 Introduction Glossary
Glossary

200

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Expert evaluation or Expert review

See ‘Heuristic evaluation.’

Fold 

The fold is defined as the lowest point 

where a Web page is no longer visible on 

a computer monitor or screen. Where on 

a Web page the fold falls is a function of 

the monitor size, the screen resolution, 

and the font size selection. The 

information that is visible when a Web 

page first loads is considered to be ‘above 

the fold.’ Those regions of the same Web 

page that are visible only by scrolling are 

considered to be ‘below the fold.’

Frame

A feature supported by most browsers 

that enables the designer to divide the 

display area into two or more sections 

(frames). The contents of each frame 

behave like different Web pages. 

Gloss

An automated action that provides 

summary information on where a link 

will take a user prior to the user clicking 

on the link. Often, glosses appear as a 

small ‘pop-up’ text box adjacent to a link. 

The gloss appears as the user moves the 

mouse over the link that is programmed 

with the gloss.

Heading

The title, subtitle, or topic that stands at 

the top or beginning of a paragraph or 

section of text.

Heuristic evaluation

An inspection method for finding certain 

types of usability problems in a user 

interface design. Heuristic evaluation 

involves having one or more usability 

specialists individually examine the 

interface and judge its compliance with 

recognized usability principles. These 

usability principles are the ‘heuristics’ 

from which the method takes its name. 

Image map

A graphic designed to assist users’ 

navigation of a Web site. Regions of the 

graphic are designed to be clickable.

Index link

Index links function as a table of 

contents—they provide users a quick 

glance at the Web site organization, 

allows users to quickly ascertain where 

they want to go, and to navigate there 

directly from the homepage.

Keyword

A word that is used as a reference point 

for finding other words or information 

using a search capability in a Web site. 

Masthead

The (usually) graphical banner at the 

top of a Web page that identifies the 

organization or group that hosts the Web 

site. The masthead typically contains 

the name of the organization and site (if 

different) and an organizational logo.

Minesweeping

An action designed to identify where on 

a page links are located. Minesweeping 

involves the user rapidly moving the 

cursor or pointer over a page, watching 

to see where the cursor or pointer 

changes to indicate the presence of a 

link. See also ‘Mouseover.’

Mouseover

A Web interaction wherein some visuallyapparent change occurs to an item when 

the user’s cursor/pointer is placed over 

the item. Examples of visually-apparent 

change includes links highlighting (words, 

images, etc.), cursors/pointers changing 

shape, or menus opening. See also 

‘Minesweeping.’

Navigation page

A Web page that contains no content 

and that is designed solely to direct or 

redirect users. Navigation pages may be 

designed as homepages, site maps, site 

overviews, etc.

Open list

An open list is a screen-based control 

where either all of the list items are 

Headings, Titles, and Labels Link Glossary

200
Glossary

201

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

immediately visible on the screen, or 

where several list items are immediately 

visible to the user, and the remaining list 

items can be viewed by scrolling the list.

Page title

Page titles refer to the text located in the 

browser title bar (this is the bar found at 

the very top of the screen of common 

browsers).

Paging

A Web site design methodology that 

requires users to follow a series of 

‘Next page’ links to read an entire 

article. Moving from page-to-page is 

an alternative to scrolling through long 

pages. 

Panels

Visually and thematically-defined sections 

of a Web page. Panels are frequently 

placed in the left and right margins of 

pages. Panels often contain navigation 

aids, including related links. Content is 

not usually placed in left or right panels.

Passive voice

Voice is a grammatical feature of English 

verbs. Passive voice permits subjects 

to have something done to them (by 

someone or something). 

For example, ‘The link was clicked by 

John.’ Some argue that passive voice is 

more indirect and wordier than active 

voice. 

Path

The route taken by a user as they move 

through a Web site. The path can be 

shown by breadcrumbs.

Performance objectives

The goals set for user behaviors on an 

individual Web page or a series of Web 

pages. These objectives usually are stated 

in terms of the time to correctly select 

a link, the overall accuracy of selecting 

links, the average time to select a target 

page, etc.

Performance test

A usability test that is characterized by 

having typical users perform a series 

of tasks where their speed, accuracy 

and success are closely monitored and 

measured.

Physical consistency

Physical consistency refers to the ‘look 

and feel’ of a Web site. Physically 

consistent Web pages will have logos, 

headers, and navigation elements all 

located in the same place. The pages 

also will use the same fonts and graphic 

elements across all pages in the site. 

Plug-in

A software module that adds a specific 

feature or service to a larger system. For 

example, there is a number of plug-ins 

for common browsers that enable them 

to display different types of audio and 

video.

Point-and-click

A term used to describe conventional 

Web surfing behavior. When a user 

visually identifies a link they wish to 

follow, they place their mouse pointer 

over the link (point) and depress the 

appropriate button on the mouse (click). 

See also ‘Mouseover.’

Pop-under/Pop-up

A pop-under or pop-up is a window that 

is automatically invoked when a user 

loads a Web page. Pop-under appears 

‘below’ the active browser window, 

whereas pop-ups appear ‘above’ the 

active window and can obscure screen 

contents. 

Preference objectives

The goals set for user attitudes toward 

individual Web pages or an entire 

Web site. The objectives are usually set 

and measured using questionnaires. 

These objectives include information 

concerning user acceptance and user 

satisfaction.

Headings, Titles, and Labels Links

201 Introduction Glossary
Glossary

202

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Prose text

Ordinary writing, in a Web context, prose 

text comprises sentences and paragraphs. 

See also ‘Continuous Text.’

Pushbutton

Pushbuttons are screen-based controls 

that contain a text label or an image 

(or both). Pushbuttons are used to 

provide quick and convenient access to 

frequently-used actions. The pushbutton 

control is always activated with a single 

click of a mouse button. Clicking on 

pushbuttons should cause the indicated 

action to take place, i.e., ‘search.’ Do 

not use pushbuttons to move from one 

location to another in a Web site. 

Radio button

A screen-based control used to select 

one item from a list of mutually-exclusive 

items (i.e., use radio buttons when only 

one item in a list of several items can be 

selected). 

Reveals

Information that automatically appears 

on the screen during a Web-based 

slideshow presentation, or while viewing 

a multimedia Web page.

Scanning

An information-retrieval method whereby 

users look quickly through a Web page 

looking for target information (headers, 

keywords, etc.). Scanning can be a 

quick and efficient information-retrieval 

method if Web pages are designed to 

accommodate scanning.

Screen reader

A software program used to allow reading 

of content and navigation of the screen 

using speech or Braille output. Used 

primarily by people who have difficulty 

seeing.

Screenful

A screenful is defined as that portion of 

a Web page that is visible on any given 

user’s monitor or screen at any given 

point in time. The size of the screenful 

is determined by the user’s monitor size, 

screen resolution settings, and the user’s 

selected font size.

Scroll bar

The scroll bar is visible along the right 

edge of common browsers. It is defined 

by a movable box that runs on a vertical 

or horizontal axis.

Scroll stopper

A graphic or other page element that 

may visually impede a user from scrolling 

to the true top or bottom of a page. 

Misplaced headers, horizontal lines, or 

sections of text in very small fonts may 

act as scroll stoppers.

Scrolling

A method of traversing a Web page 

wherein users either roll the scroll wheel 

on their mouse, or manually move the 

scroll bar located on the right side of their 

browser’s screen.

Section 508

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act 

was enacted to eliminate barriers 

in information technology, to make 

available new opportunities for people 

with disabilities, and to encourage 

development of technologies that 

will help achieve these goals. The law 

applies to all Federal agencies when 

they develop, procure, maintain, or use 

electronic and information technology. 

Under Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d), 

agencies must give disabled employees 

and members of the public access to 

information that is comparable to the 

access available to others.

Semantics

Semantics is a term used to distinguish 

the meaning of an instruction from its 

format. A semantic error occurs when 

you enter a legal command that does 

not make sense in the current context. 

To reduce error, provide semantic hints. 

Example of a semantic hint: ‘Use AND to 

retrieve a smaller set of records in which 

both of the search terms are present. Use 

Headings, Titles, and Labels Link Glossary

202
Glossary

203

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

OR to retrieve a larger number of records; 

OR is commonly used to search for 

synonymous terms or concepts.’

Server-side (image map)

Occurring on the server side of a clientserver system. For example, on the Web, 

CGI scripts are server-side applications 

because they run on the Web server. 

In contrast, JavaScript scripts are clientside because they are executed by the 

browser (the client). Java applets can be 

either server-side or client-side depending 

on which computer (the server or the 

client) executes them. 

Simultaneous menus 

Menus that simultaneously display 

choices from multiple levels in the menu 

hierarchy, providing users with the ability 

to make menu choices in any order.

Site map

A clickable, graphic- or text-based display 

of a Web site’s hierarchy.

Style sheet 

A set of statements that specify 

presentation of a document. Style sheets 

may have three different origins: they 

may be written by content providers, 

created by users, or built into browsers or 

plug-ins.

Syntax 

The formatting rules that address the 

spelling of language components and 

the rules controlling how components 

should be combined. A syntax error 

occurs if you misspell a command, use 

inappropriate grammar, capitalization, 

etc. To reduce error, provide syntactic 

hints. Example of a syntactic hint: ‘Enter 

search terms separated by AND, OR, 

NOT, and/or enclose terms in double 

quotes to specify your search.’ ‘All 

operators must be capitalized.’

Tab

A graphical navigation element that is 

most often placed at the top of a Web 

page. Effective tabs should be designed 

so that they resemble real-world file 

folder tabs.

Tagline

A phrase or short sentence placed 

directly below a Web page’s masthead. 

The tagline functions to quickly identify 

the purpose of the Web site. It may be 

a subtitle, an organizational motto, or a 

vision or purpose statement.

Target page

The location in a site where a user will 

find the information they are seeking. See 

also ‘Destination page.’

Task analysis

A method used to identify and 

understand the activities to be performed 

by users when interacting with a Web 

site.

Thumbnail image

A small copy of a larger image. 

Time out

When entering data that may be sensitive 

(e.g., credit card or social security 

numbers), many Web sites will disconnect 

(‘time out’) if a user has not interacted 

with the browser in a set amount of time.

URL

URL is an abbreviation for Uniform 

Resource Locator. Every Web page has a 

URL that is used to identify the page and 

the server on which the page resides.

Usability testing

Usability testing includes a range of test 

and evaluation methods that include 

automated evaluations, inspection 

evaluations, operational evaluations 

and human performance testing. In a 

typical performance test, users perform 

a variety of tasks with a prototype (or 

an operational system) while observers 

note what each user does and says while 

performance data are recorded. One of 

the main purposes of usability testing is 

to identify issues that keep users from 

meeting the usability goals of a Web site.

Headings, Titles, and Labels Links

203 Introduction Glossary
Glossary

204

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Widget

Screen-based controls that are used 

to interact with a Web site and other 

systems. Widgets include pushbuttons, 

selection lists, radio buttons, sliders, etc.

Within-page links

Within-page links are used on content 

pages that contain several (e.g., three or 

more) screenfuls of information. Withinpage links are best arranged as a table 

of contents for the page. Within-page 

links allow users to skip through textual 

information, resulting in a more efficient 

information-finding process. See also 

‘Anchor links.’

Headings, Titles, and Labels Link Glossary

204
205Appendices

Guidelines Ranked by Relative Importance

Relative 

Importance

Chapter:

Guideline #

Provide Useful Content

Establish User Requirements

Understand and Meet User’s Expectations

Involve Users in Establishing User Requirements

Do Not Display Unsolicited Windows or Graphics

Comply with Section 508

Design Forms for Users Using Assistive Technology

Do Not Use Color Alone to Convey Information

Enable Access to the Homepage

Show All Major Options on the Homepage

Create a Positive First Impression of Your Site

Avoid Cluttered Displays

Place Important Items Consistently

Place Important Items at Top Center

Eliminate Horizontal Scrolling

Use Clear Category Labels

Use Meaningful Link Labels

Distinguish Required and Optional Data Entry Fields

Label Pushbuttons Clearly

Make Action Sequences Clear

Organize Information Clearly

Facilitate Scanning

Ensure that Necessary Information is Displayed

Ensure Usable Search Results

Design Search Engines to Search the Entire Site

Set and State Goals

Focus on Performance Before Preference

Consider Many User Interface Issues

Be Easily Found in the Top 30

Increase Web Site Credibility

Standardize Task Sequences

Reduce the User’s Workload

Design For Working Memory Limitations

Minimize Page Download Time

Warn of ’Time Outs’

Display Information in a Directly Usable Format

Format Information for Reading and Printing

Provide Feedback when Users Must Wait

Inform Users of Long Download Times

Develop Pages that Will Print Properly

Enable Users to Skip Repetitive Navigation Links

Provide Text Equivalents for Non-Text Elements

1:1

1:2

1:3

1:4

2:1

3:1

3:2

3:3

5:1

5:2

5:3

6:1

6:2

6:3

8:1

9:1

10:1

13:1

13:2

15:1

16:1

16:2

16:3

17:1

17:2

1:5

1:6

1:7

1:8

2:2

2:3

2:4

2:5

2:6

2:7

2:8

2:9

2:10

2:11

2:12

3:4

3:5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Guideline Heading 

205 Appendices

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Appendices
206

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Appendices

Guidelines Ranked by Relative Importance

Relative 

Importance

Chapter:

Guideline #

Test Plug-Ins and Applets for Accessibility 

Design for Common Browsers

Account for Browser Differences

Design for Popular Operating Systems

Design for User’s Typical Connection Speed

Communicate the Web Site’s Value and Purpose

Limit Prose Text on the Homepage

Ensure the Homepage Looks like a Homepage

Structure for Easy Comparison

Establish Level of Importance

Optimize Display Density

Align Items on a Page

Provide Navigational Options

Differentiate and Group Navigation Elements

Use a Clickable ’List of Contents’ on Long Pages

Provide Feedback on Users’ Location

Place Primary Navigation Menus in the Left Panel

Provide Descriptive Page Titles

Use Descriptive Headings Liberally

Use Unique and Descriptive Headings

Highlight Critical Data

Use Descriptive Row and Column Headings

Link to Related Content

Match Link Names with Their Destination Pages

Avoid Misleading Cues to Click

Repeat Important Links

Use Text for Links

Designate Used Links

Use Black Text on Plain, High-Contrast Backgrounds

Format Common Items Consistently

Use Mixed-Case for Prose Text

Ensure Visual Consistency

Order Elements to Maximize User Performance

Place Important Items at Top of the List

Format Lists to Ease Scanning

Display Related Items in Lists

Label Data Entry Fields Consistently

Do Not Make User-Entered Codes Case Sensitive

Label Data Entry Fields Clearly

Minimize User Data Entry

Use Simple Background Images

Label Clickable Images

3:6 

4:1

4:2

4:3

4:4

5:4

5:5

5:6

6:4

6:5

6:6

6:7

7:1

7:2

7:3

7:4

7:5

9:2

9:3

9:4

9:5

9:6

10:2

10:3

10:4

10:5

10:6

10:7

11:1

11:2

11:3

11:4

12:1

12:2

12:3

12:4

13:3

13:4

13:5

13:6

14:1

14:2

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Guideline Heading 

206Appendices
207

Guidelines Ranked by Relative Importance

Appendices

Chapter:

Guideline #

Ensure that Images Do Not Slow Downloads

Use Video, Animation, and Audio Meaningfully

Include Logos

Graphics Should Not Look like Banner Ads

Limit Large Images Above the Fold

Ensure Web Site Images Convey Intended Messages

Avoid Jargon

Use Familiar Words

Define Acronyms and Abbreviations

Use Abbreviations Sparingly

Use Mixed Case with Prose

Limit the Number of Words and Sentences

Group Related Elements

Minimize the Number of Clicks or Pages

Make Upper- and Lowercase Search Terms Equivalent

Provide a Search Option on Each Page

Design Search Around Users’ Terms

Use an Iterative Design Approach

Set Usability Goals

Do Not Require Users to Multitask While Reading

Use Users’ Terminology in Help Documentation

Provide Printing Options

Ensure that Scripts Allow Accessibility

Provide Equivalent Pages

Provide Client-Side Image Maps

Synchronize Multimedia Elements

Do Not Require Style Sheets

Design for Commonly Used Screen Resolutions

Limit Homepage Length

Use Fluid Layouts

Avoid Scroll Stoppers

Set Appropriate Page Lengths

Use Moderate White Space

Use Descriptive Tab Labels

Present Tabs Effectively

Use Headings in the Appropriate HTML Order

Provide Consistent Clickability Cues

Ensure that Embedded Links are Descriptive

Use ’Pointing-and-Clicking’ 

Use Appropriate Text Link Lengths

Indicate Internal vs. External Links

Clarify Clickable Regions on Images

14:3

14:4

14:5

14:6

14:7

14:8

15:2

15:3

15:4

15:5

15:6

15:7

16:4

16:5

17:3

17:4

17:5

18:1

1:9

2:13

2:14

2:15

3:7

3:8

3:9

3:10

3:11

4:5

5:7

6:8

6:9

6:10

6:11

7:6

7:7

9:7

10:8

10:9

10:10

10:11

10:12

10:13

Guideline Heading 

Relative 

Importance

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

207Appendices

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
208

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Appendices

Guidelines Ranked by Relative Importance

Relative 

Importance

Chapter:

Guideline #

Link to Supportive Information

Use Bold Text Sparingly

Use Attention-Attracting Features when Appropriate

Use Familiar Fonts

Use at Least a 12-Point Font

Introduce Each List

Use Static Menus

Put Labels Close to Data Entry Fields

Allow Users to See Their Entered Data

Use Radio Buttons for Mutually Exclusive Selections

Use Familiar Widgets

Anticipate Typical User Errors

Partition Long Data Items

Use a Single Data Entry Method

Prioritize Pushbuttons

Use Check Boxes to Enable Multiple Selections

Label Units of Measurement

Do Not Limit Viewable List Box Options

Display Default Values

Limit the Use of Images

Include Actual Data with Data Graphics

Display Monitoring Information Graphically

Limit Prose Text on Navigation pages

Use Active Voice

Write Instructions in the Affirmative

Make First Sentences Descriptive

Design Quantitative Content for Quick Understanding

Display Only Necessary Information

Format Information for Multiple Audiences

Allow Simple Searches

Notify Users when Multiple Search Options Exist

Include Hints to Improve Search Performance

Solicit Test Participants’ Comments

Evaluate Web Sites Before and After Making Changes

Prioritize Tasks

Distinguish Between Frequency and Severity

Select the Right Number of Participants

Use Parallel Design

Provide Assistance to Users

Provide Frame Titles

Avoid Screen Flicker

Announce Changes to a Web Site

10:14

11:5

11:6

11:7

11:8

12:5

12:6

13:7

13:8

13:9

13:10

13:11

13:12

13:13

13:14

13:15

13:16

13:17

13:18

14:9

14:10

14:11

15:8

15:9

15:10

15:11

16:6

16:7

16:8

17:6

17:7

17:8

18:2

18:3

18:4

18:5

18:6

1:10

2:16

3:12

3:13

5:8

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

2

Guideline Heading 

Appendices

208
209

Guidelines Ranked by Relative Importance

Appendices

Relative 

Importance

Chapter:

Guideline #

Attend to Homepage Panel Width

Choose Appropriate Line Lengths

Keep Navigation-Only Pages Short

Use Appropriate Menu Types

Use Site Maps

Facilitate Rapid Scrolling While Reading

Use Scrolling Pages for Reading Comprehension 

Use Paging Rather Than Scrolling

Scroll Fewer Screenfuls

Provide Users with Good Ways to Reduce Options

Color-Coding and Instructions

Emphasize Importance

Highlighting Information

Start Numbered Items at One

Use Appropriate List Style

Place Cursor in First Data Entry Field

Ensure that Double-Clicking Will Not Cause Problems

Use Open Lists to Select One from Many

Use Data Entry Fields to Speed Performance

Use a Minimum of Two Radio Buttons

Provide Auto-Tabbing Functionality

Introduce Animation

Emulate Real-World Objects

Use Thumbnail Images to Preview Larger Images

Use Color for Grouping

Provide Search Templates

Use the Appropriate Prototyping Technology

Use Inspection Evaluation Results Cautiously

Recognize the ’Evaluator Effect’

Use Personas

Use Frames When Functions Must Remain Accessible

Use ’Glosses’ to Assist Navigation

Breadcrumb Navigation

Capitalize First Letter of First Word in Lists

Minimize Use of the Shift Key

Use Images to Facilitate Learning

Using Photographs of People

Apply Automatic Evaluation Methods

Use Cognitive Walkthroughs Cautiously

Choosing Laboratory vs. Remote Testing 

Use Severity Ratings Cautiously

5:9

6:12

7:8

7:9

7:10

8:2

8:3

8:4

8:5

9:8

11:9

11:10

11:11

12:7

12:8

13:19

13:20

13:21

13:22

13:23

13:24

14:12

14:13

14:14

16:9

17:9

18:7

18:8

18:9

1:11

6:13

7:11

7:12

12:9

13:25

14:15

14:16

18:10

18:11

18:12

18:13

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Guideline Heading 

209Appendices

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
210

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Appendices Appendices

Guidelines Ranked by Strength of Evidence

Relative 

Importance

Chapter:

Guideline #

Provide Useful Content

Standardize Task Sequences

Design for Working Memory Limitations

Align Items on a Page

Use Descriptive Headings Liberally

Use Black Text on Plain, High-Contrast Backgrounds

Use Attention-Attracting Features when Appropriate

Use Familiar Fonts

Emphasize Importance

Order Elements to Maximize User Performance

Use Data Entry Fields to Speed Performance

Use Simple Background Images

Use Video, Animation, and Audio Meaningfully

Use Images to Facilitate Learning

Use Mixed Case with Prose

Group Related Elements

Use Color for Grouping

Use an Iterative Design Approach

Establish User Requirements

Be Easily Found in the Top 30

Use Parallel Design

Minimize Page Download Time

Provide Feedback When Users Must Wait

Do Not Require Users to Multitask While Reading

Do Not Use Color Alone to Convey Information

Create a Positive First Impression of Your Site

Ensure the Homepage Looks like a Homepage

Place Important Items Consistently

Place Important Items at Top Center

Structure for Easy Comparison

Avoid Scroll Stoppers

Use Moderate White Space

Choose Appropriate Line Lengths

Use Frames when Functions Must Remain Accessible

Keep Navigation-Only Pages Short

Use Appropriate Menu Types

Use Site Maps

Eliminate Horizontal Scrolling

Facilitate Rapid Scrolling While Reading

Use Scrolling Pages for Reading Comprehension

Use Paging Rather Than Scrolling

Use Clear Category Labels

1:1

2:3

2:5

6:7

9:3

11:1

11:6

11:7

11:10

12:1

13:22

14:1

14:4

14:15

15:6

16:4

16:9

18:1

1:2

1:8

1:10

2:6

2:10

2:13

3:3

5:3

5:6

6:2

6:3

6:4

6:9

6:11

6:12

6:13

7:8

7:9

7:10

8:1

8:2

8:3

8:4

9:1

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Guideline Heading 

Appendices

210
211 ⇠

Appendices

211 ⇠

Guidelines Ranked by Strength of Evidence

Chapter:

Guideline #

Use Meaningful Link Labels

Match Link Names with Their Destination Pages

Repeat Important Links

Use Text for Links

Ensure that Embedded Links are Descriptive

Ensure Visual Consistency

Use at Least 12-Point Font

Color-Coding and Instructions

Place Important Items at Top of the List

Format Lists to Ease Scanning

Display Related Items in Lists

Introduce Each List

Use Appropriate List Style

Use Radio Buttons for Mutually Exclusive Selections

Use a Single Data Entry Method

Minimize Use of the Shift Key

Label Clickable Images

Ensure that Images Do Not Slow Downloads

Include Logos

Graphics Should Not Look like Banner Ads

Include Actual Data with Data Graphics

Display Monitoring Information Graphically

Emulate Real-World Objects

Make Action Sequences Clear

Avoid Jargon

Limit the Number of Words and Sentences

Use Active Voice

Make First Sentences Descriptive

Organize Information Clearly

Facilitate Scanning

Display Only Necessary Information

Solicit Test Participants’ Comments

Select the Right Number of Participants

Use Inspection Evaluation Results Cautiously

Recognize the ’Evaluator Effect’

Use Cognitive Walkthroughs Cautiously

Choosing Laboratory vs. Remote Testing

Use Severity Ratings Cautiously

Understand and Meet User’s Expectations

Involve Users in Establishing User Requirements

Focus on Performance Before Preference

Consider Many User Interface Issues

10:1

10:3

10:5

10:6

10:9

11:4

11:8

11:9

12:2

12:3

12:4

12:5

12:8

13:9

13:13

13:25

14:2

14:3

14:5

14:6

14:10

14:11

14:13

15:1

15:2

15:7

15:9

15:11

16:1

16:2

16:7

18:2

18:6

18:8

18:9

18:11

18:12

18:13

1:3

1:4

1:6

1:7

Guideline Heading 

Relative 

Importance

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

3

3

3

3

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
212

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Appendices Appendices

Guidelines Ranked by Strength of Evidence

Relative 

Importance

Chapter:

Guideline #

Set Usability Goals

Do Not Display Unsolicited Windows or Graphics

Increase Web Site Credibility

Reduce the User’s Workload

Warn of ’Time Outs’

Display Information in a Directly Usable Format

Format Information for Reading and Printing

Inform Users of Long Download Times

Use Users’ Terminology in Help Documentation

Provide Assistance to Users

Provide Client-Side Image Maps

Enable Access to the Homepage

Communicate the Web Site’s Value and Purpose

Limit Prose Text on the Homepage

Attend to Homepage Panel Width

Avoid Cluttered Displays

Establish Level of Importance

Optimize Display Density

Use Fluid Layouts

Set Appropriate Page Lengths

Differentiate and Group Navigation Elements

Use a Clickable ’List of Contents’ on Long Pages

Place Primary Navigation Menus in the Left Panel

Use Descriptive Tab Labels

Present Tabs Effectively

Breadcrumb Navigation

Use Unique and Descriptive Headings

Highlight Critical Data

Use Descriptive Row and Column Headings

Use ’Pointing-and-Clicking’ 

Use Appropriate Text Link Lengths

Clarify Clickable Regions of Images

Use Mixed-Case for Prose Text

Use Bold Text Sparingly

Highlighting Information

Use Static Menus

Distinguish Required and Optional Data Entry Fields

Label Data Entry Fields Consistently

Label Data Entry Fields Clearly

Minimize User Data Entry

Allow Users to See Their Entered Data

Use Familiar Widgets

1:9

2:1

2:2

2:4

2:7

2:8

2:9

2:11

2:14

2:16

3:9

5:1

5:4

5:5

5:9

6:1

6:5

6:6

6:8

6:10

7:2

7:3

7:5

7:6

7:7

7:12

9:4

9:5

9:6

10:10

10:11

10:13

11:3

11:5

11:11

12:6

13:1

13:3

13:5

13:6

13:8

13:10

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

Guideline Heading 
213

Guidelines Ranked by Strength of Evidence

Appendices

Chapter:

Guideline #

Prioritize Pushbuttons

Use Check Boxes to Enable Multiple Selections

Label Units of Measurement

Do Not Limit Viewable List Box Options

Provide Auto-Tabbing Functionality

Limit Large Images Above the Fold

Ensure Web Site Images Convey Intended Messages

Introduce Animation

Use Familiar Words

Limit Prose Text on Navigation Pages

Minimize the Number of Clicks or Pages

Design Quantitative Content for Quick Understanding

Format Information for Multiple Audiences

Ensure Usable Search Results

Design Search Engines to Search the Entire Site

Design Search Around Users’ Terms

Notify Users When Multiple Search Options Exist

Include Hints to Improve Search Performance

Provide Search Templates

Evaluate Web Sites Before and After Making Changes

Distinguish Between Frequency and Severity

Use the Appropriate Prototyping Technology

Apply Automatic Evaluation Methods

Set and State Goals

Use Personas

Develop Pages that Will Print Properly

Provide Printing Options

Comply with Section 508

Design Forms for Users Using Assistive Technologies

Enable Users to Skip Repetitive Navigation Links

Provide Text Equivalents for Non-Text Elements

Test Plug-Ins and Applets for Accessibility

Ensure that Scripts Allow Accessibility

Provide Equivalent Pages

Synchronize Multimedia Elements

Provide Frame Titles

Design for Common Browsers

Account for Browser Differences

Design for Popular Operating Systems

Design for User’s Typical Connection Speed

Design for Commonly Used Screen Resolutions

Show All Major Options on the Homepage

13:14

13:15

13:16

13:17

13:24

14:7

14:8

14:12

15:3

15:8

16:5

16:6

16:8

17:1

17:2

17:5

17:7

17:8

17:9

18:3

18:5

18:7

18:10

1:5

1:11

2:12

2:15

3:1

3:2

3:4

3:5

3:6

3:7

3:8

3:10

3:12

4:1

4:2

4:3

4:4

4:5

5:2

Guideline Heading 

Relative 

Importance

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Appendices

214 ⇠

Guidelines Ranked by Strength of Evidence

Relative 

Importance

Chapter:

Guideline #

Limit Homepage Length

Announce Changes to a Web Site

Provide Navigational Options

Provide Feedback on Users’ Location

Use ’Glosses’ to Assist Navigation

Scroll Fewer Screenfuls

Provide Descriptive Page Titles

Use Headings in the Appropriate HTML Order

Provide Users with Good Ways to Reduce Options

Link to Related Content

Avoid Misleading Cues to Click

Designate Used Links

Provide Consistent Clickability Cues

Indicate Internal vs. External Links

Link to Supportive Information

Format Common Items Consistently

Start Numbered Items at One

Capitalize First Letter of First Word in Lists

Label Pushbuttons Clearly

Do Not Make User-Entered Codes Case Sensitive

Put Labels Close to Data Entry Fields

Anticipate Typical User Errors

Partition Long Data Items

Display Default Values

Place Cursor in First Data Entry Field

Ensure that Double-Clicking Will Not Cause Problems

Use Open Lists to Select One from Many

Use a Minimum of Two Radio Buttons

Limit the Use of Images

Use Thumbnail Images to Preview Larger Images

Using Photographs of People

Define Acronyms and Abbreviations

Use Abbreviations Sparingly

Write Instructions in the Affirmative

Ensure that Necessary Information is Displayed

Make Upper- and Lowercase Search Terms Equivalent

Provide a Search Option on Each Page

Allow Simple Searches

Prioritize Tasks

Do Not Require Style Sheets

Avoid Screen Flicker

5:7

5:8

7:1

7:4

7:11

8:5

9:2

9:7

9:8

10:2

10:4

10:7

10:8

10:12

10:14

11:2

12:7

12:9

13:2

13:4

13:7

13:11

13:12

13:18

13:19

13:20

13:21

13:23

14:9

14:14

14:16

15:4

15:5

15:10

16:3

17:3

17:4

17:6

18:4

3:11

3:13

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

Guideline Heading 
215 ⇠Appendices Sources

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Sources 

Adamson, P.J. & Wallace, F.L. (1997). A comparison between consistent and 

inconsistent graphical user interfaces. Jacksonville: University of Northern Florida, 

Department of Computer and Information Sciences.

Adkisson, H.P. (2002). Identifying de-facto standards for e-commerce Web sites. 

Proceedings of the IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, 22-45.

Ahlstrom, V. & Longo, K. (2001). Human factors design guide update (Report number 

DOT/FAA/CT-96/01): A revision to chapter 8 - computer human interface guidelines. 

Retrieved November 2005, from http://acb220.tc.faa.gov/technotes/dot_faa_ct01_08.pdf.

Ahmadi, M. (2000, October). An evaluation of an instant messaging pilot program. 

National Cancer Institute, Communications Technologies Branch.

Allinson, L. & Hammond, N. (1999). A learning support environment: The hitchhiker’s guide. In R. McAleese (Ed.), Hypertext: Theory into Practice (pp. 53-63). Exeter, 

UK: Intellect Books.

Amento, B., Hill, W., Terveen, L., Hix, D., & Ju, P. (1999). An empirical evaluation of 

user interfaces for topic management of web sites. Proceedings of CHI’99, 552-559.

Andre, T., Hartson, R. & Williges, R. (2003). Determining the effectiveness of the 

Usability Problem Inspector. Human Factors, 45(3), 455-482.

Asher, S.R. (1980). Topic interest and children’s reading comprehension. In R.J. Sprio, 

D.C. Bruce, & W.F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension (pp. 

525-534). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ashworth, C.A. & Hamilton, D.B. (1997, June). A case for frames. Proceedings of the 

3rd Conference on Human Factors and the Web.

Ausubel, D.D. (1968). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. New York: Holt, 

Rinehart and Winston.

Baca, B. & Cassidy, A. (1999). Intranet development and design that works. Human 

Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, 777-790.

Baddeley, A. (1986). Working Memory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Baddeley, A. (1986). Working Memory. Science, 255, 556-559.

Badre, A.N. (2002). Shaping Web Usability: Interaction Design in Context. Boston, 

MA: Addison Wesley Professional.

Bailey, G.D. (1993). Iterative methodology and designer training in human-computer 

interface design. Proceedings of InterCHI’93, 198-205.

Bailey, R.W. & Koyani, S.J. (2004). Searching vs. linking on the web: A summary of 

the research. Health and Human Services Technical Report.

Bailey, R.W. (1983). Human Error in Computer Systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Bailey, R.W. (1993). Selecting items in a graphical user interface. User Interface 

Update-1993.
Sources

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Bailey, R.W. (1996). Human performance engineering: Designing high quality professional 

user interfaces for computer products, applications and systems (3rd ed.). Englewood 

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bailey, R.W. (2000a, September). Reducing reliance on superstition. Retrieved 

November 2005, from http://www.webusability.com.

Bailey, R.W. (2000b, October). Link affordance. Retrieved November 2005, from 

http://www.webusability.com.

Bailey, R.W. (2000c, December). Calculating the number of test subjects. Retrieved 

May 2003, from http://www.webusability.com.

Bailey, R.W. (2000d). The usability of punched ballots. Retrieved November 2005, from 

http://www.webusability.com.

Bailey, R.W. (2001). Reading from small point sizes. User Interface Update-2001.

Bailey, R.W. (2002, December). Optimal line length: Research supporting how line 

length affects usability. Retrieved November 2005, from http://webusability.com.

Bailey, R.W. (2003, July). ‘Concurrent’ vs. ‘retrospective’ comments. Retrieved 

November 2005, from http://webusability.com.

Bailey, R.W. (2005, October). Judging the severity of usability issues on web sites: This 

doesn’t work. Retrieved November 2005, from http://usability.gov/pubs/102005news.

html.

Bailey, R.W., Allen, R.W., & Raiello, P. (1992, October). Usability testing vs. heuristic 

evaluation: A head-to-head comparison. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual 

Meeting Proceedings.

Bailey, R.W., Koyani, S., & Nall, J. (2000, September 7). Usability testing of several 

health information Web sites, National Cancer Institute Technical Report. Bethesda, MD.

Bailey, R.W. and Wolfson, C. (2005), FirstGov usability test results, Computer 

Psychology Technical Report, May.

Baldwin, R.S., Peleg-Bruckner, Z., & McClintock, A. (1985). Effects of topic interest 

and prior knowledge on reading comprehension, Reading Research Quarterly, 220(4), 

497-504.

Ball, L.J., Evans, J., & Dennis, I. (1994). Cognitive processes in engineering design: A 

longitudinal study. Ergonomics, 37(11), 1753-1786.

Bandos, J. & Resnick, M.L. (2004). The effects of semantic and syntactic instruction 

on users performance and satisfaction in search user interface design. Proceedings of the 

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting.

Barber, R.E. & Lucas, H.C. (1983). System Response time, operator productivity, and 

job satisfaction. CACM, 26(11), 972-986.

Barki, H. & Hartwick, J. (1991). User participation and user involvement in information 

system development. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Hawaii International Conference on 

System Sciences, 487-492.

Baroudi, J.J., Olson, M.H., & Ives, B. (1986). An empirical study of the impact of user 

involvement on system usage and information satisfaction. Communications of the ACM, 

29(3), 232-238.

216
Sources

217

Bayles, M. & Bernard, M. (1999). Searching the Web: Who Uses the Advanced 

Search Options? Usability News, 1.2. Retrieved November 2005, from http://

psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/1s/searching.htm.

Bayles, M.E. (2002). Designing online banner advertisements: Should we animate? 

Proceedings of CHI 2002, 363-366.

Benson, P. (1985). Writing visually: Design considerations in technical publications. 

Technical Communication, 32(4), 35-39.

Benway, J.P. (1998). Banner blindness: The irony of attention grabbing on the World 

Wide Web. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, 463-

467.

Bernard, M. & Hull, S. (2002). Where should you put the links? Comparing 

embedded and framed/non-framed links. Proceedings of CybErg 2002, The Third 

International Cyberspace Conference on Ergonomics.

Bernard, M. & Larsen, L. (2001). What is the best layout for multiple-column Web 

pages? Usability News, 3.2.

Bernard, M. (2001). Developing schemas for the location of common Web objects. 

Usability News, 3.1. Retrieved November 2005, from http://psychology.wichita.edu/

surl/usabilitynews/3W/web_object.htm.

Bernard, M. (2002). Examining User Expectations for the Location of Common ECommerce Web Objects. Usability News, 4.1. Retrieved November 2005, from http://

psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/41/web_object-ecom.htm.

Bernard, M., Baker, R., & Fernandez, M. (2002). Paging vs. scrolling: Looking for 

the best way to present search results. Usability News, 4.1. Retrieved November 2005, 

from http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/41/paging.htm.

Bernard, M., Hull, S., & Drake, D. (2001). Where should you put the links? A 

Comparison of Four Locations. Usability News, 3.2. Retrieved November 2005, from 

http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/3S/links.htm.

Bernard, M. & Larsen, L. (2001). What is the best layout for multiple-column Web 

pages? Usability News, 3.2. Retrieved November 2005, from http://psychology.

wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/3S/layout.htm.

Bernard, M., Liao, C., & Mills, M. (2001a). Determining the best online font for 

older adults. Usability News, 3.1. Retrieved November 2005, from http://psychology.

wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/3W/fontSR.htm.

Bernard, M., Liao, C.H., & Mills, M. (2001b). The effects of font type and size on 

the legibility and reading time of online text by older adults. Proceedings of CHI 2002, 

175-176. Retrieved November 2005, from http://psychology.wichita.edu/hci/projects/

elderly.pdf.

Bernard, M., Lida, B., Riley, S., Hackler, T., & Janzen, K. (2002). A comparison 

of popular online fonts: Which size and type is best? Usability News, 4.1. Retrieved 

November 2005, from http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/41/onlinetext.

htm.

Bernard, M. & Mills, M. (2000). So, what size and type of font should I use on my 

Web site? Usability News, 2.2. Retrieved November 2005, from http://psychology.

wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/2S/font.htm.

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
Sources

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Bernard, M., Mills, M., Peterson, M., & Storrer, K. (2001). A comparison of popular 

online fonts: Which is best and when? Usability News, 3.2. Retrieved November 2005, 

from http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/3S/font.htm.

Bieber, M. (1997). Enhancing information comprehension through hypertext. In C. 

Nicholas & J. Mayfield (Eds), Intelligent Hypertext: Advanced Techniques for the World 

Wide Web (pp. 1-11). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Billingsley, P.A. (1982). Navigation through hierarchical menu structures: Does it help 

to have a map? Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, 103-

107.

Blackmon, M.H., Polson, P.G., Kitajima, M., & Lewis, C. (2002, April). Cognitive 

walkthrough for the web. Proceedings of CHI 2002, 463-470.

Booher, H.R. (1975). Relative comprehensibility of pictorial information and printed 

words in proceduralized instructions. Human Factors, 17(3), 266-277.

Bouch, A., Kuchinsky, A., & Bhatti, N. (2000). Quality is in the eye of the beholder: 

Meeting users’ requirements for internet quality of service. Proceedings of CHI 2000, 

297-304.

Bouma, H. (1980). Visual reading processes and the quality of text displays. In E. 

Granjean & E. Viglinai (Eds.), Ergonomic Aspects of Visual Display Terminals (pp. 101-

114). London: Taylor and Francis Ltd.

Bovair, S., Kieras, D.E., & Polson, P.G. (1990). The acquisition and performance of 

text-editing skill: A cognitive complexity analysis. Human-Computer Interaction, 5(1), 

1-48.

Bowers, V.A. & Snyder, H.I. (1990). Concurrent versus retrospective verbal protocol 

for comparing window usability. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics 

Society 46th Annual Meeting, 1270-1274.

Boyarski, D., Neuwirth, C., Forlizzi, J., & Regli, S.H. (1998). A study of fonts designed 

for screen display. Proceedings of CHI’98, 87-94.

Boyntoin, R.M., & Bush, W.R. (1956). Recognition of forms against a complex 

background. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 46, 759-764.

Bradley, R.F. & Johnk, L.D. (1995). Replacing a networking interface ‘from hell.’ 

Proceedings of CHI’95, 538-545.

Brajnik, G. (2000). Automatic web usability evaluation: What needs to be done? 

Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Human Factors and the Web. Retrieved November 

2005, from http://www.tri.sbc.com/hfweb/brajnik/hfweb-brajnik.html.

Bransford, J. & Johnson, M. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: 

Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal 

Behavior, 11, 717-726.

Bransford, J. & Johnson, M. (1973). Consideration of some problems of 

comprehension. In W. Chase (Ed.), Visual Information Processing (pp. 383-438). New 

York: Academic Press.

Breland, K. & Breland, M.K. (1944). Legibility of newspaper headlines printed in 

capitals and in lower case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 28, 117-120.

Brinck, T. & Hofer, E. (2002, April). Automatically evaluating the usability of web sites. 

Proceedings of CHI 2002, Extended Abstracts, 906-907.

218
Sources

219

Brinck, T., Gergle, D., & Wood, S.D. (2002). Designing Web sites that work: Usability 

for the Web. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

Broadbent, D.E. (1975). The magic number seven after fifteen years. In A. Kennedy 

& A. Wilkes (Eds.), Studies in Long-Term Memory (pp. 3-18). New York: Wiley.

Brown, J. (1958). Some tests of the decay theory of immediate memory. Quarterly 

Journal of Experimental Psychology, 10, 12-21.

Bruce, V., & Green, P.R. (1990). Visual Perception: Physiology, Psychology and Ecology

(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brush, A.J., Ames, M., & Davis, J. (2004). A comparison of synchronous remote 

and local usability studies for an expert interface. CHI 2004 Proceedings, 1179-1183. 

Retrieved November 2005, from http://research.microsoft.com/~ajbrush/papers/

BrushRemoteUsabi

Buller, D.B., Woodall, W.G., Zimmerman, D.E., Heimendinger, J., Rogers, E.M., 

Slater, M.D., et al. (2001). Formative research activities to provide Web-based 

nutrition education to adults in the upper Rio Grande Valley. Family and Community 

Health 24(3), 1-12.

Byrne, M.D., Anderson, J.R., Douglass, S., & Matessa, M. (1999). Eye tracking the 

visual search of click-down menus. Proceedings of CHI’99, 402-409.

Byrne, M.D., John, B.E., Wehrle, N.S., & Crow, D.C. (1999). The tangled web we 

wove: A taskonomy of WWW use. Proceedings of CHI’99, 544-551.

Cakir, A., Hart, D.J., & Stewart, T.F.M. (1980). Visual Display Terminals, England: Wiley.

Campbell, C.S. & Maglio, P.P. (1999). Facilitating navigation in information spaces: 

Road signs on the World Wide Web. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,

50, 309-327.

Campbell, D.T. & Stanley, J.C. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Design for 

Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Capra, M.G. (2002). Contemporaneous versus retrospective user-reported critical 

incidents in usability evaluation. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics 

Society 46th Annual Meeting, 1973-1977.

Card, S.K., Moran, T.P., & Newell, A. (1980a). Computer text editing: An 

information processing analysis of a routine cognitive skill. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 

32-74.

Card, S.K., Moran, T.P., & Newell, A. (1980b). The keystroke-level model for user 

performance time with interactive systems. Communications of the ACM, 23(7), 396-

410.

Card, S.K., Moran, T.P., & Newell, A. (1983). The Psychology of Human-Computer 

Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Card, S.K., Pirolli, P., Van Der Wege, M., Morrison, J., Reeder, R., Schraedley, P. et 

al. (2001). Information scent as a driver of web behavior graphs: Results of a protocol 

analysis method for web usability. Proceedings of CHI 2001, 498-505.

Carroll, J.M. (1990). The Nurnberg Funnel: Designing Minimalist Instruction for Practical 

Computer Skill. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Carter, R. (1982). Visual search with color. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human 

Perception and Performance, 8, 127-136.

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
Sources

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Casner, S.M. & Larkin, J.H. (1989, August). Cognitive efficiency considerations for 

good graphic design. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive 

Science Society. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Catani, M.B. & Biers, D.W. (1998). Usability evaluation and prototype fidelity: Users 

and usability professionals. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 

Proceedings, 1331-1335.

Celsi, R. & Olson, J. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and comprehension 

processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 210-224.

Chaparro, B.S. & Bernard, M.L. (2001). Finding information on the Web: Does 

the amount of whitespace really matter? Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Usability 

Professionals’ Association Conference.

Chaparro, B.S., Minnaert, G., & Phipps, C. (2000). Limitations of using mouseover with menu item selection. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 

Proceedings.

Chen, C. & Yu, Y. (2000). Empirical studies of information visualization: A metaanalysis. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53, 851-866.

Chervak, S., Drury, C.G., & Ouellette, J.P. (1996). Simplified English for aircraft work 

cards. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, 303-307.

Chi, E., Pirolli, P., & Pitkow, J. (2000). The scent of a site: A system for analyzing and 

predicting information scent, usage, and usability of a web site. Proceedings of CHI 

2000, 161-168.

Chin, D.N. (2001). Empirical evaluation of user models and user-adapted systems. User 

Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 11, 181-194.

Chisholm, W., Vanderheiden, G., & Jacobs, I., Eds. (1999a). Web Content 

Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. Retrieved November 2005, from http://www.w3.org/TR/

WCAG10/, Checkpoint 1.1.

Chisholm, W., Vanderheiden, G., & Jacobs, I., Eds. (1999b). Web Content 

Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. Retrieved November 2005, from http://www.w3.org/TR/

WCAG10/, Checkpoint 1.4.

Chisholm, W., Vanderheiden, G., & Jacobs, I., Eds. (1999c). Web Content 

Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. Retrieved November 2005, from http://www.w3.org/TR/

WCAG10/, Checkpoint 2.1.

Chisholm, W., Vanderheiden, G., & Jacobs, I., Eds. (1999d). Web Content 

Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. Retrieved November 2005, from http://www.w3.org/TR/

WCAG10/, Checkpoint 5.1.

Chisholm, W., Vanderheiden, G., & Jacobs, I., Eds. (1999e). Web Content 

Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. Retrieved November 2005, from http://www.w3.org/TR/

WCAG10/, Checkpoint 11.4.

Chisholm, W., Vanderheiden, G., & Jacobs, I., Eds. (1999f). Web Content 

Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. Retrieved November 2005, from http://www.w3.org/TR/

WCAG10/, Checkpoint 12.1.

Christ, R.E. (1975). Review and analysis of color coding research for visual displays. 

Human Factors, 17(6), 542-570.

Clark, H. & Haviland, S. (1975). Comprehension and the given-new contract. In R. 

Freedle (Ed.), Discourse Production and Comprehension (pp. 1-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

220
Sources

221

Coble, J.M., Karat, J., & Kahn, M.G. (1997, March). Maintaining a focus on 

user requirements throughout the development of clinical workstation software. 

Proceedings of CHI’97, 170-177.

Cockburn, A. & Jones, S. (1996). Which way now? Analysing and easing 

inadequacies in WWW navigation. International Journal Human-Computer Studies, 45, 

105-129.

Cockton, G. & Woolrych, A. (2001). Understanding inspection methods: Lessons 

from an assessment of heuristic evaluation. In A. Blandford, J. Vanderdonckt & P.D. 

Gray (Eds.), People and Computers XV: Interaction without Frontiers (pp. 171-191). 

Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

Cockton, G. & Woolrych, A. (2002). Sale must end: Should discount methods be 

cleared off HCI’s shelves? Interactions, 9(5), 13-18.

Cockton, G., Woolrych, A., Hall, L. & Hindmarch, M. (2003). Changing analysts’ 

tunes: The surprising impact of a new instrument for usability inspection method 

assessment. People and Computers XVII, 145-162.

Cole, B.L. & Jenkins, S.E. (1984). The effect of variability of background elements on 

the conspicuity of objects. Vision Research, 24, 261-270.

Coney, M.B. & Steehouder, M. (2000). Role playing on the Web: Guidelines for 

designing and evaluating personas online. Technical Communication, 47(3), 327-340.

Cooper, A. (1999). The inmates are running the asylum: Why high-tech products drive 

us crazy and how to restore the sanity. Indianapolis: Sams.

Covi, L.M. & Ackerman, M.S. (1995, August). Such easy-to-use systems! How 

organizations shape the design and use of online help systems. Proceedings of 

Conference on Organizational Computing Systems, 280-288.

Curry, M.B., McDougall, S., & de Bruijn, O. (1998). The effects of the visual 

metaphor in determining icon efficacy. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual 

Meeting Proceedings, 1590-1594.

Czaja, S.J., & Sharit, J. (1997). The influence of age and experience on the 

performance of a data entry task. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual 

Meeting Proceedings, 144-147.

DeRouvray, C. & Couper, M.P. (2002). Designing a strategy for reducing ‘no 

opinion’ responses in web-based surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 20(1), 3-9.

Desurvire, H., Kondziela, J., & Atwood, M.E., (1992). What is gained and lost when 

using methods other than empirical testing: Striking a balance. Proceedings of CHI’92,

2, 125-126.

Detweiler, M.C. & Omanson, R.C. (1996). Ameritech Web Page User Interface 

Standards and Design Guidelines. Ameritech (now SBC).

Dias, P. & Sousa, A.P. (1997). Understanding navigation and disorientation in 

hypermedia learning environments. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,

6, 173-185.

Dixon, P. (1987). The processing of organizational and component step information 

in written directions. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 24-35.

Duchnicky, R.L., & Kolers, P.A. (1983). Readability of text scrolled on visual display 

terminals as a function of window size. Human Factors, 25, 683-692.

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
Sources

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Dumais, S., Cutrell, E., & Chen, H. (2001). Optimizing search by showing results in 

context. Proceedings of CHI 2001, 277-283.

Dumas, J. (2001). How many participants in a usability test are enough. In R.J. 

Branaghan (Ed.), Design by People for People: Essays on Usability (pp. 173-182). 

Chicago: Usability Professionals Association.

Dumas, J.S., Molich, R. & Jeffries, R. (2004). Describing usability problems: Are we 

sending the right message? Interactions, 11(4), 24-29.

Dyson, M.C. & Haselgrove, M. (2000). The effects of reading speed and reading 

patterns on our understanding of text read from screen. Journal of Research in Reading,

23(1), 210-233.

Dyson, M.C. & Kipping, G.J. (1998). The effects of line length and method of 

movement on patterns of reading from screen. Visible Language, 32(2), 150-180.

Eberts, R.E. & Schneider, W. (1985). Internalizing the system dynamics for a secondorder system. Human Factors, 27, 371-393.

Egan, D.E., Remde, J.R., Gomez, L.M., Landauer, T.K., Eberhardt, J., & Lochbaum, 

C.C. (1989). Formative design-evaluation of SuperBook research contributions. ACM 

Transactions on Information Systems, 7(1), 30-57.

Egan, D.E., Remde, J.R., Landauer, T.K., Lochbaum, C.C. & Gomez, L.M. (1989). 

Behavioral evaluation and analysis of a hypertext browser. Proceedings of CHI’89, 205-

210.

Ehret, B.D. (2002). Learning where to look: Location learning in graphical user 

interfaces. CHI 2002 Conference Proceedings, 211-218.

Ellis, R.D. & Kurniawan, S.H. (2000). Increasing the usability of online information 

for older users: A case study of participatory design. International Journal of HumanComputer Interaction, 12(2), 263-276.

Engel, S.E. & Granda, R.E. (1975). Guidelines for Man/Display Interfaces (Technical 

Report TR 00.2720). Poughkeepsie, NY: IBM.

Esperet, E. (1996). Notes on hypertext, cognition, and language. In J.F. Rouet, 

J.J. Levonen, A. Dillon, & R.J. Spiro (Eds.), Hypertext and Cognition (pp. 149-155). 

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Evans, M. (1998). Web Design: An Empiricist’s Guide. Unpublished master’s thesis. 

Seattle: University of Washington. Retrieved May 2003, from http://response.

restoration.noaa.gov/webmastr/webdesgn.pdf.

Fakun, D. & Greenough, R.M. (2002). User-interface design heuristics for developing 

usable industrial hypermedia applications. Human Factors and Ergonomics in 

Manufacturing, 12(2), 127-149.

Fang, X. & Salvendy, G. (1999). Templates for search queries: A user-centered feature 

for improving web search tools. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction,

11(4), 301-315.

Faraday, P. & Sutcliffe, A. (1997). Designing effective multimedia presentations. 

Proceedings of CHI’97, 272-278.

Faraday, P. & Sutcliffe, A. (1999). Authoring animated web pages using ‘contact 

point.’ Proceedings of CHI’97, 458-465.

222
Sources

223

Faraday, P. (2000). Visually critiquing web pages. Proceedings of the 6th Conference on 

Human Factors and the Web. Retrieved November 2005, from http://www.tri.sbc.com/

hfweb/faraday/FARADAY.HTM.

Faraday, P. (2001). Attending to web pages. Proceedings of CHI 2001, 159-160.

Farkas, D.K. & Farkas, J.B. (2000). Guidelines for designing web navigation. Technical 

Communication, 47(3), 341-358.

Farkas, D.K. (1999). The logical and rhetorical construction of procedural discourse. 

Technical Communication, 46(1), 42-54.

Farris, J.S., Jones, K.S., & Elgin, P.D. (2001). Mental representations of hypermedia: 

An evaluation of the spatial assumption. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual 

Meeting Proceedings, 1156-1160.

Findlater, M.L. & McGrenere, J. (2004). A comparison of static, adaptive, and 

adaptable menus. CHI 2004 Conference Proceedings, 89-96.

Flower, L., Hayes, J.R., & Swarts, H. (1983). Revising function documents: The 

scenario principle. In P. Anderson, J. Brockmann, & C. Miller (Eds.), New Essays in 

Technical and Scientific Communication: Research, Theory, and Practice (pp. 41-58). 

Farmingdale, NY: Baywood.

Fogg, B.J. (2002). Stanford guidelines for web credibility. A research summary from 

the Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab. Retrieved November 2005, from http://www.

webcredibility.org/guidelines/.

Fogg, B.J. Marshall, J., Laraki, O., Osipovich, A., Varma, C., Fang, N., Paul, J., Rangnekar, 

A., Shon, J., Swani, P. and Treinen, M. (2001). What makes Web sites credible? Areport on 

a large quantitative study. CHI 2001 Conference Proceedings, 3(1), 61-6.

Foley, J. & Wallace, V. (1974). The art of natural graphic man-machine conversation. 

Proceedings of the IEEE, 62(4), 62-79.

Foltz, P.W., Davies, S.E., Polson, P.G., & Kieras, D.E. (1988). Transfer between menu 

systems. Proceedings of CHI’88, 107-112.

Forrester Research (2001, July). Forrester Report. Retrieved November 2005, from 

http://www.forrester.com/.

Foster, J. & Coles, P. (1977). An experimental study of typographical cueing in 

printed text. Ergonomics, 20, 57-66.

Foster, S.T. & Franz, C.R. (1999). User involvement during information systems 

development: A comparison of analyst and user perceptions of system acceptance. 

Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 16, 329-348.

Fowler, S. (1998). GUI Design Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fu, L., Salvendy, G. & Turley, L. (1998). Who finds what in usability evaluation. 

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting, 1341-1345.

Fu, L., Salvendy, G. & Turley, L. (2002). Effectiveness of user testing and heuristic evaluation as 

a function of performance classification. Behaviour and Information Technology, 137-143.

Furnas, G.W., Landauer, T.K., Gomez, L.M., & Dumais, S.T. (1987). The 

vocabulary problem in human-system communication: An analysis and a solution, 

Communications of the ACM, 30(11), 964-971.

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
Sources

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Galitz, W.O. (2002). The Essential Guide to User Interface Design. New York: John Wiley 

& Sons.

Gerhardt-Powals, J. (1996). Cognitive engineering principles for enhancing humancomputer performance. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 8(2), 

189-211.

Goldsmith, E. (1987). The analysis of illustration in theory and practice. In H.A. 

Houghton & D.M. Willows (Eds.), The Psychology of Illustration (pp. 53-85). New York: 

Springer-Verlag.

Golovchinsky, G. & Chignell, M. (1993). Queries-R-Links: Graphical markup for text 

navigation. Proceedings of INTERCHI’93, 24-29.

Goodwin, K. (2001, July/August). Perfecting your personas. Cooper Interaction 

Design Newsletter. Retrieved November 2005, from http://www.cooper.com/

newsletters/2001_07/perfecting_your_personas.htm.

Gould, J.D., Alfaro, L., Finn, R., Haupt, B., & Minuto, A. (1987a). Reading from CRT 

displays can be as fast as reading from paper. Human Factors, 29(5), 497-517.

Gould, J.D., Alfaro, L., Finn, R., Haupt, B., Minuto, A. & Salaun, J. (1987b). Why 

reading was slower from CRT displays than from paper. Proceedings of CHI+GI’87, 

7-11.

Gould, J.D., Boies, S.J., Meluson, A., Rasamny, M., & Vosburgh, A.M. (1988). 

Empirical evaluation of entry and selection methods for specifying dates. Human 

Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, 279-283.

Gould, J.D., Boies, S.J., Meluson, A., Rasamny, M., & Vosburgh, A.M. (1989). Entry 

and selection methods for specifying dates. Human Factors, 31(2), 199-214.

Graham, M., Kennedy, J., & Benyon, D. (2000). Towards a methodology for 

developing visualizations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53, 789-

807.

Gray, W.D. & Salzman, M.C. (1998). Damaged merchandise? A review of 

experiments that compare usability evaluation methods. Human-Computer Interaction,

13(3), 203-261.

Greene, J.M. (1972). Psycholinguistics: Chomsky and Psychology. Harmondsworth, 

Middlesex, U.K.: Penguin.

Greene, S.L., Gould, J.D., Boies, S.J., Meluson, A., & Rasamny, M. (1988). Entrybased versus selection-based interaction methods. Human Factors and Ergonomics 

Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, 284-287.

Greene, S.L., Gould, J.D., Boies, S.J., Rasamny, M., & Meluson, A. (1992). Entry 

and selection based methods of human-computer interaction. Human Factors, 34(1), 

97-113.

Grose, E., Jean-Pierre, S., Miller, D., & Goff, R. (1999). Applying usability methods 

to a large intranet site. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 

Proceedings, 762-766.

Grudin, J. (1989). The case against user interface consistency. Communications of the 

ACM, 32, 1164-1173.

Georgia Institute of Technology (1998, October). GVU’s WWW User Surveys. 

Retrieved November 2005, from http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/user_surveys/survey1998-10/graphs/graphs.html#general.

224
Sources

225

Haas, S.W. & Grams, E.S. (1998). A link taxonomy for Web pages. Proceedings of the 

61st Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, 35, 485-95.

Hackman, R.B. & Tinker, M.A. (1957). Effect of variations in color of print and 

background upon eye movements in reading. American Journal of Optometry and 

Archives of the American Academy of Optometry, 34, 354-359.

Halgren, S.L. & Cooke, N.J. (1993). Towards ecological validity in menu research. 

International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 39(1), 51-70.

Halverson, T. & Hornof, A.J. (2004). Local density guides visual search: Sparse groups 

are first and faster. Proceedings from the 48th Annual Human Factors and Ergonomics 

Meeting.

Hanson, R.H., Payne, D.G., Shiveley, R.J., & Kantowitz, B.H. (1981). Process control 

simulation research in monitoring analog and digital displays. Human Factors and 

Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, 154-158.

Harrison, S.M. (1995). A comparison of still, animated, or nonillustrated on-line help 

with written or spoken instructions in a graphical user interface. Proceedings of CHI’95, 

82-89.

Hartley, J. & Trueman, M. (1983). The effects of headings in text on recall, search, 

and retrieval. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 205-214.

Hartson, H.R., Castillo, J.C., Kelso, J. & Neale, W.C. (1996). Remote evaluation: The 

network as an extension of the usability laboratory. CHI96 Proceedings, 228-235.

Hassenzahl, M. (2000). Prioritizing usability problems: Data-driven and judgmentdriven severity estimates. Behavior and Information Technology, 19(1), 29-42.

Haubner, P. & Neumann, F. (1986, May). Structuring alpha-numerically coded 

information on visual display units. Proceedings of the Conference on Work with Display 

Units, Stockholm, 606-609.

Head, A. J. (2003). Personas: Setting the stage for building usable information sites. 

Online, 27(4). Retrieved November 2005, from http://www.infotoday.com/online/

jul03/head.shtml.

Heinbokel, T., Sonnentag, S., Frese, M., Stolte, W. & Brodbeck, F.C. (1996). Don’t 

underestimate the problems of user centredness in software development projects: 

There are many. Behaviour and Information Technology, 15(4), 226-236.

Herriot, P. (1970). An Introduction to the Psychology of Language. London: Methuen.

Hertzum, M. & Jacobsen, N.E. (2001). The evaluator effect: A chilling fact about 

usability evaluation methods. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 13, 

421-443.

Hertzum, M. & Jacobsen, N.E. (2001). The evaluator effect: A chilling fact about 

usability evaluation methods. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 13, 

421-443.

Hess, R. (2000, October). Can color-blind users see your site? Microsoft Corporation. 

Retrieved November 2005, from http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/

library/en-us/dnhess/html/hess10092000.asp.

Hillstrom, A.P. & Yantis, S. (1994). Visual motion and attentional capture. Perception 

and Psychophysics, 55(4), 399-411.

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
Sources

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Hoc, J-M & Leplat, J. (1983). Evaluation of different modalities of verbalization in a 

sorting task. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 18(3), 283-306.

Hochheiser, H. & Shneiderman, B. (2000). Performance benefits of simultaneous over 

sequential menus as task complexity increases. International Journal of Human-Computer 

Interaction, 12(2), 173-192.

Holleran, P.A. (1991). A methodological note on pitfalls in usability testing. Behaviour 

and Information Technology, 10(5), 345-57.

Hong, J.I., Li, F.C., Lin, J., & Landay, J.A. (2001). End-user perceptions of formal and 

informal representations of Web sites [Extended Abstracts]. Proceedings of CHI 2000, 

385-386.

Hooke, L.R., DeLeo, P.J., & Slaughter, S.L. (1979). Readability of Air Force publications: 

A criterion-referenced evaluation (AFHRL-TR-79-21). Lowry AFB, Colorado: Technical 

Training Division, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

Hornof, A.J. & Halverson, T. (2003). Cognitive strategies and eye movements for 

searching hierarchical computer displays. CHI 2003 Conference Proceedings, 249-256.

Horton, W. (1990). Designing and Writing Online Documentation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Hull, S.S. (2004), Influence of training and exposure on the usage of breadcrumb 

navigation, Usability News, 6.1 (http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/61/

breadcrumb.htm).

IBM (1999). Web Design Guidelines Design in Action. Retrieved May 2003, from www3.ibm.com/ibm/easy/eou_ext.nsf/Publish/572.

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. IEEE Web Publishing Guide.

Isakson, C.S. & Spyridakis, J.H. (1999). The influence of semantics and syntax on 

what readers remember. Technical Communication, 46(3), 366-381.

Ives, B. & Olson, M. (1984). User involvement and MIS success: A review of the 

literature. Management Science, 30(5), 586-603.

Ivory, M.Y. & Hearst, M.A. (2002). Statistical profiles of highly-rated web site 

interfaces. Proceedings of CHI 2002, 367-374.

Ivory, M.Y., Sinha, R.R., & Hearst, M.A. (2000, June). Preliminary findings on 

quantitative measures for distinguishing highly rated information-centric web pages. 

Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Human Factors and the Web. Retrieved November 

2005, from http://www.tri.sbc.com/hfweb/ivory/paper.html.

Ivory, M.Y., Sinha, R.R., & Hearst, M.A. (2001). Empirically validated Web page 

design metrics. Proceedings of CHI 2001, 53-60.

Jacobsen, N.E. & John, B.E. (2000). Two case studies in using cognitive walkthroughs for 

interface evaluation (CMU-CS-00-132). Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer 

Science. Retrieved November 2005, from http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/

cs2000.html.

Jacobsen, N.E., Hertzum, M., & John, B.E. (1998). The evaluator effect in usability 

studies: Problem detection and severity judgments. Human Factors and Ergonomics 

Society Annual Meeting Proceedings.

Jeffries, R. & Desurvire, H. (1992). Usability testing vs. heuristic evaluation: Was there 

a contest? SIGCHI Bulletin, 24(4), 39-41.

226
Sources

227

Jeffries, R., Miller, J.R., Wharton, C., & Uyeda, K.M. (1991). User interface 

evaluation in the real world: A comparison of four techniques. Proceedings of CHI’91, 

119-124.

Jenkins, S.E. & Cole, B.L. (1982). The effect of the density of background elements 

on the conspicuity of objects. Vision Research, 22, 1241-1252.

John, B.E. & Marks, S.J. (1997). Tracking the effectiveness of usability evaluation 

methods. Behaviour and Information Technology, 16(4/5), 188-202.

John, B.E. & Mashyna, M.M. (1997). Evaluating a multimedia authoring tool with 

cognitive walkthrough and think-aloud user studies. Journal of the American Society of 

Information Science, 48(9), 1004-1022.

John, B.E. (1996). TYPIST: A theory of performance in skilled typing. Human-Computer 

Interaction, 11(4), 321-355.

Johnsgard, T.J., Page, S.R., Wilson, R.D., & Zeno, R.J. (1995). A comparison of 

graphical user interface widgets for various tasks. Human Factors and Ergonomics 

Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, 287-291.

Joseph, K.M., Knott, B.A. & Grier, R.A. (2002). The effects of bold text on visual 

search of form fields. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 46th 

Annual Meeting, 583-587.

Jupitermedia Corporation (2003). thecounter.com. Retrieved November 2005, from 

http://www.thecounter.com/.

Kahn, M.J., Tan, K.C., & Beaton, R.J. (1990). Reduction of cognitive workload 

through Information chunking. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 

Proceedings, 1509-1513.

Kalbach, J. & Bosenick, T. (2003). Web page layout: A comparison between left and 

right-justified site navigation menus. Journal of Digital Information, 4(1). Retrieved 

November 2005, from http://jodi.tamu.edu/Articles/v04/i01/Kalbach/.

Kandogan, E. & Shneiderman, B. (1997). Elastic windows: A hierarchical multiwindow World-Wide Web browser. Proceedings of the 10th Annual ACM Symposium on 

User Interface Software and Technology, 169-177.

Karat, C-M. (1994a). A business case approach to usability cost justification. In R. G. 

Bias & D. J. Mayhew (Eds.), Cost-Justifying Usability (pp. 45-70). Boston: Academic 

Press.

Karat, C-M. (1994b). A comparison of user interface evaluation methods. In J. Nielsen 

& R. Mack (Eds.), Usability Inspection Methods (pp. 203-233). NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Karat, C-M. Campbell, R., & Fiegel, T. (1992). Comparison of empirical testing and 

walkthrough methods in user interface evaluation. Proceedings of CHI’92, 397-404.

Keil, M. & Carmel, E. (1995). Customer-developer links in software development. 

Communications of the ACM, 38(5), 33-43.

Kennedy, A. & Wilkes, A. (1975). Studies in Long-Term Memory. New York: John Wiley 

& Sons.

Keyes, E. (1993). Typography, color, and information structure. Technical 

Communication, 40(4), 638-654.

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
Sources

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Keyes, E., Sykes, D., & Lewis, E. (1988). Technology + design + research = 

information design. In E. Barrett (Ed.), Text, ConText, and HyperText: Writing With and 

For the Computer (pp. 251-264). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kieras, D. (1997). A guide to GOMS model usability evaluation using NGOMSL 

(Chapter 31). In M. Helander, T.K. Landauer & P.V. Prabhu (Eds.), Handbook of 

Human-Computer Interaction. Amsterdam: North-Holland Elsevier Science Publishers.

Kim, H. & Hirtle, S.C. (1995). Spatial metaphors and orientation in hypertext 

browsing. Behaviour and Information Technology, 14, 239-250.

Kim, J. (1998). An empirical study of navigation aids in customer interfaces. Behavior 

and Information Technology, 18(3), 213-224.

Kim, J. & Yoo, B. (2000). Toward optimal link structure of the cyber shopping mall, 

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52, 531-551.

Kincaid, J.P., Thomas, M., Strain, K., Couret, I., & Bryden, K. (1990). Controlled 

English for international technical communication, Human Factors and Ergonomics 

Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, 815-819.

Kingsburg, J.R. & Andre, A.D. (2004). A comparison of three-level web menus: 

Navigation structures. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th 

Annual Meeting.

Kosslyn, S.M. (1994). Elements of Graphic Design. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Koyani, S.J. (2001a, April). Cancer mortality maps and graphs Web site. National 

Cancer Institute, Communication Technologies Branch. Retrieved November 2005, 

from http://www3.cancer.gov/atlasplus/.

Koyani, S.J. (2001b, April). WCCO/ACS findings. National Cancer Institute, 

Communication Technologies Branch.

Koyani, S.J. & Bailey, R.W. (2005). Older users and the Web. Proceedings of HCI 

International: 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction.

Koyani, S.J., Bailey, R.W., Ahmadi, M., Changkit, M. & Harley, K. (2002). Older 

users and the Web. National Cancer Institute Technical Report.

Koyani, S.J. & Nall, J. (1999, November). Web site design and usability guidelines. 

National Cancer Institute, Communication Technologies Branch Technical Report. Bethesda, 

MD.

Krull, R. & Watson, B. (2002). Beyond grammatical correctness in verbal instructions. 

Proceedings of the IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, 60-67.

Kucera, H. & Francis, W.N. (1967). Computational Analysis of Present-day American 

English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.

Kujala, S. (2003). User involvement: A review of the benefits and challenges. 

Behaviour and Information Technology, 22(1), 1-16.

Landesman, L. & Schroeder, W. (2000). Report 5: Organizing links. In Designing 

Information-Rich Web Sites. Bradford, MA: User Interface Engineering.

Larson, K. & Czerwinski, M. (1998). Web page design: Implications of memory, 

structure and scent for information retrieval. Proceedings of CHI’98, 25-32.

228
Sources

229

Larson, K. (2004, July). The science of word recognition. Advanced Reading 

Technology Microsoft Corporation. Retrieved November 2005, from http://www.

microsoft.com/typography/ctfonts/WordRecognition.aspx.

Law, E. L.-C. & Hvannberg, E.T. (2004). Analysis of strategies for improving and 

estimating the effectiveness of heuristic evaluation. NordiCHI ‘04, 241-250.

Law, L.-C. & Hvannberg, E.T. (2002). Complementarity and convergence of heuristic 

evaluation and usability testing. Proceedings of the Second Nordic Conference on 

Human-Computer Interaction.

Lawless, K.A. & Kulikowich, J.M. (1996). Understanding hypertext navigation 

through cluster analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14(4), 385-399.

LeCompte, D.C. (1999). Seven, plus or minus two, is too much to bear: Three (or 

fewer) is the real magic number. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 

Proceedings, 289-292.

LeCompte, D.C. (2000). 3.14159, 42, and 7 ± 2: Three numbers that (should) have 

nothing to do with user interface design. Retrieved November 2005, from http://

www.internettg.org/newsletter/aug00/article_miller.html.

LeDoux, L.C., Connor, E. & Tullis, T. (2005). Extreme makeover: UI edition, 

measuring the benefits of user-centered design. Proceedings of the Usability 

Professionals Association Conference.

Leech, G. Rayson, P., & Wilson, A. (2001). Word Frequencies in Written and Spoken 

English: based on the British National Corpus. London: Longman. Retrieved November 

2005, from http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/ucrel/bncfreq/.

Levine, R. (1996). Guide to Web Style. Sun Microsystems.

Levy, E., Zacks, J., Tversky, B., & Schiano, D. (1996). Gratuitous graphics? Putting 

preferences in perspective. Proceedings of CHI’96, 42-49.

Lewenstein, M., Edwards, G., Tatar, D., & Devigal, A. (2000). Where do users look 

first? Stanford Poynter Institute. Research excerpted in http://www.stanford.edu/dept/

news/report/news/may10/eyetrack-55.html.

Lewis, C. & Walker, P. (1989). Typographic influences on reading. Journal of 

Psychology, 80, 241-257.

Lewis, J.R. (1993). Problem discovery in usability studies: A model based on the 

binomial probability formula. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on 

Human-Computer Interaction, 666-671.

Lewis, J.R. (1994). Sample sizes for usability studies: Additional considerations. Human 

Factors, 36(2), 368-378.

Li, Q. & Henning R. (2003). Integrating usability into use cases: An empirical study 

of user-centered object orientation. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics 

Society 47th Annual Meeting, 759-763.

Lichty, T. (1989). Design Principles for Desktop Publishers. Glenview, Il: Scott, Foresman.

Lieberman, L.R. & Culpepper, J.T. (1965). Words versus objects: Comparison of free 

verbal recall. Psychological Reports, 17, 983-988.

Lightner, N.J. (2003). What users want in e-commerce design: Effects of age, 

education and income. Ergonomics, 46(1-3), 153-168.

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
Sources

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Lim, R.W. & Wogalter, M.S. (2000). The position of static and on-off banners in WWW 

displays on subsequent recognition. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual 

Meeting Proceedings, 1071-1813.

Lorch, R.F. & Chen, A.H. (1986). Effects of number signals on reading and recall. 

Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 263-270.

Lorch, R.F. Jr., & Lorch, E.P. (1995). Effects of organizational signals on text-processing 

strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(4), 537-544.

Lynch, P.J. & Horton, S. (2002). Web Style Guide (2nd Edition). New Haven, CO: Yale 

University Press. Retrieved November 2005, from http://www.webstyleguide.com/

index.html?/contents.html.

Macbeth, S.A., Moroney, W.F., & Biers, D.W. (2000). Development and evaluation 

of symbols and icons: A comparison of the production and focus group methods. 

Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress, 327-329.

MacGregor, J.N. (1987). Short-term memory capacity: Limitation or optimization? 

Psychological Review, 94(1), 107-108.

Mahajan, R. & Shneiderman, B. (1997). Visual and textual consistency checking tools 

for graphical user interfaces. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 23, 722-735.

Mahlke, S. (2002). Factors influencing the experience of Web site usage [Extended 

Abstracts]. Proceedings of CHI 2002, 846-847.

Marchionini, G. (1995). Information Seeking in Electronic Environments. New York: 

Cambridge University Press.

Marcus, A. (1992). Graphic Design for Electronic Documents and User Interfaces. Reading, 

MA: Addison-Wesley.

Marcus, A., Smilonich, N., & Thompson, L. (1995). The Cross-GUI Handbook. Reading, 

MA: Addison-Wesley.

Marshall, S., Drapeau, T., & DiSciullo, M. (2001, June). Case study: Eye tracking the 

AT&T customer service site. Proceedings of the IBM Make it Easy Conference.

Martin, G.L. & Corl, K.G. (1986). System response time effects on user productivity. 

Behaviour and Information Technology, 5(1), 3-13.

Mayer, R.E., Dyck, J.L., & Cook, L.K. (1984). Techniques that help readers build 

mental models from scientific text: Definitions, pretraining, and signaling. Journal of 

Educational Psychology, 76, 1089-1105.

Mayes, D.K., Sims, V.K., & Koonce, J.M. (2000). Cognitive aspects of reading 

information from video display terminals. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual 

Meeting Proceedings.

Mayhew, D. (1992). Principles and Guidelines in User Interface Design. Englewood Cliffs, 

NJ: Prentice-Hall.

McConkie, G. & Zola, D. (1982). Visual attention during eye fixations while reading. In 

M. Colheart (Ed.), Attention and Performance XII. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

McDonald, S. & Stevenson, R.J. (1998). Navigation in hyperspace: An evaluation 

of the effects of navigational tools and subject matter expertise on browsing and 

information retrieval in hypertext. Interacting with Computers, 10, 129-142.

230
Sources

231

McEneaney, J.E. (2001). Graphic and numerical methods to assess navigation in 

hypertext. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 55, 761-766.

McGee, M., Rich, A., & Dumas, J. (2004). Understanding the usability construct: 

User-perceived. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual 

Meeting.

McGrenere, J., Baecker, R. & Booth, K. (2002). An evaluation of a multiple interface 

design solution for bloated software. CHI letters, 4(1), 163-170.

McGrew, J. (2001). Shortening the human computer interface design cycle: A parallel 

design process based on the genetic algorithm. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 

Annual Meeting Proceedings, 603-606.

McKeen, J.D. & Guimaraes, T. (1997). Successful strategies for user participation in 

systems development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(2), 133-150.

Meyer, B.J.F. (1984). Text dimensions and cognitive processing. In H. Mandl, N.L. 

Stein & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and Comprehension of Text (pp. 3-51). Hillsdale, 

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Meyer, J. (1997). A new look at an old study on information display: Washburne 

(1927) reconsidered. Human Factors, 39(3), 333-340.

Meyer, J., Shamo, M., & Gopher, D. (1999). Information structure and the relative 

efficacy of tables and graphs. Human Factors, 41(4), 570.

Meyer, J., Shinar, D., & Leiser, D. (1990). Time estimation of computer ‘wait’ 

message displays. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings,

130.

Meyer, J., Shinar, D., & Leiser, D. (1997). Multiple factors that determine 

performance with tables and graphs. Human Factors, 39(2), 268-286.

Microsoft Corporation (1992). The Windows Interface: An Application Design Guide.

Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press.

Miller, C.S. & Remington, R.W. (2000). A computational model of web navigation: 

Exploring interactions between hierarchical depth and link ambiguity. Proceedings of 

the 6th Conference on Human Factors and the Web. Retrieved November 2005, from 

http://www.tri.sbc.com/hfweb/miller/article.html.

Miller, M.A. & Stimart, R.P. (1994). The user interface design process: The good, the 

bad and we did what we could in two weeks. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 

Annual Meeting Proceedings, 305-309.

Mills, J.A. & Caldwell, B.S. (1997). Simplified English for computer displays. 

Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (HCI 

International ‘97), 2, 133-136.

Mills, C.B. & Weldon, L.J. (1987). Reading Text from Computer Screens. ACM 

Computing Surveys, 19(4), December.

Mobrand, K.A. & Spyridakis, J.H. (2002). A web-based study of user performance 

with enhanced local navigational cues. Proceedings of the IEEE International Professional 

Communication Conference, 500-508.

Molich, R. (2005). Comparative usability evaluation (CUE). Retrieved November 

2005, from http://www.dialogdesign.dk/cue.html.

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
Sources

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Molich, R., Bevan, N., Curson, I., Butler, S., Kindlund, E., Miller, D., et al. (1998). 

Comparative evaluation of usability tests. Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Usability 

Professionals’ Association Conference.

Molich, R., Thomsen, A.D., Karyukina, B., Schmidt, L., Ede, M., Oel, W.V., et al. 

(1999). Comparative evaluation of usability tests. Proceedings of CHI’99, Extended 

Abstracts, 83-84.

Moray, N. & Butler, C. (2000). The effect of different styles of human-machine 

interaction on the nature of operator mental models. Human Factors and Ergonomics 

Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, 1-53-1-56.

Morkes, J. & Nielsen, J. (1997). Concise, SCANNABLE, and objective: How to 

write for the Web. Retrieved November 2005, from http://www.useit.com/papers/

webwriting/writing.html.

Morkes, J. & Nielsen, J. (1998). Applying writing guidelines to Web pages. Retrieved 

November 2005, from http://www.useit.com/papers/webwriting/rewriting.html.

Morrell, R.W., Dailey, S.R., Feldman, C., Mayhorn, C.B., & Echt, K.V. (2002, April). 

Older adults and information technology: A compendium of scientific research and 

web site accessibility guidelines. National Institute on Aging Report. Bethesda, MD.

Moskel, S., Erno, J., & Shneiderman, B. (1984, June). Proofreading and 

comprehension of text on screens and paper. University of Maryland Computer Science 

Technical Report.

Murch, G.M. (1985, June). Colour graphics: Blessing or ballyhoo? Computer Graphics 

Forum, 4(2), 127-135.

Murphy, E.D. & Mitchell, C.M. (1986). Cognitive attributes: Implications for display 

design in supervisory control systems. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 

25, 411-438.

Muter, P. (1996). Interface design and optimization of reading of continuous text. In 

H. van Oostendorp & S. de Mul (Eds), Cognitive Aspects of Electronic Text Processing. 

Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Muter, P. & Maurutto, P. (1991). Reading and skimming from computer screens and 

books: The paperless office revisited? Behaviour and Information Technology, 10(4), 

257-266.

Myers, B.A. (1985). The importance of percent-done progress indicators for 

computer-human interfaces. Proceedings of CHI’85, 11-17.

Nall, J., Koyani, S.J., & Lafond, C. (2001, January). Lessons learned while usability 

testing the CancerNet Web site. National Cancer Institute, Communication 

Technologies Branch Technical Report.

Narveson, R. (2001). Bulleted points and typographic cues: Effects on recall and 

recall order. Dissertation Abstracts, 62(3-A), 914.

Navai, M., Guo, X., Caird, J.K., & Dewar, R.E. (2001). Understanding of prescription 

medical labels as a function of age, culture, and language. Human Factors and 

Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, 1487-1491.

Navai, M., Guo, X., Caird, J.K., & Dewar, R.E. (2001). Understanding of prescription 

medical labels as a function of age, culture, and language. Human Factors and 

Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, 1487-1491.

232
Sources

233

Nelson, D.L., Reed, V.S., & Walling, J.R. (1976). Pictorial superiority effect. Journal of 

Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 2, 523-528.

Nielsen, J. & Landauer, T.K. (1993). A mathematical model of the finding of usability 

problems. Proceedings of INTERCHI’93, 206-213.

Nielsen, J. & Mack, R.L. (1994). Usability inspection methods. New York: John Wiley & 

Sons.

Nielsen, J. (1990, March). The art of navigating through hypertext. Communications 

of the ACM, 33(3), 296-310.

Nielsen, J. (1992, May). Finding usability problems through heuristic evaluation. 

Proceedings of CHI’92, 373-380.

Nielsen, J. (1993). Heuristic evaluation. In J. Nielsen & R.I. Mack (Eds.), Usability 

Inspection Methods.

Nielsen, J. (1996a, May). Top ten mistakes in Web design. Retrieved November 2005, 

from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605.html.

Nielsen, J. (1996b, October). Accessible design for users with disabilities. Retrieved 

November 2005, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9610.html.

Nielsen, J. (1997a, March). The need for speed. Retrieved November 2005, from 

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9703a.html.

Nielsen, J. (1997b, June). Top ten mistakes of Web management. Retrieved 

November 2005, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9706b.html.

Nielsen, J. (1997c, October). How users read on the Web. Retrieved November 2005, 

from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9710a.html.

Nielsen, J. (1997d, November). The tyranny of the page: Continued lack of decent 

navigation support in Version 4 browsers. Retrieved November 2005, from http://

www.useit.com/alertbox/9711a.html.

Nielsen, J. (1997e, December). Changes in Web usability since 1994. Retrieved 

November 2005, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9712a.html.

Nielsen, J. (1999a, April). Stuck with old browsers until 2003, April 18. Retrieved 

November 2005, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990418.html.

Nielsen, J. (1999b, May). ‘Top ten mistakes’ revisited three years later. Retrieved 

November 2005, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990502.html.

Nielsen, J. (1999c, May). The top ten new mistakes of Web design. Retrieved 

November 2005, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990530.html.

Nielsen, J. (1999d, October). Ten good deeds in Web design. Retrieved November 

2005, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/991003.html.

Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing Web Usability. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders.

Nielsen, J. (2001a, May). Search: Visible and simple. Retrieved November 2005, from 

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20010513.html.

Nielsen, J. (2001b, July). Tagline blues: What’s the site about? Retrieved November 

2005, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20010722.html.

Nielsen, J. (2003, November 10). The ten most violated homepage design guidelines. 

Alertbox. Retrieved November 2005, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20031110.

html.

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
Sources

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Nielsen, J. & Molich, R. (1990, April). Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. 

Proceedings of CHI’90, 249-256.

Nielsen, J., Molich, R., Snyder, C., & Farrell, S. (2000). E-commerce user experience: 

207 guidelines for e-commerce sites. Nielsen Norman Group Report.

Nielsen, J. & Tahir, M. (2002). Homepage Usability: 50 Sites Deconstructed. 

Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Publishing.

Niemela, M. & Saarinen, J. (2000). Visual search for grouped versus ungrouped icons 

in a computer interface. Human Factors, 42(4), 630-635.

Nolan, P. (1989). Designing screen icons: Ranking and matching studies. Human 

Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, 380-384.

Nordby, K., Raanaas, R. & Magnussen, S. (2002). Keying briefly presented multipledigit numbers. Behaviour and Information Technology, 21(1), 27-38.

Norman, K.L. & Murphy, E.D. (2004). Usability testing of an internet form for the 

2004 overseas enumeration test. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics 

Society.

Norman, M. (1993, December). What a task – Establishing user requirements! ACM 

SIGOIS Bulletin, 14(2), 23-26.

Nygren, E. & Allard, A. (1996). Between the clicks: Skilled users scanning of pages. 

Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Human Factors and the Web. Retrieved November 

2005, from http://www.microsoft.com/usability/webconf/nygren.rtf.

Ohnemus, K.R. & Biers, D.W. (1993). Retrospective versus concurrent thinking-out-loud 

in usability testing. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 37th Annual Meeting, 1127-

1131.

Omanson, R.C., Cline, J.A. & Nordhielm, C.L. (2001, May). Effects of visual 

consistency on the online brand experience. Presented at the 2001 Advertising and 

Consumer Psychology Conference.

Omanson, R.C., Cline, J.A., Kilpatrick, C.E. & Dunkerton, M.C. (1998). Dimensions 

affecting Web site identity. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 

Proceedings, 429-433.

Osborn, S. & Elliott, G. (2002). Standard creativity: Creating flexible web development 

standards. Proceedings of the IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, 

1-21.

Ovaska, S. & Raiha, K.J. (1995). Parallel design in the classroom. Proceedings of CHI’95, 264-

265.

Ozok, A.A. & Salvendy, G. (2000). Measuring consistency of web page design and its 

effects on performance and satisfaction. Ergonomics, 43(4), 443-460.

Ozok, A.A. & Salvendy, G. (2001). How consistent is your web design? Behaviour and 

Information Technology, 20(6), 433-447.

Page, C. & Rahimi, M. (1995). Concurrent and retrospective verbal protocols in 

usability testing: Is there value added in collecting both? Proceedings of the Human 

Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting, 223-227.

Pagulayan, R.J. & Stoffregen, T.A. (2000). Content versus graphics in the ecological 

design of interfaces. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, 

291.

234
Sources

235

Paivio, A. & Csapo, K. (1969). Concrete image and verbal memory codes. Journal of 

Experimental Psychology, 80, 279-285.

Paivio, A., Rogers, T.B., & Smythe, P.C. (1968). Why are pictures easier to recall than 

words? Psychonomic Science, 11, 137-138.

Palermo, D.S. & Bourne, L.E. (1978). Psychology of Language. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Palmquist, M. & Zimmerman, D.E. (1999). Writing with a Computer. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Park, I. & Hannafin, M.J. (1993). Empirically-based guidelines for the design of 

interactive multimedia. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(3), 63-85.

Parush, A., Nadir, R., & Shtub, A. (1998). Evaluating the layout of graphical user 

interface screens: Validation of a numerical computerized model. International Journal 

of Human-Computer Interaction, 10(4), 343-360.

Paterson, D.G. & Tinker, M.A. (1940a). How to Make Type Readable. New York: Harper.

Paterson, D.G. & Tinker, M.A. (1940b). Influence of line width on eye movements. 

Journal of Experimental Psychology, 27, 572-577.

Perfetti, C. & Landesman, L. (2001, June). Eight is not enough. Retrieved November 

2005, from http://www.uie.com/articles/eight_is_not_enough/.

Perfetti, C. (2001, January). The truth about download time. Retrieved November 

2005, from http://www.uie.com/articles/download_time/.

Pew, R.W. & Rollins, A.M. (1975). Dialog Specification Procedures (Report 3129, 

revised). Cambridge, MA: Bolt Beranek and Newman.

Piolat, A., Roussey, J.Y., & Thunin, O. (1998). Effects of screen presentation on text 

reading and revising. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 47, 565-589.

Plaisant, C., Marchionini, G., Bruns, T., Komlodi, A., & Campbell, L. (1997). 

Bringing treasures to the surface: Iterative design for the Library of Congress National 

Digital Library Program. Proceedings of CHI’97, 518-525.

Pollock, A. & Hockley, A. (1996). What’s wrong with Internet searching. Proceedings 

of the 2nd Conference on Human Factors and the Web. Retrieved November 2005, 

from http://www.microsoft.com/usability/webconf/pollock.rtf.

Polson, P.G. & Kieras, D.E. (1985). A quantitative model of the learning and 

performance of text editing knowledge. Proceedings of CHI’85, 207-212.

Polson, P.G., Bovair, S., & Kieras, D. (1987). Transfer between text editors: Predictive 

cognitive modeling. Proceedings of CHI+GI’87, 27-32.

Polson, P.G., Muncher, E., & Engelbeck, G. (1986). A test of a common elements 

theory of transfer. Proceedings of CHI’86, 78-83.

Porter, J. (2003). Testing the ‘three-click’ rule. User Interface Engineering Newsletter. 

Retrieved November 2005, from http://uie.com/articles/three_click_rule/.

Poulton, E.C. & Brown, C.H. (1968). Rate of comprehension of existing teleprinter 

output and possible alternatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 16-21.

Powers, R., Sarbaugh, L.E., Culbertson, H., & Flores, T. (1961). Comprehension of 

graphs (Bulletin 31). Madison: Department of Agricultural Journalism, University of 

Wisconsin.

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
Sources

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Raanaas, R., Nordby, K. & Magnussen, S. (2002). The expanding telephone 

number: Age variations in immediate memory. Behaviour and Information Technology, 

21(1), 39-45.

Rajani, R. & Rosenberg, D. (1999, January). Usable? ...Or not? ...Factors affecting the 

usability of Web sites. CMC Magazine. Retrieved November 2005, from http://www.

december.com/cmc/mag/1999/jan/rakros.html.

Ramey, J.A. (2000). Guidelines for Web data collection: Understanding and 

interacting with your users. Technical Communication, 47(3), 397-410.

Ramsay, J., Barbesi, A., & Preece, J. (1998). A psychological investigation of long 

retrieval times on the World Wide Web. Interacting with Computers, 10, 77-86.

Redish, J. & Dumas, J.S. (1993). A Practical Guide to Usability Testing. Norwood, NJ: 

Ablex.

Redish, J.C. (1993). Understanding readers. In C.M. Barnum & S. Carliner (Eds.), 

Techniques for Technical Communicators (pp. 14-41). NY: Prentice Hall.

Redish, J.C., Felker, D.B., & Rose, A.M. (1981). Evaluating the effects of document 

design principles. Information Design Journal, 236-243.

Reeves, B. & Rickenberg, R. (2000). The effects of animated characters on anxiety, 

task performance, and evaluations of user interfaces. Proceedings of CHI 2000, 49-56.

Rehe, R.F. (1979). Typography: How to Make It More Legible. Carmel, IN: Design 

Research International.

Rehman, A. (2000). Holiday 2000 e-commerce. Creative Good, Inc.

Resnick, M.L. & Fares, C. (2004). Visualizations to facilitate online tabular 

presentation of product data. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 

Annual Meeting.

Rich, A. & McGee, M. (2004). Expected usability magnitude estimation. Proceedings 

of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting.

Riegelsberger, J., Sasse, M.A. & McCarthy, J.D. (2003). Shiny happy people building 

trust? Photos on e-commerce Web sites and consumer trust. CHI Proceedings, 5(1), 

121-128.

Rigden, C. (1999). Safe Web colours for colour-deficient vision. British 

Telecommunications Engineering Journal; also retrieved November 2005 from http://

www.btplc.com/age_disability/ClearerInformation/Colours/othersites.htm.

Rodden, K., Basalaj, W., Sinclair, D., & Wood, K. (2001). Does organisation by 

similarity assist image browsing? Proceedings of CHI 2001, 190-197.

Rogers, L. & Chaparro, B. (2003). Breadcrumb navigation: Further investigation of 

usage. Usability News, 5.2. Retrieved November 2005, from http://psychology.wichita.

edu/surl/usabilitynews/52/breadcrumb.htm.

Rooden, M.J., Green, W.S., & Kanis, H. (1999). Difficulties in usage of a coffeemaker 

predicted on the basis of design models. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual 

Meeting Proceedings, 476-480.

Rosenfeld, L. & Morville, P. (2002). Information Architecture for the World Wide Web

(second edition). Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.

Rosenholtz, R., Li, Y., Mansfield, J. & Jin, Z. (2005). Feature congestion: a measure 

of display. CHI 2005 Proceedings.

236
Sources

237

Sano, D. (1996). Designing Large-scale Web Sites: A Visual Design Methodology.

New York: Wiley.

Sawyer, P. & Schroeder, W. (2000). Report 4: Links that give off scent. In Designing 

Information-Rich Web Sites. Bradford, MA: User Interface Engineering.

Scanlon, S. & Schroeder, W. (2000). Report 1: What people do with web sites. In 

Designing Information-Rich Web Sites. Bradford, MA: User Interface Engineering.

Scharff, L.F.V., Ahumada, A.J., & Hill, A.L. (1999). Discriminability measures for 

predicting readability. In B.E. Rogowitz & T.N. Pappas (Eds.) Human Vision and 

Electronic Imaging I, SPIE Proc., 3644, paper 27.

Schiano, D., Stone, M., & Bectarte, R. (2001). Search and the subjective web. 

Proceedings of CHI 2001, Extended Abstracts, 165-166.

Schneider, W. & Shiffrin, R.M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information 

processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1-66.

Schneider, W., Dumais, S.T., & Shiffrin, R.M. (1984). Automatic and control 

processing and attention. In Varieties of Attention (pp. 1-27). New York: Academic 

Press.

Scholtz, J. (1998). WebMetrics: A methodology for developing usable web sites. 

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, 1612.

Schramm, W. (1973). The nature of communications between humans. In W. 

Schramm & D. Roberts, The Process and Effects of Mass Communication. Urbana: 

University of Illinois Press.

Schriver, K.A. (1997). Dynamics in Document Design: Creating Text for Readers. New 

York: Wiley.

Schroeder, W. (1999). Steering users isn’t easy. Retrieved May 2003, from http://

developer.netscape.com/viewsource/schroeder_ui/schroeder_ui.html.

Schwarz, E., Beldie, I.P., & Pastoor, S. (1983). A comparison of paging and scrolling 

for changing screen contents by inexperienced users. Human Factors, 24, 279-282. 

Schroeder, W. (2003, April). Usability myths need reality checks. User Interface 

Engineering Newsletter. Retrieved November 2005, from http://www.uie.com/articles/

usability_myths/.

Schultz, L.D. & Spyridakis, J.H. (2002). The effect of heading frequency on 

comprehension of online information. Proceedings of the IEEE International Professional 

Communication Conference, 513-518.

Sears, A., Jacko, J., & Borella, M. (1997). Internet delay effects: How users perceive 

quality, organization and ease of use information. Proceedings of CHI’97, 353-354.

Sefelin, R., Tscheligi, M., & Giller, V. (2003). Paper prototyping - What is it good 

for? A comparison of paper- and computer-based low-fidelity prototyping. CHI 2003, 

778-779.

Selvidge, P. (2000). Before and After: How Can You Show Your New Web site is 

Better? Usability News, 2.2. Retrieved November 2005, from http://psychology.

wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/2S/compare.htm.

Selvidge, P.R., Chaparro, B.S., & Bender, G.T. (2001). The world wide wait: Effects of 

delays on user performance. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 29(1), 15-20.

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
Sources

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Shaikh, A.D. & Chaparro, B.S. (2004). A survey of online reading habits of internet 

users. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Sheridan, T.B. (1997). Supervisory control. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of Human 

Factors (2nd Edition) (pp. 1295-1327). New York: Wiley.

Shneiderman, B. (1984). Response time and display rate in human performance with 

computers. Computing Surveys, 16, 265-285.

Silvers, T.J., Voorheis, C.M., & Anders, S.H. (2004). Rapid prototyping with 

Microsoft PowerPoint: Page linking and animation. Proceedings of the Human Factors 

and Ergonomics Society.

Sinha, R., Hearst, M., Ivory, M., & Draisin, M. (2001). Content or graphics? An 

empirical analysis of criteria for award-winning Web sites. Proceedings of the 7th 

Conference on Human Factors and the Web. Retrieved November 2005, from http://

www.rashmisinha.com/articles/sinha_hfw01.html.

Smith, E.E. & Goodman, L. (1984). Understanding written instructions: The role of 

an explanatory schema. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 359-396.

Smith, J.A., Bubb-Lewis, C., & Suh, Y. (2000, June). Taking order status to task: 

Improving usability on the ibuy Lucent Web site. Proceedings of the 6th Conference on 

Human Factors and the Web. Retrieved November 2005.

Smith, S.L. (1962). Color coding and visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology,

64, 434-440.

Smith, S.L. (1963). Color coding and visual separability in information displays. 

Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 358-364.

Smith, S.L., Farquhar, B.B., & Thomas, D.W. (1965). Color coding in formatted 

displays. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 393-398.

Smith, S.L. & Mosier, J.N. (1986, August). Guidelines for designing user interface 

software. The MITRE Corporation Technical Report (ESD-TR-86-278).

Snyder, H.L., Decker, J.J., Lloyd, C.J.C., & Dye, C. (1990). Effect of image polarity on 

VDT task performance. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 1447-1451.

Sonderegger, P., Manning, H., Souza, R.K., Goldman, H., & Dalton, J.P. (1999, 

December). Why most B-to-B sites fail. Forester Research.

Spain, K. (1999). What’s the best way to wrap links? Usability News, 1.1. Retrieved 

November 2005, from http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/1w/Links.

htm.

Spencer, H., Reynolds, L., & Coe, B. (1977a). The effects of different kinds and 

intensities of background noise on the legibility of printed text and numerals. London: 

Readability of Print Research Unit, Royal College of Art. 

Spencer, H., Reynolds, L., & Coe, B. (1977b). The effects of image/background 

contrast and polarity on the legibility of printed materials. London: Readability of Print 

Research Unit, Royal College of Art.

Spencer, R. (2000). The streamlined cognitive walkthrough method, working around 

social constraints encountered in a software development company. Proceedings of CHI 

2000, 353-359.

Spinillo, C.G. & Dyson, M. (2000/2001). An exploratory study of reading procedural 

pictorial sequences. Information Design Journal, 10(2), 154-168.

238
Sources

239

Spink, A., Bateman, J., & Jansen, B.J. (1999). Searching the web: A survey of Excite 

users. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy,

Spool, J., Schroeder, W., & Ojakaar, E. (2001, November). Users don’t learn to 

search better. UIEtips. Retrieved November 2005, from http://www.uie.com/articles/

learn_to_search/.

Spool, J.M., Klee, M., & Schroeder, W. (2000). Report 3: Designing for scent, 

Designing Information-Rich Web Sites. Bradford, MA: User Interface Engineering.

Spool, J.M., Scanlon, T., Schroeder, W., Snyder, C., & DeAngelo, T. (1997). Web 

Site Usability: A Designer’s Guide. North Andover, MA: User Interface Engineering.

Spyridakis, J.H. (1989). Signaling effects: Increased content retention and new 

answers. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 19(4), 395-415.

Spyridakis, J.H. (2000). Guidelines for authoring comprehensible web pages and 

evaluating their success. Technical Communication, 47(3), 359-382.

Staggers, N. (1993). Impact of screen density on clinical nurses’ computer task 

performance and subjective screen satisfaction. International Journal of Man-Machine 

Studies, 39, 775-792.

Stanton, N.A. & Stevenage, S.V. (1998). Learning to predict human error: Issues of 

acceptability, reliability and validity. Ergonomics, 41(11), 1737-1747.

Stanton, N.A., Taylor, R.G., & Tweedie, L.A. (1992). Maps as navigational aids in 

hypertext environments: An empirical evaluation. Journal of Educational Multimedia 

and Hypermedia, 1, 431-444.

Steinbrück, U., Schaumburg, H., Duda, S. & Krüger, T. (2002). A picture says 

more than a thousand words: Photographs as trust builders in e-commerce Web sites 

[Extended abstracts]. CHI 2002, 748-749.

Stevens, K. (1980). The effect of topic interest on the reading comprehension of 

higher ability students. Journal of Educational Research, 73, 365-368.

Stewart, T. (1980). Communicating with dialogues. Ergonomics, 23, 909-919.

Sticht, T. (1985). Understanding readers and their uses of texts. In T. M. Duffy & R. 

Waller (Eds.), Designing Usable Texts (pp. 315-340). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Sullivan, P. & Flower, L. (1986). How do users read computer manuals? Some 

protocol contributions to writers’ knowledge. In B.T. Petersen (Ed.), Convergences: 

Transactions in Reading and Writing (pp. 163-178). Urbana, IL: National Council of 

Teachers of English.

Sullivan, T. & Matson, R. (2000, November). Barriers to use: Usability and content 

accessibility on the Web’s most popular sites. Proceedings of the Conference on 

Universal Usability, 139-144. Retrieved November 2005, from http://www.pantos.org/

ts/papers/BarriersToUse.pdf.

Sundar, S.S., Edgar, E., & Mayer, K. (2000, June). Multimedia effects on processing 

and perception of online news: A study of picture, audio and video downloads. 

Proceedings of the 50th Annual Conference of the International Communication 

Association (ICA).

Tan, W-S., Dahai, L., Liu, D., Muralidhar, A., & Meyer, J. (2001). Design 

improvements through user testing. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual 

Meeting Proceedings, 1181-1185.

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
Sources

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Thompson, K., Rozanski, E., & Rochester, H. (2004). Here, there, anywhere: Remote 

usability testing that works. SIGITE’04.

Thorell, L.G. & Smith, W.J. (1990). Using computer color effectively: An illustrated 

reference. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Tiller, W.E. & Green, P. (1999, June). Web navigation: How to make your Web site 

fast and usable. Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Human Factors and the Web.

Retrieved November 2005, from http://zing.ncsl.nist.gov/hfweb/proceedings/tillergreen/.

Tinker, M.A. (1955). Prolonged reading tasks in visual research. Journal of Applied 

Psychology, 39, 444-446.

Tinker, M.A. (1963). Legibility of print. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

Tinker, M.A. & Paterson, D.G. (1928). Influence of type form on speed of reading. 

Journal of Applied Psychology, 12, 359-368.

Tinker, M.A. & Paterson, D.G. (1929). Studies of typographical factors influencing 

speed of reading: Length of line. Journal of Applied Psychology, 13, 205-219.

Tinker, M.A. & Paterson, D.G. (1931). Studies of typographical factors influencing 

speed of reading: Variations in color of print and background. Journal of Applied 

Psychology, 15, 471-479.

Toms, E.G. (2000). Understanding and facilitating the browsing of electronic text. 

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 52, 423-452.

Tractinsky, N. (1997, March). Aesthetics and apparent usability: Empirically assessing 

cultural and methodological issues. Proceedings of CHI’97, 115-122. Retrieved November 

2005, from http://turing.acm.org/sigs/sigchi/chi97/proceedings/paper/nt.htm.

Treisman, A. (1982). Perceptual grouping and attention in visual search for features 

and for objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 8, 194-214.

Treisman, A. (1988). Features and objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental 

Psychology, 40(2), 201-237.

Treisman, A. (1990). Features and objects in visual processing. In I. Rock (Ed.), The 

perceptual world: Readings from Scientific American (pp. 97-110). New York: W.H. 

Freeman.

Trollip, S. & Sales, G. (1986). Readability of computer-generated fill-justified text. 

Human Factors, 28, 159-164.

Tufte, E.R. (1983). The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Cheshire, 

Connecticut: Graphics Press.

Tullis, T.S. (1981). An evaluation of alphanumeric, graphic and color information 

displays. Human Factors, 23, 541-550.

Tullis, T.S. (1983). The formatting of alphanumeric displays: A review and analysis. 

Human Factors, 25, 657-682.

Tullis, T.S. (1984). Predicting the usability of alphanumeric displays, Doctoral 

Dissertation, Houston, TX: Rice University.

Tullis, T.S. (1988). Screen design. In M. Helander (Ed.), Handbook of Human-Computer 

Interaction (pp. 377-411). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.

Tullis, T.S. (2001). Web usability lessons learned. Fidelity Center for Applied Technology 

Technical Report. Fidelity Investments.

240
Sources

241

Tullis, T.S., Boynton, J.L., & Hersh, H. (1995). Readability of fonts in the windows 

environment. Proceedings of CHI’95, 127-128.

Tullis, T.S., Fleischman, S., McNulty, M., Cianchette, C., & Bergel, M. (2002). An 

empirical comparison of lab and remote usability testing of Web sites. Proceedings of 

the Usability Professionals’ Association Annual Conference, 32.

Tullis, T.S. & Kodimer, M.L. (1992). A comparison of direct-manipulation, selection 

and data-entry techniques for reordering fields in a table. Human Factors and 

Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, 298-302.

Tullis, T.S. & Pons, A. (1997). Designating required vs. optional input fields [Extended 

Abstracts]. Proceedings of CHI’97, 259-260.

United States Government, Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (amended in 1998), 

Section 508. Retrieved November 2005, from http://www.section508.gov/.

Utting, K. & Yankelovich, N. (1989). Context and orientation hypermedia networks. 

ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 7, 57-84.

Van Den Haak, M.J., De Jong, M.D.T., & Schellens, P.J. (2003). Retrospective vs. 

concurrent think-aloud protocols: Testing the usability of an online library catalog. 

Behaviour and Information Technology, 22(5), 339-351.

Vartabedian, A.G. (1971). The effects of letter size, case and generation method on 

CRT display search time. Human Factors, 13(4), 363-368.

Vaughan, M.W. (1998). Testing the boundaries of two user-centered design 

principles: Metaphors and memory load. International Journal of Human-Computer 

Interaction, 10(3), 265-282.

Virzi, R.A. (1990). Streamlining the design process: Running fewer subjects. Human 

Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, 291-294.

Virzi, R.A. (1992). Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: How many subjects 

is enough? Human Factors, 34, 457-468.

Virzi, R.A., Sorce J.F., & Herbert, L.B. (1993). A comparison of three usability 

evaluation methods: Heuristic, think-aloud, and performance testing. Proceedings of 

the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 37th Annual Meeting, 309-313.

Vischeck. Accessed November 2005, from http://www.vischeck.com/.

Vora, P. (1998). Human factors methodology for designing Web sites. In C. Forsythe, 

E. Grose, & J. Ratner (Eds.), Human Factors and Web Development. Hillsdale, NJ: 

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Voss, J.F., Fincher-Kiefer, R.H., Greene, T.R., & Post, T.A. (1986). Individual 

differences in performance: The contrastive approach to knowledge. In R.J. Sternberg 

(Ed.), Advances in the Psychology of Human Intelligence (pp. 297-2450). Hillsdale, NJ: 

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Walker, B.N. & Stanley, R.M. (2004). Eye movement and reaction time are both 

important in assessment of dialog box usability. Proceedings of the Human Factors and 

Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting.

Walker, M., Takayama, L., & Landay, J.A. (2002). High-fidelity or low-fidelity, paper 

or computer? Choosing attributes when testing web prototypes. Proceedings of the 

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 46th Annual Meeting, 661-665.

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
Sources

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Wang, E. & Caldwell, B. (2002). An empirical study of usability testing: Heuristic 

evaluation vs. user testing. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 

46th Annual Meeting, 774-778.

Web Site Optimization, LLC (2003, May). May bandwidth report-US broadband 

penetration breaks 35%. Retrieved November 2005, from http://www.Web 

siteoptimization.com/bw/0305/.

Wen, C.Y. & Beaton, R.J. (1996). Subjective image quality evaluation of image 

compression techniques. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 

Proceedings, 2, 1188-1192.

Whissell, C. (1998). A parsimonious technique for the analysis of word-use patterns in 

English texts and transcripts. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 595-613.

Williams, T.R. (1993). Text or graphic: An information processing perspective 

on choosing the more effective medium. The Journal of Technical Writing and 

Communication, 33-52.

Williams, T.R. (1994). Schema theory. In C.H. Sides (Ed.), Technical Communications 

Frontiers: Essays in Theory (pp. 81-102). St. Paul, MN: Association of Teachers of 

Technical Writing.

Williams, T.R. (2000). Guidelines for designing and evaluating the display of 

information on the Web. Technical Communication, 47(3), 383-396.

Wilson, J.R. (2000). The place and value of mental models. Human Factors and 

Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, 1-49-1-52.

Wixon, D. & Jones, S. (1996). Usability for fun and profit: A case study of the design 

of DEC Rally Version 2. In M. Rudisell, C. Lewis, P. B. Polson, & T. D. McKay (Eds.), 

Human-Computer Interface Design: Success Stories, Emerging Methods, Real-World 

Context (pp. 3-35). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

Wolfmaier, T.G. (1999). Designing for the color-challenged: A challenge. 

Internetworking. Retrieved November 2005, from http://www.internettg.org/

newsletter/mar99/accessibility_color_challenged.html.

Woolrych, A. & Cockton, G. (2001). Why and when five test users aren’t enough. 

Retrieved November 2005, from http://www.cet.sunderland.ac.uk/~cs0gco/fiveusers.

doc.

World Wide Web Consortium (2001). Evaluating Web sites for accessibility. Retrieved 

November 2005, from http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/.

Wright, P. (1977). Presenting technical information: A survey of research findings. 

Instructional Science, 6, 93-134.

Wright, P. (1980). The comprehension of tabulated information: Some similarities 

between reading prose and reading tables. National Society for Performance and 

Instruction Journal, 19(8), 25-29.

Wright, P. (1987). Writing technical information. In E.Z. Rothkopf (Ed.), Review of 

Research in Education (pp. 327-385). Washington, DC: American Educational Research 

Association, 14.

Wright, R.B. & Converse, S.A. (1992). Method bias and concurrent verbal protocol 

in software usability testing. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual 

Meeting, 1285-1289.

242
Sources

243

Wu, J. & Yuan, Y. (2003) Improving searching and reading performance: the effect of 

highlighting and text color coding. Information and Management, 40, 617-637.

Youngman, M. & Scharff, L. (1998). Text width and margin width influences on 

readability of GUIs. Retrieved November 2005, from http://hubel.sfasu.edu/research/

textmargin.html.

Zaphiris, P. (2000). Depth vs. breadth in the arrangement of web links. Proceedings of 

the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress, 453-456.

Zellweger, P.T., Regli, S.H., Mackinlay, J.D., & Chang, B-W. (2000). The impact of 

fluid documents on reading and browsing: An observational study. Proceedings of CHI 

2000, 249-256.

Zhang, B-T. & Seo, Y-W. (2001). Personalized web-document filtering using 

reinforcement learning. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 15(7), 665-685.

Ziegler, J.E., Hoppe, H.U., & Fahnrich, K.P. (1986). Learning and transfer for text 

and graphics editing with a direct manipulation interface: Transfer of user skill 

between systems. Proceedings of CHI’86, 72-77.

Zimmerman, D.E. & Akerelrea, C.A. (2002). A group card sorting methodology for 

developing an informational Web site. Proceedings of the IEEE International Professional 

Communication Conference, 437-445.

Zimmerman, D.E. & Clark, D.G. (1987). The Random House Guide to Technical and 

Scientific Communication. New York: Random House.

Zimmerman, D.E. & Prickett, T. (2000). A usability case study: Prospective 

students use of a university web page. Proceedings of the 2000 Society for Technical 

Communication Annual Conference.

Zimmerman, D.E., Akerelrea, C.A., Buller, D.B., Hau, B., & LeBlanc, M. (2002). 

Integrating usability testing into the development of a 5-a-day nutrition Web site for 

at-risk populations in the American Southwest. Journal of Health Psychology. 

Zimmerman, D.E., Muraski, M., Palmquist, M., Estes, E., McClintoch, C., & Bilsing, L.

(1996). Examining World Wide Web designs: Lessons from pilot studies. Proceedings 

of the 2nd Conference on Human Factors and the Web. Retrieved November 2005, from 

http://www.microsoft.com/usability/webconf/zimmerman.htm.

Zimmerman, D.E., Slater, M., & Kendall, P. (2001). Risk communication and 

a usability case study: Implications for Web site design. Proceedings of the IEEE 

International Professional Communication Conference, 445-452.

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines
Author Index

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Author Index

Ackerman, M.S., 21, 23, 221

Adamson, P.J., 103, 215

Adkisson, H.P., 2, 103, 146, 215

Ahlstrom, V., 13, 15, 18, 27, 81, 102, 

123, 137, 138, 141, 162, 168, 173, 

176, 215

Ahmadi, M., 10, 147, 149, 156, 215, 

228

Ahumada, A.J., 101, 237

Akerelrea, C.A., 170, 243

Alfaro, L. 224

Allard, A., 47, 53, 105, 112, 114, 115, 

173, 178, 234

Allen, R.W., 194, 216

Allinson, L., 64, 215

Amento, B., 6, 37, 180, 215

Ames, M., 196, 219, 240

Anders, S.H., 193, 238

Anderson, J.R., 219, 223

Andre, A.D., 63, 194, 215, 228

Andre, T., 63, 194, 215

Asher, S.R., 2, 215

Ashworth, C.A., 57, 68, 215

Atwood, M.E., 196, 221

Ausubel, D.D., 51, 215

Baca, B., 5, 7, 215

Baddeley, A., 13, 19, 215

Badre, A.N., 2, 4, 41, 46, 64, 103, 147, 

150, 189, 215

Baecker, R., 117

Bailey, G.D., 189, 215

Bailey, R.W., vi, 5, 13, 19, 25, 35, 39, 

51, 53, 56, 60, 65, 73, 79, 80, 84, 86, 

87, 88, 89, 94, 107, 119, 121, 122, 

127, 128, 129, 130, 133, 134, 136, 

137, 138, 139, 140, 148, 156, 163, 

165, 166, 171, 180, 181, 183, 184, 

185, 189, 190, 193, 194, 197, 215, 

216, 228

Baker, R., 54, 217

Baldwin, R.S., 2, 216

Ball, L.J., 7, 216

Bandos, J., 110, 186, 216

Barber, R.E., 13, 216

Barbesi, A., 145, 236

Barki, H., 4, 216

Baroudi, J.J., 4, 216

Basalaj, W., 236

Bateman, J., 6, 184, 239

Bayles, M., 184, 217

Bayles, M.E., 147, 217

Beaton, R.J., 150, 173, 227, 242

Bectarte, R., 183, 237

Beldie, I.P, 66, 74, 237

Bender, G.T., 145, 237

Benson, P., 170, 217

Benway, J.P., 147, 217

Benyon, D., 5, 224

Bergel, M., 241

Bernard, M., 46, 52, 54, 55, 57, 72, 90, 

94, 106, 107, 114, 184, 217, 218, 220

Bevan, N., 232

Bhatti, N., 13, 16, 145, 218

Bieber, M., 61, 218

Biers, D.W., 7, 190, 194, 197, 220, 230, 

234

Billingsley, P.A., 68, 218

Bilsing, L., 243

Blackmon, M.H., 196, 218

Boies, S.J., 224

Booher, H.R., 144, 218

Booth, K., 117

Borella, M., 145, 237

Bosenick, T., 63, 227

Bouch, A., 13, 16, 145, 218

Bouma, H., 109, 165, 218

Bourne, L.E., 167, 235

Bovair, S., 11, 218, 235

Bowers, V.A., 190, 218

Boyarski, D., 106, 218

Boyntoin, R.M., 101, 143, 218

Boynton, J.L., 106, 107, 241

Bradley, R.F., 7, 189, 218

Brajnik, G., 195, 218

Bransford, J., 82, 112, 116, 218

Breland, K., 109, 164, 218

244
Author Index

245

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Breland, M.K., 109, 164, 218

Brinck, T., 2, 193, 218, 219

Broadbent, D.E., 13, 219

Brodbeck, F.C., 225

Brown, C.H., 109, 164, 235

Brown, J., 13, 219

Bruce, V., 101, 215, 219

Bruns, T., 235

Brush, A.J., 196, 219

Bryden, K., 228

Bubb-Lewis, C., 11, 238

Buller, D.B., 2, 5, 7, 170, 219, 243

Bush, W.R., 101, 143, 218

Butler, C., 12, 232

Butler, S., 12, 232

Byrne, M.D., 13, 46, 49, 74, 113, 171, 

219

Caird, J.K., 232

Cakir, A., 173, 219

Caldwell, B., 165, 194, 231, 242

Caldwell, B.S., 165, 194, 231, 242

Campbell, C.S., 17, 74, 105, 146, 219

Campbell, D.T., 195, 196, 219

Campbell, L., 235

Campbell, R., 189, 195, 227

Capra, M.G., 190, 219

Card, S.K., 67, 94, 96, 103, 141, 198, 

219

Carmel, E., 2, 227, 236

Carroll, J.M., 3, 113, 219

Carter, R., 178, 219

Casner, S.M., 15, 220

Cassidy, A., 5, 7, 215

Castillo, J.C., 225

Catani, M.B., 194, 197, 220

Celsi, R., 2, 220

Chang, B-W., 243

Changkit, M., 228

Chaparro, B., 70, 236

Chaparro, B.S., 16, 55, 95, 114, 145, 

220, 236, 237, 238

Chen, A.H., 118, 230

Chen, C., 146, 148, 175, 220

Chen, H., 6, 180, 183, 222

Chervak, S., 165, 220

Chi, E., 94, 96, 220

Chignell, M., 148, 154, 224

Chin, D.N., 193, 220

Chisholm, W., 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 82, 

220

Christ, R.E., 178, 220

Cianchette, C., 241

Clark, D.G., 165, 167, 243

Clark, H., 170, 220

Cline, J.A., 146, 234

Coble, J.M., 2, 221

Cockburn, A., 13, 103, 160, 221

Cockton, G., 191, 194, 197, 221, 242

Coe, B., 101, 143, 238

Cole, B.L., 101, 143, 221, 227

Coles, P., 109, 223

Coney, M.B., 4, 37, 38, 87, 118, 221

Connor, E., 189, 229

Converse, S.A., 190, 242

Cook, L.K., 51, 79, 230

Cooke, N.J., 112, 225

Cooper, A., 8, 221, 224

Corl, K.G., 145, 230

Couper, M.P., 109, 221

Couret, I., 228

Covi, L.M., 21, 23, 221

Crow, D.C., 219

Csapo, K., 154, 235

Culbertson, H., 235

Culpepper, J.T., 154, 229

Curry, M.B., 13, 221

Curson, I., 232

Cutrell, E., 6, 180, 183, 222

Czaja, S.J., 11, 125, 127, 132, 140, 159, 

221

Czerwinski, M., 87, 228

Dahai, L., 239

Dailey, S.R., 232

Dalton, J.P., 238

Davies, S.E., 223

Davis, J., 196, 219

DeAngelo, T., 239

de Bruijn, O., 13, 221

Decker, J.J., 238

De Jong, M.D.T., 190, 241
Author Index

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

DeLeo, P.J., 183, 226

Dennis, I., 7, 216

DeRouvray, C., 109, 221

Desurvire, H., 196, 221, 226

Detweiler, M.C., 3, 4, 11, 17, 20, 35, 

47, 49, 57, 59, 60, 68, 75, 82, 83, 90, 

91, 98, 112, 114, 116, 118, 143, 170, 

182, 221

Devigal, A., 229

Dewar, R.E., 232

Dias, P., 68, 221

DiSciullo, M., 47, 53, 77, 230

Dixon, P., 170, 221

Douglass, S., 219

Draisin, M., 238

Drake, D., 57, 90, 217

Drapeau, T., 47, 53, 77, 230

Drury, C.G, 165, 220

Duchnicky, R.L., 56, 221

Duda, S., 239

Dumais, S., 6, 180, 183, 222

Dumais, S.T., 103, 223, 237

Dumas, J., vi, 3, 193, 222, 231

Dumas, J.S., 189, 195, 197, 222, 236

Dunkerton, M.C., 234

Dyck, J.L., 51, 79, 230

Dye, C., 238

Dyson, M.C., 56, 146, 167, 222, 238

Eberhardt, J., 222

Eberts, R.E., 103, 222

Echt, K.V., 232

Ede, M., 232

Edgar, E., 146, 239

Edwards, G., 229

Egan, D.E., 183, 189, 222

Ehret, B.D., 46, 103, 222

Elgin, P.D., 68, 223

Elliott, G., 2, 103, 146, 234

Ellis, R.D., 107, 147, 222

Engel, S.E., iii, 81, 102, 112, 116, 117, 

126, 132, 164, 168, 172, 176, 178, 

222

Engelbeck, G., 235

Erno, J., 164, 232

Esperet, E., 51, 222

Estes, E., 243

Evans, J., 7, 216

Evans, M., 2, 13, 17, 18, 19, 25, 30, 31, 

33, 43, 47, 54, 56, 60, 62, 69, 77, 78, 

79, 87, 89, 92, 94, 96, 101, 105, 106, 

109, 112, 113, 123, 126, 144, 149, 

150, 153, 160, 162, 163, 165, 168, 

170, 171, 174, 177, 183, 222

Fahnrich, K.P., 11, 243

Fakun, D., 138, 222

Fang, N., 223

Fang, X., 187, 222

Faraday, P., 49, 105, 109, 113, 146, 

153, 173, 222, 223

Fares, C., 108, 110, 236

Farkas, D.K., 36, 39, 40, 43, 60, 61, 62, 

68, 69, 86, 87, 91, 94, 99, 145, 146, 

159, 170, 182, 223

Farkas, J.B., 36, 39, 40, 43, 60, 61, 62, 

68, 69, 86, 87, 91, 94, 99, 145, 146, 

170, 182, 223

Farquhar, B.B., 178, 238

Farrell, S., 234

Farris, J.S., 68, 223

Feldman, C., 232

Felker, D.B., 112, 167, 170, 236

Fernandez, M., 54, 217

Fiegel, T., 189, 196, 227

Fincher-Kiefer, R.H., 241

Findlater, M.L., 117, 223

Finn, R., 224

Fleischman, S., 241

Flores, T., 235

Flower, L., 79, 112, 167, 171, 223, 239

Fogg, B.J., 10, 223

Foley, J., 19, 132, 223

Foltz, P.W., 11, 223

Forlizzi, J., 218

Foster, J., 4, 109, 223

Fowler, S., 51, 119, 121, 122, 127, 128, 

133, 134, 137, 139, 140, 223

Francis, W.N., 161, 218, 228

Franz, C.R., 4, 223

Frese, M., 225

Fu, L., 194, 223

Furnas, G.W., 19, 161, 223

246
Author Index

247

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Galitz, W.O., 15, 27, 105, 107, 126, 

128, 134, 156, 175, 224

Gergle, D., 2, 219

Gerhardt-Powals, J., 12, 15, 18, 79, 80, 

173, 175, 176, 177, 224

Giller, V., 193, 237

Goff, R., 224

Goldman, H., 238

Goldsmith, E., 101, 224

Golovchinsky, G., 148, 154, 224

Gomez, L.M., 222, 223

Goodman, L., 116, 238

Goodwin, K., 8, 224

Gopher, D., 175, 231

Gould, J.D., 101, 140, 224

Graham, M., 5, 224

Grams, E.S., 61, 225

Granda, R.E., iii, 81, 102, 112, 116, 117, 

126, 132, 164, 168, 172, 176, 178, 

222

Gray, W.D., 193, 195, 221, 224

Green, P., 13, 170, 240

Green, P.R., 101, 219

Green, W.S., 194, 236

Greene, J.M., 167, 224

Greene, S.L., 140, 224

Greene, T.R., 241

Greenough, R.M., 138, 222

Grier, R.A., 104, 227

Grose, E., 5, 7, 224, 241

Grudin, J., 103, 224

Guimaraes, T., 4, 231

Guo, X., 232

Haas, S.W., 225

Hackler, T., 217

Hackman, R.B., 143, 144, 225

Halgren, S.L., 112, 225

Hall, L., 215, 216, 221, 230, 236, 240

Halverson, T., 46, 47, 50, 60, 225, 226

Hamilton, D.B., 57, 68, 215

Hammond, N., 64, 215

Hannafin, M.J., 146, 235

Hanson, R.H., 152, 225

Harley, K., 228

Harrison, S.M., 146, 225

Hart, D.J., 173, 219

Hartley, J., 79, 225

Hartson, H.R., 194, 196, 215, 225

Hartson, R., 194, 196, 215

Hartwick, J., 4, 216

Haselgrove, M., 56, 222

Hassenzahl, M., 196, 225

Hau, B., 243

Haubner, P., 178, 225

Haupt, B., 224

Haviland, S., 170, 220

Hayes, J.R., 79, 112, 167, 223

Head, A.J., 8, 225

Hearst, M., 238

Hearst, M.A., 40, 53, 79, 90, 107, 195, 

226

Heimendinger, J., 219

Heinbokel, T., 4, 225

Henning, R., 2, 229

Herbert, L.B., 194, 241

Herriot, P., 167, 225

Hersh, H., 106, 107, 241

Hertzum, M., 195, 197, 225, 226

Hess, R., 25, 225

Hill, A.L., 101, 237

Hill, W., 215

Hillstrom, A.P., 105, 225

Hindmarch, M., 221

Hirtle, S.C., 68, 228

Hix, D., 215

Hoc, J-M, 190, 226

Hochheiser, H., 67, 226

Hockley, A., 180, 184, 235

Hofer, E., 193, 218

Holleran, P.A., 195, 226

Hong, J.I., 189, 226

Hooke, L.R., 183, 226

Hoppe, H.U., 11, 243

Hornof, A.J., 46, 47, 50, 60, 225, 226

Horton, S., 3, 6, 13, 18, 20, 35, 40, 41, 

54, 57, 59, 60, 62, 72, 75, 82, 86, 

166, 170, 230

Horton, W., 160, 167, 226

Hull, S., 57, 70, 90, 94, 217, 226

Hvannberg, E.T., 194, 197, 229
Author Index

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Isakson, C.S., 113, 226

Ives, B., 4, 216, 226

Ivory, M., 238

Ivory, M.Y., vi, 40, 53, 79, 90, 107, 195, 

226

Jacko, J., 145, 237

Jacobs, I., 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 82, 220

Jacobsen, N.E., 195, 196, 197, 225, 226

Jansen, B.J., 6, 184, 239

Janzen, K., 217

Jean-Pierre, S., 224

Jeffries, R., 189, 196, 197, 222, 226, 

227

Jenkins, S.E., 101, 143, 221, 227

Jin, Z., 236

John, B.E., vi, 141, 191, 195, 196, 197, 

219, 226, 227

Johnk, L.D., 7, 189, 218

Johnsgard, T.J., 128, 134, 227

Johnson, M., 82, 112, 116, 218

Jones, K.S., 68, 223

Jones, S., 13, 103, 160, 191, 221, 242

Joseph, K.M., 104, 227

Ju, P., 215

Kahn, M.G., 2, 221

Kahn, M.J., 173, 227

Kalbach, J., 63, 227

Kandogan, E., 68, 227

Kanis, H., 194, 236

Kantowitz, B.H., 225

Karat, C-M., 189, 191, 196, 227

Karat, J., 2, 221

Karyukina, B., 232

Keil, M., 2, 227

Kelso, J., 225

Kendall, P., 59, 61, 243

Kennedy, A., 13, 227

Kennedy, J., 5, 224

Keyes, E., 170, 227, 228

Kieras, D.E., 11, 218, 223, 228, 235

Kilpatrick, C.E., 234

Kim, H., 68, 228

Kim, J., 47, 65, 173, 228

Kincaid, J.P., 165, 228

Kindlund, E., 232

Kingsburg, J.R., 63, 228

Kipping, G.J., 56, 222

Kitajima, M., 218

Klee, M., 53, 90, 239

Knott, B.A., 104, 227

Kodimer, M.L., 128, 140, 241

Kolers, P.A., 56, 221

Komlodi, A., 235

Kondziela, J., 196, 221

Koonce, J.M., 19, 230

Kosslyn, S.M., 57, 101, 152, 175, 228

Koyani, S.J., vi, 14, 19, 21, 36, 38, 39, 

40, 42, 43, 47, 53, 57, 60, 61, 64, 65, 

73, 77, 79, 80, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 

91, 93, 94, 97, 129, 130, 136, 138, 

146, 148, 160, 162, 163, 165, 166, 

171, 173, 174, 177, 180, 181, 183, 

184, 185, 215, 216, 228, 232

Krüger, T., 239

Krull, R., 154, 159, 167, 228

Kucera, H., 161, 228

Kuchinsky, A., 13, 16, 145, 218

Kujala, S., 4, 228

Kulikowich, J.M., 51, 229

Kurniawan, S.H., 107, 147, 222

Lafond, C., 21, 38, 40, 42, 43, 47, 61, 

77, 90, 97, 129, 146, 160, 162, 173, 

174, 177, 232

Landauer, T.K., 193, 194, 222, 223, 

228, 233

Landay, J.A., 193, 226, 241

Landesman, L., 77, 193, 228, 235

Laraki, O., 223

Larkin, J.H., 15, 220

Larsen, L., 52, 72, 217

Larson, K., 87, 102, 228, 229

Law, E. L.-C., 194, 197, 229

Lawless, K.A., 51, 229

LeBlanc, M., 243

LeCompte, D.C., 13, 229

LeDoux, L.C., 189, 229

Leech, G., 161, 229

Leiser, D., 16, 175, 231

Leplat, J., 190, 226

248
Author Index

249

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Levine, R., 2, 20, 25, 31, 35, 42, 61, 78, 

81, 88, 90, 96, 98, 99, 114, 116, 143, 

155, 174, 182, 229

Levy, E., 143, 154, 185, 229

Lewenstein, M., 49, 113, 229

Lewis, C., 105, 218, 229, 238

Lewis, E., 170, 228

Lewis, J.R., vii, 193, 229

Li, F.C., 226

Li, Q., 2, 229

Li, Y., 236

Liao, C., 106, 107, 217

Lichty, T., 109, 229

Lida, B., 217

Lieberman, L.R., 154, 229

Lightner, N.J., 10, 229

Lim, R,W., 98, 230

Lin, J., 226

Liu, D., 239

Lloyd, C.J.C., 238

Lochbaum, C.C., 222

Longo, K., 13, 15, 18, 27, 81, 102, 123, 

137, 138, 141, 162, 168, 173, 176, 

215

Lorch, E.P., 79, 230

Lorch, R.F., 79, 118, 230

Lucas, H.C., 13, 216

Lynch, P.J., 3, 6, 13, 18, 20, 35, 40, 41, 

54, 57, 59, 60, 62, 72, 75, 82, 86, 

166, 170, 230

Macbeth, S.A., 7, 230

MacGregor, J.N., 13, 230

Mack, R.L., 194, 227, 233

Mackinlay, J.D., 69, 243

Maglio, P.P., 17, 74, 105, 146, 219

Magnussen, S., 13, 234, 236

Mahajan, R., 49, 77, 123, 230

Mahlke, S., 37, 230

Manning, H., 238

Mansfield, J., 236

Marchionini, G., 62, 145, 146, 230, 235

Marcus, A., 51, 109, 119, 122, 128, 

133, 134, 137, 139, 140, 165, 230

Marks, S.J., 191, 227

Marshall, J., 223

Marshall, S., 47, 53, 77, 230

Martin, G.L., 145, 230

Mashyna, M.M., 196, 227

Matessa, M., 219

Matson, R., 25, 239

Maurutto, P., 101, 232

Mayer, 239

Mayer, K., 146, 239

Mayer, R.E., 51, 79, 230

Mayes, D.K., 19, 230

Mayhew, D., 5, 27, 102, 115, 131, 160, 

176, 227, 230

Mayhorn, C.B., 232

McCarthy, J.D., 157, 236

McClintoch, C., 243

McClintock, A., 2, 216

McConkie, G., 105, 230

McDonald, S., 68, 230

McDougall, S., 13, 221

McEneaney, J.E., 13, 68, 231

McGee, M., 3, 190, 231, 236

McGrenere, J., 117, 223, 231

McGrew, J., 7, 231

McKeen, J.D., 4, 231

McNulty, M., 241

Meluson, A., 224

Meyer, B.J.F., 79, 231

Meyer, J., 16, 175, 231, 239

Miller, C.S., 87, 231

Miller, D., 224, 232

Miller, J.R., 227

Miller, M.A., 5, 231

Mills, C.B., 164, 231

Mills, J.A., 165, 231

Mills, M., 106, 107, 217

Minnaert, G., 95, 220

Minuto, A., 224

Mitchell, C.M., 79, 232

Mobrand, K.A., 87, 88, 91, 94, 231

Molich, R., 195, 197, 222, 231, 232, 

234

Moran, T.P., 67, 103, 141, 219

Moray, N., 12, 232

Morkes, J., 39, 79, 80, 112, 159, 160, 

163, 166, 171, 176, 232

Moroney, W.F., 7, 230
Author Index

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Morrell, R.W., 21, 23, 30, 79, 99, 121, 

162, 232

Morrison, J., 219

Morville, P., 180, 236

Mosier, J.N., iii, 15, 16, 25, 56, 102, 

112, 115, 116, 117, 123, 124, 125, 

126, 130, 131, 132, 135, 137, 138, 

141, 151, 152, 159, 164, 167, 168, 

172, 176, 181, 238

Moskel, S., 164, 232

Muncher, E., 11, 235

Muralidhar, A., 239

Muraski, M., 243

Murch, G.M., 25, 178, 232

Murphy, E.D., 79, 189, 232, 234

Muter, P., 101, 232

Myers, B.A., 81, 232

Nadir, R., 51, 55, 103, 235

Nall, J., 19, 21, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 47, 

53, 60, 61, 65, 73, 77, 79, 80, 84, 86, 

87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 97, 129, 

136, 138, 146, 148, 160, 162, 163, 

165, 166, 171, 173, 174, 177, 183, 

184, 185, 216, 228, 232

Narveson, R., 118, 232

Navai, M., 15, 232

Neale, W.C., 225

Nelson, D.L., 154, 233

Neumann, F., 178, 225

Neuwirth, C., 218

Newell, A., 67, 103, 141, 219

Nielsen, J., 2, 10, 13, 17, 20, 24, 30, 33, 

35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 47, 49, 52, 

57, 60, 62, 68, 72, 74, 75, 78, 79, 80, 

86, 87, 90, 91, 92, 96, 97, 103, 112, 

113, 114, 145, 146, 148, 149, 150, 

155, 159, 160, 162, 163, 165, 166, 

170, 171, 174, 176, 180, 182, 184, 

193, 194, 195, 227, 232, 233, 234

Niemela, M., 60, 173, 234

Nolan, P., 156, 234

Nordby, K., 13, 234, 236

Nordhielm, C.L., 146, 234

Norman, K.L., 189, 234

Norman, M., 2, 234

Nygren, E., 47, 53, 105, 112, 114, 115, 

173, 178, 234

Oel, W.V., 232

Ohnemus, K.R., 190, 234

Ojakaar, E., 184, 239

Olson, J., 2, 220

Olson, M., 4, 226

Olson, M.H., 4, 216

Omanson, R.C., 3, 4, 11, 17, 20, 35, 

47, 49, 57, 59, 60, 68, 75, 82, 83, 90, 

91, 98, 112, 114, 116, 118, 143, 146, 

170, 182, 221, 234

Osborn, S., 2, 103, 146, 234

Osipovich, A., 223

Ouellette, J.P., 165, 220

Ovaska, S., 7, 234

Ozok, A.A., 103, 112, 234

Page, C., 190, 234

Page, S.R., vii, 227

Pagulayan, R.J., 151, 234

Paivio, A., 154, 235

Palermo, D.S., 167, 235

Palmquist, M., 165, 167, 235, 243

Park, I, 146, 235

Parush, A., 51, 55, 103, 235

Pastoor, S., 66, 74, 237

Paterson, D.G., 56, 109, 143, 144, 164, 

235, 240

Paul, J., 223, 242

Payne, D.G., 225

Peleg-Bruckner, Z., 2, 216

Perfetti, C., 145, 193, 235

Peterson, M., 218

Pew, R.W., 124, 130, 135, 141, 235

Phipps, C., 95, 220

Piolat, A., 66, 74, 235

Pirolli, P., 94, 96, 219, 220

Pitkow, J., 94, 96, 220

Plaisant, C., 21, 235

Pollock, A., 180, 184, 235

Polson, P.G., 11, 218, 223, 235, 242

Pons, A., 121, 241

Porter, J., 174, 235

Post, T.A., 241

Poulton, E.C., 109, 164, 235

250
Author Index

251

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Powers, R., 57, 151, 152, 176, 235

Preece, J., 145, 236

Prickett, T., 79, 99, 160, 177, 243

Raanaas, R., 13, 234, 236

Rahimi, M., 190, 234

Raiello, P., 194, 216

Raiha, K.J., 7, 234

Rajani, R., 2, 236

Ramey, J.A., vii, 2, 191, 195, 236

Ramsay, J., 145, 236

Rangnekar, A., 223

Rasamny, M., 224

Rayson, P., 161, 229

Redish, J., vii, 112, 116, 167, 170, 189, 

195, 236

Reed, V.S., 154, 233

Reeder, R., 219

Reeves, B., 146, 236

Regli, S.H., 69, 218, 243

Rehe, R.F., 56, 109, 165, 236

Rehman, A., 191, 236

Remde, J.R., 222

Remington, R.W., 87, 231

Resnick, M.L., 108, 110, 186, 216, 236

Reynolds, L., 101, 143, 238

Rich, A., 3, 190, 228, 231, 236, 237, 

239

Rickenberg, R., 146, 236

Riegelsberger, J., 157, 236

Rigden, C., 25, 236

Riley, S., 217

Rochester, H., 196, 240

Rodden, K., 154, 236

Rogers, 219

Rogers, E.M., 219

Rogers, L., 70, 236

Rogers, T.B., 154, 235

Rollins, A.M., 124, 130, 135, 141, 235

Rooden, M.J., 194, 236

Rose, A.M., 112, 167, 170, 236

Rosenberg, D., 2, 236

Rosenfeld, L., 180, 236

Rosenholtz, R., 45, 236

Roussey, J.Y., 66, 74, 235

Rozanski, E., 196, 240

Saarinen, J., 60, 173, 234

Salaun, J., 224

Sales, G., 51, 240

Salvendy, G., 103, 112, 187, 194, 222, 

223, 234, 238

Salzman, M.C., 193, 195, 224

Sano, D., 2, 237

Sarbaugh, L.E., 235

Sasse, M.A., 157, 236

Sawyer, P., 94, 96, 237

Scanlon, S., 19, 237

Scanlon, T., 239

Scharff, L., 56, 243

Scharff, L.F.V., 101, 237

Schaumburg, H., 239

Schellens, P.J., 190, 241

Schiano, D., 183, 229, 237

Schmidt, L., 232

Schneider, W., 103, 222, 237

Scholtz, J., vii, 195, 237

Schraedley, P., 219

Schramm, W., 160, 237

Schriver, K.A., 171, 237

Schroeder, W., 19, 53, 77, 90, 94, 96, 

145, 170, 184, 228, 237, 239

Schultz, L.D., 79, 237

Schwarz, E., 66, 74, 237

Sears, A., 7, 145, 237

Sefelin, R., 193, 237

Selvidge, P., 145, 195, 237

Selvidge, P.R., 237

Seo, Y-W., 18, 176, 243

Shaikh, A.D., 16, 238

Shamo, M., 175, 231

Sharit, J., 11, 125, 127, 132, 140, 159, 

221

Sheridan, T.B., 12, 238

Shiffrin, R.M., 103, 237

Shinar, D., 16, 175, 231

Shiveley, R.J., 225

Shneiderman, B., iii, xviii, 49, 67, 68, 

77, 123, 145, 164, 226, 227, 230, 

232, 238

Shon, J., 223

Shtub, A., 51, 55, 103, 235

Silvers, T.J., 193, 238
Author Index

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Sims, V.K., 19, 230

Sinclair, D., 236

Sinha, R., 2, 238

Sinha, R.R., 40, 53, 79, 90, 226

Slater, M., 59, 61, 243

Slater, M.D., 219

Slaughter, S.L., 183, 226

Smilonich, N., 51, 119, 122, 128, 133, 

134, 137, 139, 140, 230

Smith, 238

Smith, E.E., 116, 238

Smith, J.A., 11, 238

Smith, S.L., iii, 15, 16, 56, 102, 112, 

115, 116, 117, 123, 124, 125, 126, 

130, 131, 132, 135, 137, 138, 141, 

151, 152, 159, 164, 167, 168, 172, 

176, 178, 181, 238

Smith, W.J., 25, 240

Smythe, P.C., 154, 235

Snyder, C., 234, 239

Snyder, H.I., 190, 218, 238

Snyder, H.L., 101

Sonderegger, P., 11, 238

Sonnentag, S., 225

Sorce, J.F., 194, 241

Sousa, A.P., 68, 221

Souza, R.K., 238

Spain, K., 90, 238

Spencer, H., 101, 143, 238

Spencer, R., 196, 238

Spinillo, C.G., 146, 167, 238

Spink, A., 6, 184, 239

Spool, J., 3, 13, 35, 48, 53, 55, 57, 59, 

61, 62, 74, 75, 83, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 

94, 96, 97, 109, 144, 146, 149, 150, 

151, 171, 180, 181, 182, 184, 239

Spyridakis, J.H., 2, 13, 18, 19, 41, 47, 

49, 51, 61, 72, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 87, 

88, 91, 94, 112, 113, 114, 118, 160, 

161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 170, 

171, 172, 173, 174, 176, 183, 226, 

231, 237, 239

Staggers, N., 55, 239

Stanley, J.C., 195, 219

Stanley, R.M., 133, 195, 219, 241

Stanton, N.A., 68, 194, 239

Steehouder, M., 4, 37, 38, 87, 118, 221

Steinbrück, U., 157, 239

Stevenage, S.V., 194, 239

Stevens, K., 2, 239

Stevenson, R.J., 68, 230

Stewart, T., 172, 176, 239

Stewart, T.F.M, 173, 219

Sticht, T., 171, 239

Stimart, R.P., 5, 231

Stoffregen, T.A., 151, 234

Stolte, W., 225

Stone, M., 183, 237

Storrer, K., 218

Strain, K., 228

Suh, Y., 11, 238

Sullivan, P., 171, 239

Sullivan, T., 25, 239

Sundar, S.S., 146, 239

Sutcliffe, A., 105, 146, 153, 222

Swani, P., 223

Swarts, H., 79, 112, 167, 223

Sykes, D., 170, 228

Tahir, M., 2, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 47, 60, 

62, 72, 78, 87, 90, 92, 96, 97, 114, 

148, 149, 155, 162, 170, 174, 234

Takayama, L., 193, 241

Tan, K.C., 173, 227

Tan, W-S., 189, 239

Tatar, D., 229

Taylor, R.G., 68, 218, 239

Terveen, L., 215

Thomas, D.W., 178, 238

Thomas, M., 228

Thompson, K., 196, 240

Thompson, L., 51, 119, 122, 128, 133, 

134, 137, 139, 140, 230

Thomsen, A.D., 232

Thorell, L.G., 25, 240

Thunin, O., 66, 74, 235

Tiller, W.E., 13, 170, 240

Tinker, M.A., 56, 107, 109, 143, 144, 

164, 225, 235, 240

Toms, E.G., 171, 240

Tractinsky, N., 5, 240

Treinen, M., 223

252
Author Index

253

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Treisman, A., 101, 105, 114, 240

Trollip, S., 51, 240

Trueman, M., 79, 225

Tscheligi, M., 193, 237

Tufte, E.R., 102, 151, 175, 240

Tullis, T., 189, 229

Tullis, T.S., 18, 25, 35, 40, 48, 55, 56, 

59, 68, 86, 92, 103, 106, 107, 115, 

121, 128, 140, 145, 152, 160, 162, 

172, 176, 196, 240, 241

Turley, L., 194, 223

Tversky, B., 229

Tweedie, L.A., 68, 239

Utting, K., 68, 241

Uyeda, K.M., 227

Van Den Haak, M.J., 190, 241

Vanderheiden, G., 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 

82, 220

Van Der Wege, M., 219

Varma, C., 223

Vartabedian, A.G., 109, 164, 241

Vaughan, M.W., 144, 241

Virzi, R.A., 193, 194, 241

Voorheis, C.M., 193, 238

Vora, P., 2, 241

Vosburgh, A.M., 224

Voss, J.F., 51, 241

Walker, B.N., 133, 241

Walker, M., 193, 241

Walker, P., 105, 229

Wallace, F.L., 103, 215

Wallace, V., 19, 132, 223

Walling, J.R., 154, 233

Wang, E., 194, 242

Watson, B., 154, 159, 167, 228

Wehrle, N.S., 219

Weldon, L.J., 164, 231

Wen, C.Y., 150, 242

Wharton, C., 227

Whissell, C., 161, 242

Wigginton, S., vii

Wilkes, A., 13, 219, 227

Williams, T.R., 48, 51, 61, 72, 78, 80, 

101, 105, 106, 109, 144, 150, 154, 

177, 191, 242

Williges, R., 194, 215

Wilson, A., 161, 229

Wilson, J.R., 3, 242

Wilson, R.D., 227

Wixon, D., 191, 242

Wogalter, M.S., 98, 230

Wolfmaier, T.G., 25, 242

Wolfson, C., vii, 127, 189, 216

Wood, K., 236

Wood, L., vii

Wood, S.D., 2, 219

Woodall, W.G., 219

Woolrych, A., 191, 194, 197, 221, 242

Wright, P., 242

Wright, R.B., 190, 242

Wu, J., 108, 243

Yankelovich, N., 68, 241

Yantis, S., 105, 225

Yoo, B., 47, 173, 228

Youngman, M., 56, 243

Yu, Y., 146, 148, 175, 220

Yuan, Y., 108, 243

Zacks, J., 229

Zaphiris, P., 66

Zaphiris, P., 243

Zellweger, P.T., 69, 243

Zeno, R.J., 227

Zhang, B.-T., 18, 176

Zhang, B.-T., 243

Ziegler, J.E., 11

Ziegler, J.E., 243

Zimmerman, D.E., vii, 2, 5, 7, 59, 61, 

77, 79, 91, 99, 125, 136, 160, 165, 

167, 170, 171, 174, 177, 219, 235, 

243

Zola, D., 105, 230
Index

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

Index

A

abbreviation, 162, 163, 203,

above the fold, 34, 41, 52, 198, 200,

to attract attention, 41,

access

to content or information, 23, 

58, 177,

to search, 179,

accessibility, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 107, 

195,

assistive technology and, 23, 26,

automatic evaluation tools and, 193,

Section 508, 22, 23, 202,

accuracy

of data entry, 120,

of headings, 82,

of scanning, 115,

of selecting links, 201,

acronym, 158, 162, 164,

use of on Web sites, 162,

action

control, 59,

of pushbuttons, 122, 133, 202,

of users, 39,

possible from a homepage, 40,

activate

radio buttons, 128,

the default action, 133,

the pushbutton, 202,

using a keyboard, 26,

active portion of the screen, 62,

active voice, 167, 198, 201,

activities performed by users, 12, 

203,

advertisements, 142, 147,

aid, 201,

navigation, 24, 131,

 or usability specialists, xvi, xvii, 

xx, 8, 192, 193, 197,

alignment

of page elements, 51,

alphabetical

 as an organizational method for 

lists, 112, 113,

alt text, 25, 27, 144,

anchor link, 61, 198, 204,

animation, 146, 153,

 as an attention-attracting feature, 

100, 105,

multimedia, 27,

text equivalents for, 25,

annotation

of graphics, 151,

applet, 203,

accessibility, 22,

Java, 198, 203,

arrows

 as clickability cues, 73, 89, 93, 

199,

assistive technology, 23, 24, 26, 27, 

28, 83, 198,

asterisk, 121, 124,

attention

 attracting, 41, 49, 73, 81, 89, 

100, 104, 105, 109, 146, 150, 

164, 198,

user, 81, 89, 105, 141, 146, 152,

audience

for the Guidelines, xv,

multiple, 169, 177,

audio, 25, 142, 146, 201,

accessibility issues and, 25,

auto-tab, 198,

automatic

cursor placement, 138, 198,

error detection, 120, 131,

evaluation, 195,

tabbing, 120, 141, 198,

time-out, 14, 203,

usability evaluation, 195,

B

Back button, 57, 59, 67,

254
Index

255

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

background, 31, 53, 101, 103, 143, 

173,

 and methodology for the 

Guidelines, xx,

color, 53, 101, 114, 173,

image, 143,

banner ad, 147, 198, 200,

bar

address, 198,

browser, 198, 201,

navigation, 19,

scroll, 53, 54, 72, 73, 148, 202,

title, 78, 103, 201,

bar graph, 151, 175,

before and after, 190,

benefit

 for audiences of the Guidelines, 

xv,

of text links, 91, 96,

bold, 53, 73, 81, 104, 105, 109, 

124, 164,

bookmark, 78,

boolean, 184,

brainstorming, 7,

breadcrumbs, 19, 62, 70, 198, 201,

browser, 28, 31, 59,

common, 30, 201, 202,

settings, 31, 96, 107,

bullets

clickability, 89, 93, 118, 199,

lists, 25, 115, 118,

button

Back, 57, 59, 67,

 radio, 23, 51, 119, 128, 129, 

140, 202, 204,

bytes, 13, 142, 145,

C

“click here”, 86,

capitalization, 102, 164, 203,

caption, 27, 105,

card sorting, xxi, 198,

cascading menu, 95, 199,

case

sensitive, 123,

 upper-, 102, 123, 141, 158, 164, 

179, 181,

 upper- and lower-, 102, 123, 

158, 164, 179, 181,

center

 of the Web page, 44, 47, 53, 89, 

93, 166, 171, 198,

characters

limit for in text field, 127,

per line, 56,

spacing, 103,

 which require the use of the Shift 

key, 120, 141,

check box, 51, 119, 128, 134, 199,

clickability cue, 60, 61, 65, 89, 91, 

93, 154, 199,

clicks

double, 138,

reducing user, 129, 174,

client-side, 27, 199, 203,

clutter, 45,

code

color, 62, 108, 178,

HTML, 6,

user-entered, 123,

ZIP, 131,

cognitive walkthrough, 187, 194, 

195, 196,

color, 5, 24, 53, 62, 89, 110, 121, 

173, 178, 199,

accessibility issues and, 24,

background, 53, 103, 114, 173,

for grouping, 114, 178,

 of links, 19, 62, 89, 91, 92, 93, 

199,

to gain attention, 109,

column

alignment, 51,

headings, 76, 82,

width, 56,

computer

 capabilities/strengths, 12, 125, 

152,
Index

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

computer, (cont.)

error detection by, 152,

 human-computer interaction, xx, 

9,

 speed/processing time, 5, 16, 

145,

connection speed, 17, 29, 33, 142, 

199,

consistency

of alignment, 51,

of clickability cues, 85,

of formatting, 102,

 of important items, 44, 47, 111, 

113,

of labels, 123,

of link names and targets, 85, 88,

of titles, 78,

physical, 201,

visual, 100, 103,

content, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 26, 

43, 44, 47, 54, 55, 80, 87, 90, 143, 

146, 148, 150, 153, 158, 159, 160, 

162, 169, 171, 177, 182, 183, 186, 

192, 199,

accessing important, 90,

length of pages for, 54, 75,

meta-, 6,

organization, 169, 176, 178,

 writing Web content, 158, 163, 

166, 167, 168,

content page, 162, 171, 199,

 structuring to facilitate scanning, 

169, 171,

contents

 clickable list of page contents, 

58, 61,

 table of, 44, 68. See also Anchor 

link and Within-page links,

contrast

 high-contrast backgrounds, 100, 

101,

lightness, 24,

control, See also widgets,

of animation, 153,

of link wrapping, 96,

of page layout, 27,

screen-based, 120, 121,

credibility, 10,

crowding or clutter, 50,

cue

 clickability, 60, 61, 65, 85, 89, 

93, 98, 154, 199,

D

data

comparison of, 13, 48,

critical, highlighting of, 81,

 display of, 15, 50, 115, 124, 131, 

137,

formatting, 15,

re-entry of, 125,

tables of, 82, 172,

user-entered codes and, 123,

data entry, 121, 124, 125, 126, 132, 

138,

accuracy of, 120,

 fields, labels for, 121, 123, 124, 

126, 140,

 indicating required vs. optional 

fields, 121,

reducing errors during, 125,

speed of, 132, 137, 140, 141,

 user, 125, 127, 131, 132, 138, 

140,

 errors with, 125, 130, 131, 

135, 140,

 minimize, 125,

dead-end pages, 59,

default

action, 133,

browser, 31,

link colors, 19, 92,

selection, radio buttons, 128,

value, 137,

delay

user tolerance for, 74, 145,

density

display, 50, 55, 199,

256
Index

257

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

density, (cont.)

page/screen, 55, 199,

design

iterative, 1, 189,

parallel, 1, 7,

destination page, 58, 62, 64, 88, 

199,

matching link names with, 88,

disabilities

 number of people with, 23, 28, 

See also Accessibility, Assistive 

technology, and Section 508,

document

lengthy, 20, 75,

double-click, 138,

download

convenience related to, 54,

time for, 13, 17, 91, 143,

drop-down, 139,

E

entry field, 120, 121, 124, 126, 127, 

131, 135, 138, 179, 184, 198, 199,

 labels for, 121, 123, 124, 126, 

135,

required vs. optional, 121,

errors

automatic detection of, 120, 131,

 increasing the possibility of, 125, 

140,

 reducing the number of, 64, 95, 

103, 130, 131, 135, 139,

evaluation

automatic, 195,

 heuristic, 188, 194, 195, 197, 

200,

of Web site designs, 190,

evaluator effect, 195,

evidence

 strength of, iv, xvi, xvii, xviii, xix, 

xx, xxi, xxii,

expert evaluation, 200. See 

also heuristic evaluation,

expert opinion, xix, xxii,

expert review, 188, 195, 197. See 

also heuristic evaluation,

eye-tracking, 47,

F

feature

attention attracting, 100,

feedback

 providing to orient users, 58, 62, 

88,

providing while users wait, 16,

field

 data entry, indicating required, 

121,

 data entry, labeling, 120, 124, 

126,

data entry, partitioning, 131,

 data entry, placing cursor in, 

138,

fluid layout, 52,

fold, 200,

above the, 41, 52, 198, 200,

below the, 41, 54, 148, 200,

impact on homepage design, 41,

limit large images above, 148,

font

attracting attention with, 105,

 emphasizing importance with, 

109,

sans serif, 106, 109,

serif, 106,

 size and reading speed, 102, 

107,

 style and reading speed, 104, 

106,

form(s)

assistive technologies and, 23,

 designing entry fields for, 63, 

123, 124, 126, 131,

displaying default values in, 137,

 making user friendly, 125, 130, 

132, 138, 140, 141, 161,

 widgets and, 122, 128, 129, 133, 

134, 136, 139, 140,
Index

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

form(s), (cont.)

 working memory limitations and, 

13,

frame(s), 200,

accessibility issues and, 25, 28,

appropriate use of, 67, 146,

title, 28,

frequency, 191,

G

gloss, 200,

assisting navigation with, 69,

graphics, decorative, 5, 105, 147, 

149, 150,

H

heading, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 

84, 200,

impact on scrolling, 53, 73, 172,

introducing lists with, 116,

placing on the page, 60,

providing feedback with, 53,

help, user, 92, 97, 124, 153, 171,

heuristic evaluation, 188, 194, 195, 

200,

hierarchy

 information, placement of critical 

items in, 49,

 information, showing with site 

maps, 68,

 information, use of html headers 

and, 76, 83,

high-contrast backgrounds, reading 

performance and, 101,

high speed access, percent of users 

with, 33,

hits, 187. See also search engine/

function,

homepage

 announce changes to Web site 

on, 42,

characteristics of, 40,

 communicating Web site purpose 

on, 38,

conveying quality with, 37,

 enabling access to from all other 

pages, 35,

length of, 41, 54,

panels, 43,

presenting options on, 36,

prose text on, 39,

horizontal scrolling, 72,

hourglass, use of to indicate waiting 

times, 16,

HTML order, headings and, 83,

I

IBM, 35, 41, 62,

IEEE, 86,

image, 198, 202,

accessibility issues and, 25,

appropriate use of, 150,

attracting attention with, 105,

background, 101, 143,

conveying messages with, 149,

decorative, 5, 93, 105, 147, 150,

facilitating learning with, 156,

full-size, 155,

labeling of, 144,

link, 91, 144, 154,

thumbnail, 155, 203,

image map, 200,

accessibility issues and, 25,

clarifying clickable regions of, 98,

important items, placement of, 47, 

113,

index link, 200,

information

 facilitating user performance of, 

15, 126, 170, 171, 172, 173, 

175, 176, 177, 178,

hierarchy, html headings and, 83,

quantitative, format of, 175,

supportive, 99,

information-based Web site, xix,

instructions, writing of, 167,

258
Index

259

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

italics

attracting attention with, 105,

emphasizing text with, 109,

iterative design process, 1, 189,

J

jargon

avoiding the use of, 160,

 providing links to explain or 

define, 99,

Jupitermedia Corporation, 30, 32, 

33, 229,

K

keyboard, entry speed and, 132,

keyword, 6, 183, 200,

L

label

category, 77, 126,

data entry field, 123, 124, 135,

link, 35, 77, 86,

list, formatting of, 114,

tab, 64,

widget, 122, 134, 140,

laboratory, testing in, 196,

layout

 page, horizontal scrolling and, 

72,

 page, importance to finding 

information, 49,

 page, structuring for data 

comparison, 48,

learning, using images to facilitate, 

156,

left navigation, 88. See also left 

panel,

left panel, 43, 44, 63, 67, 90, 166, 

180,

letter

case of, use in codes, 123,

case of, use in mixed prose, 164,

case of, use in search terms, 181,

first, capitalization of in lists, 119,

 uppercase, attracting attention 

with, 105,

Limit Homepage Length, 41,

line length, reading speed and, 56,

link

anchor, use of on long pages, 61,

blue, 89, 92, 93,

clickability cues for, 93,

embedded text, designing, 94,

 importance in site being found 

by search engines, 6,

index, definition of, 200,

 internal vs. external, indicating, 

97,

 missing, detection by automated 

evaluation methods, 195,

 navigation, assistive technology 

skipping of, 24,

 navigation, effects of prose text 

on, 39,

 placement denoting importance, 

49,

 placement on the homepage, 36, 

40,

repeating, 90,

 to complete printable/

downloadable documents, 20,

to homepage, labeling of, 35,

to information for new users, 3,

to related content, 87,

to supporting information, 99,

used, color for, 92,

visual characteristics of, 89,

link, image

cautions emulate on use, 91,

importance of labels with, 144,

real-world objects, 154,

link label

make specific and descriptive, 77,

text, appropriate length of, 96,

use the user’s term in, 86,

link text

 matching to destination page 

heading, 62, 88,
Index

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

link text, (cont.)

reasons for use, 91,

 redundant use with image maps, 

27,

liquid design, 52. See also fluid 

layout,

list

 alignment of elements to 

maximize performance, 51,

bulleted, when to use, 118,

 drop-down, performance 

compared to radio buttons, 140,

 drop-down, use compared to 

open list, 139,

format, capitalization, 119,

format, ease scanning, 114,

 format, place important items at 

top, 113,

headings, use of, 117,

 horizontal, cautions for using, 

115,

numbered, when to use, 118,

 order to facilitate user 

performance, 112,

placement for differentiation, 60,

 pull-down, use compared to 

open list, 139,

vertical, displaying items in, 115,

list box

 entry speed compared to data 

entry box, 140,

showing options in, 136,

list of contents, use of on long 

pages, 61,

logo

placing on each page, 146,

use as link to homepage, 35,

lowercase

use in prose text, 164,

use in search terms, 181,

 use in user-entered codes, 123, 

141,

M

masthead, use of to designate 

homepage, 40,

mental representation, effects of 

paging on user’s ability to create, 68,

menu

 cascading, selection of items 

from, 95, 199,

 formatting to provide user 

feedback, 62,

sequential, when to use, 67,

 simultaneous, use of frames with, 

57, 67,

minesweeping

 using to determine clickability, 

91, 93,

mixed case, use in prose text, 164,

monitor

 flicker frequency and accessibility, 

28,

 reading from and multitasking, 

19,

monitor/screen resolution, 33, 52, 

96, 200, 202,

horizontal scrolling and, 72,

impacts on design, 33,

impacts on font size, 107,

mouseover

accessibility issues with, 26,

 compared to ‘pointing and 

clicking’, 95,

multimedia

appropriate use of, 146,

 introductory explanations of, 

153,

 synchronize equivalent 

alternatives to ensure 

accessibility, 27,

multiple audience, 177,

N

navigation

dead-end pages and, 59,

260
Index

261

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

navigation, (cont.)

glosses and, 69,

 importance of in meeting user 

expectations, 3,

navigation elements

 differentiation and grouping of, 

60, 173,

placement of, 47, 60, 66, 91,

navigation links

 allowing assistive technologies to 

skip, 24,

 placement in frames and 

accessibility issues, 28, 166,

navigation pages

design of, 47, 54, 158, 166,

scrolling and, 54, 66,

navigation schemes, use and 

benefits of, 60,

navigation tab

formatting of, 65, 154,

placement of, 46, 53,

numbers

 partitioning of for data entry, 

131,

O

open list, 128, 136, 139, 201,

 performance compared to radio 

buttons, 128,

showing options in, 136,

 use compared to drop-down/

pull-down list, 139,

operating systems, designing for 

different, 32,

options

presenting on the homepage, 36,

reducing number of, 84,

P

page

length, appropriate, 54,

loading and byte size, 13, 145,

loading and scrolling, 74,

navigation, 47, 66, 166,

 scrolling and reading 

comprehension, 74,

text-only and accessibility, 26,

titles, 78,

 titles and role in being found by 

search engines, 6,

page layout

 designing for data comparison, 

48,

horizontal scrolling and, 72,

level of importance and, 49,

 placement of important items, 

47,

paging,

and reading comprehension, 74,

versus scrolling, 74,

panel

location of links in, 60, 93,

use with frames, 67,

width on the homepage, 43,

participants, number for usability 

testing, 192,

partitioning, long data items, 131,

passive voice, 167, 201,

path, 62, 201,

pencil and paper prototype, 193. See 

also prototype,

people with disabilities. See 

also Accessibility, Assistive technology 

and Section 508,

performance

benchmarks, 189,

goal/objective, 7, 201,

personas, 8,

photograph, 157. See also image,

picture

alt text and, 25,

facilitating learning and, 156,

pixel

dimension tags, 145,

 number, and impact on page 

design, 33,
Index

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

pixel, (cont.)

 size, and impact on font size, 

107,

plug-in, 201, 203,

accessibility and, 26,

point-and-click, 95, 201,

pop-up window, 200, 201,

glosses, and, 69,

user performance, and, 10,

preference

objectives, 201,

 user, and design considerations, 

5,

user, and font type, 106,

presentation, 202,

multimedia, accessibility and, 27,

primary navigation, 46, 63,

printing, 9, 16, 18, 20, 54, 57,

prose text, 199, 202,

emphasizing importance of, 109,

formatting of, 101,

impact of scanning on, 166,

 limiting on navigation pages, 

166,

limiting on the homepage, 39,

mixed case and, 164,

readability of, 165,

 scanning and embedded text link 

lengths, 96,

scanning issues and, 171,

scrolling issues and, 73,

prototype, 193, 203,

prototype, use in the design process, 

189, 203,

pushbutton, 202,

design of, 103, 122, 154,

prioritization, 133,

Q

quantitative content, 175,

R

radio button, 202, 204,

appropriate use of, 128,

assistive technologies and, 23,

capitalization of labels, 119,

 reading comprehension, impacts 

on, 74, 165,

reading performance

font size and, 107,

multitasking and, 19,

 performance and page layout, 

101, 107,

reading speed

font type and, 106,

 impact of font line characteristics 

on, 109,

impacts of line length on, 56,

impacts of multitasking on, 19,

redesign, announce changes before, 

42,

related content, linking to, 87,

related information, grouping to 

enhance user performance, 173,

relative importance, xv, xvi, xvii, 

xviii, xix, xx, xxi,

remote testing, 187, 196,

requirements

 user, and tailoring online display 

of information, 172,

 user, establishing and 

understanding, 4,

research-based evidence, xix, xxii,

resolution

design considerations and, 33,

horizontal scrolling and, 72,

impact on font size, 107,

 screen, impact on homepage, 

52,

retrospective approach, 190,

reveals, use of to attract attention, 

105, 202,

review, expert, 194, 195, 197,

right navigation, 190. See also right 

panel,

right panel, 11, 60, 63, 67, 93,

262
Index

263

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

row

alignment of, 51,

headers and headings, 82, 172,

S

scanning, 202,

accuracy, 115,

facilitating, 169, 171,

importance of color, 178,

importance of headings, 79, 86,

lists and, 113, 114, 115,

 page layout/structure and, 48, 

51, 55,

 performance, importance of 

grouping to, 173,

 prose text on the homepage and, 

39, 166,

text link lengths and, 96,

screen, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 

204,

browser, 26, 28,

density, 55,

flicker, 28,

locating items on, 46, 47,

 real estate, widget selection and, 

129, 136, 139,

resolution, 33, 96, 200, 202,

screenful, 198, 202, 204,

content page design and, 75,

homepage length and, 41,

large images and, 148,

navigation page length and, 66,

screen reader, facilitating use of, 26, 

27, 82, 138, 202,

script, 199, 203,

accessibility issues and, 25, 26,

scroll bar, 54, 72, 148, 202,

scroll box, 73,

scrolling, 198, 200, 201, 202,

data entry fields and, 127,

facilitating, 73,

horizontal, 72,

impact on homepage design, 41,

keeping functions available 

during, 57,

lists, 113, 136, 139,

navigation pages and, 66,

page length decisions and, 54,

reading comprehension and, 74,

scroll stoppers and, 53,

 searching for information and, 

75,

versus paging, 74,

scroll stopper, 53, 202,

search engine/function

advanced, 184,

best bets, 183,

cautions when using, 182,

 functionality of, 181, 183, 184, 

185,

page titles and, 78,

placing on each page, 182,

placing on homepage, 40,

registration with, 6,

results, making usable, 180,

search errors, 183,

template, design and use of, 187,

terms used in, 181, 184,

search sequences, standardizing, 11,

secondary navigation, 63,

Section 508, 23, 25, 27, 28, 202,

sentence(s), 199, 202, 203,

impact of on scanning, 171,

 reading comprehension and, 

165,

use of voice in, 167,

sequential menu, 67,

server-side image map, 27, 199, 

203,

severity, 191, 197,

Shift key, 120, 141,

signal, auditory, 16,

simultaneous menu, 203,

use of frames with, 57,

versus sequential menus, 67,

site map, 200, 203,

link to, on homepage, 40,

link to, placing consistently, 60,
Index

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

site map, (cont.)

use of, 60, 68,

software, 198, 201, 202,

accessibility issues and, 26, 138,

 use of in the design process, 193, 

195,

sound, accessibility issues and, 25,

source documents, xvi,

speed

 connection, and design issues, 5, 

33,

 connection, and download times, 

17, 199,

connection, definition of, 199,

strength of evidence, vi, xvi, xvii, 

xviii, xix, xx, xxi, xxii,

style sheet, 203,

accessibility issues and, 27,

survey

 customer, establishing user 

requirements and, 2,

 use in creating lists of user terms, 

161,

T

tab, 203,

design and placement, 60, 65,

labels, 64,

ordering, 112,

table

 quantitative information and, 

175,

row and column headings, 82,

scrolling issues and, 172,

tag

html heading, 83,

pixel dimension, 145,

tagline, 38, 40, 203,

target page, 203,

matching link names with, 88,

task(s)

appropriate menu types for, 67,

 completion times and visual 

consistency, 103,

 ordering/sequencing to maximize 

user performance, 112, 159,

sequence, standardization of, 11,

task analysis, 176, 203,

 importance in meeting user 

expectations, 3,

templates, v, 179, 187,

tertiary navigation, 63,

testing results, use of, 196,

 website, common browsers and, 

30,

 website, common screen 

resolutions and, 33,

 website, operating systems and, 

32,

test subjects, correct number of, 

192,

text, 199, 202,

alignment of, 51,

 alternatives for image maps and 

accessibility, 27,

blocks of, 51, 53, 102,

blue, 89, 92, 93,

continuous, 56, 115, 199,

 formatting for emphasis, 105, 

109,

 formatting for reading 

performance, 101, 107,

grouping with color, 173,

text box, 127, 200,

accessibility issues and, 23,

text equivalents, accessibility issues 

and, 25,

text label

clickable images and, 144, 154,

text link

appropriate length of, 96,

benefits of, 91,

embedded, 94,

image maps and, 27,

indicating used, 92,

 matching to destination page 

title, 62, 88,

 use of compared to image links, 

91,

264
Index

265

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

text only pages, accessibility issues 

and, 26,

think aloud, 190,

thumbnail image, 155, 203,

time out, 14, 203,

title(s)

abbreviating, 162,

 frame, accessibility issues and, 

28,

link, 39,

page, 6, 78, 201,

 page, and link text consistency, 

88, 201,

tool(s), xiii, 24, 193

 automatic evaluation, role in the 

design process, 195,

transactions, data entry, 132, 141,

U

UME, 191,

underlining

attracting attention with, 105,

 clickability cues and, 89, 93, 109, 

199,

 emphasizing importance with, 

109,

highlighting critical data and, 81,

uppercase

attracting attention with, 105,

use in prose text, 164,

 use with search engines, 123, 

141, 181,

URL, 203,

 indicating destination of links 

with, 97,

 providing feedback to users with, 

62,

usability, xiii, xvi, xvii, xviii, xix, xx, 

xxi, 

problem, 192, 194, 197, 200,

 role of ‘before and after’ studies 

in determining, 190,

 specialist, xvi, xvii, xx, 8, 192, 

193, 197,

 study, role in the design process, 

190,

usability goal, 7,

role in the design process, 4,

Usability Magnitude Estimation, 191. 

See also UME,

usability test(ing), xviii, xxi, 203,

automatic evaluation and, 195,

cognitive walkthroughs and, 196,

 determining user information 

needs with, 175, 176,

expert evaluations and, 194,

heuristic evaluations and, 194,

 performance/preference goals 

and, 5, 7, 192,

 role in designing headings and 

labels, 80, 124,

role in the design process, 5, 71

test subjects and, 192,

widgets and, 129,

user(s)

 acceptance of website, text line 

length and, 56,

 attention, drawing with 

highlighting, 81,

color deficient, designing for, 24,

 disabilities, designing for, 22, 23, 

24, 25, 26, 83,

 expectations, designing to meet, 

3, 191,

 experienced/frequent, designing 

for, 21, 141, 157,

 groups, role in establishing user 

requirements, 2,

 inexperienced/new, importance 

of clickability cues to, 93,

 inexperienced/new, paging and, 

74,

 inexperienced/new, providing 

assistance to, 21,

 inexperienced/new, search 

functions and, 184,

interface issues, 5,

 multitasking, reading 

performance impacts of, 19,
Index

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

user(s), (cont.)

 older, importance of descriptive 

headings to, 79,

older, scrolling behavior of, 73,

older, widgets and, 129,

 performance, design 

considerations and, 2, 5, 7, 52, 

108, 111, 112, 120,

requirements, 2,

 terminology, using in help 

documentation, 19,

 visual impairments, with, 25, 28, 

31,

 working memory limitations, 

designing for, 13, 57,

workload, reducing, 12,

 younger, scrolling behavior of, 

73,

V

video

accessibility issues and, 25,

meaningful use of, 146,

user control of, 153,

vision-related disabilities, 23,

visual

 consistency, importance of, 100, 

103,

design, importance of, 2,

visual cues

 designating required data entry 

fields, 124,

providing user feedback with, 62,

visualization techniques and 

quantitative information, 175,

visually-impaired users, 31,

vocabulary, user, designing search 

terms around, 183,

voice

active, 167, 198,

negative, 167,

passive, 167, 201,

W

walkthrough, cognitive, 195, 196, 

199,

Web page, 55,

 attention attracting features on, 

105,

 layout, consistent alignment of 

items on, 51,

layout, facilitating scrolling, 73,

 layout, style sheets and 

accessibility issues, 27,

layout, white space and, 55,

length, primary use and, 54,

 positioning important items on, 

47,

printing options for, 20,

titles, 78,

visual consistency of, 103,

Web site, 26,

 accessibility issues and, 22, 23, 

24, 25, 26, 27, 28,

attention attracting features, 105,

 designing to be found by search 

engines, 6,

 format, meeting user 

expectations for, 3,

 goal, importance in design 

process, 4,

 information, format for multiple 

audiences, 177,

purpose, communicating, 38,

 redesign, announcing changes to 

users, 42,

 use of and help documentation, 

15,

visual consistency across, 103,

white space

appropriate application of, 55,

use of in lists, 114,

widgets, 204,

alignment of, 51,

capitalization of labels, 119,

check box, 199,

 appropriate use of, 134,

266
Index

267

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines

widgets, (cont.)

 displaying default values in, 

137,

drop-down list

 appropriate use of, 129,

entry field

 distinguishing required and 

optional, 121,

 labeling, 123, 124, 126, 135,

 partitioning of, 131,

 placing cursor in, 138,

list box

 entry speed compared to 

data entry box, 140,

 showing options in, 136,

pushbutton, 202,

 labeling of, 122,

 prioritizing, 133,

radio button, 202, 204,

 appropriate use of, 128,

 assistive technologies and, 

23,

 visual consistency and, 103,

width

homepage panels, 43,

page, printing issues, 18,

 pixel dimension tags for images, 

145,

window, unsolicited, 10,

within-page links, 61, 204,

working memory, 13, 19, 57, 172,