Redesigning and Evaluating the Census Bureau’s Intranet Site 

for Usability: Methods and Lessons Learned 

Elizabeth D. Murphy, Susan Ciochetto, and Carol I. Bateman 

U. S. Census Bureau1

Washington, DC 20233 

elizabeth.d.murphy@census.gov

susan.m.ciochetto@census.gov

carol.isak.bateman@census.gov

Abstract 

The U. S. Census Bureau’s Intranet site needed to be redesigned to make it easier for employees to find 

information on the site. As previously designed, the site reflected the organizational structure of the 

Census Bureau, but new employees did not necessarily know which division or branch was responsible for 

what information. The objective was to redesign the site using functional, logical categories for the 

information content. This paper focuses on the methods that were applied to the redesign effort, including 

card sorting and usability testing with an eye-tracking component. The use of card sorting is recommended 

along with various usability-testing methods for intranet evaluation and redesign; but the use of eye 

tracking must be carefully targeted to avoid spending excessive time on data analysis. 

Introduction 

The motivation for redesigning the U.S. Census Bureau’s Intranet site came from upper management’s 

recognition that new employees were having trouble finding information at the site. The original intranet 

site had grown out of a grass roots effort with units within the Census Bureau developing individual Web 

sites. The intranet looked like a patchwork quilt; each patch had its own look and feel and contained diverse 

content. No two individual Web sites contained even the same basic elements. Because the design of the 

site reflected the hierarchical structure of the Census Bureau, new employees had to know which 

organizational unit was responsible for the information in question in order to find it. Even then, there was 

no guarantee that the information would be available on the site. The objective was to redesign the intranet 

site using functional, logical categories for the information content and a common look and feel across 

individual Web sites. Such a framework could be reasonably expected to better support successful 

information retrieval for all employees. 

The Intranet Redesign Team used several methods to evaluate the content and layout of the proposed 

design. A user survey and a web-log-usage analysis established the list of content items that were 

important to users. Card-sorting techniques helped the team in organizing content items to develop an 

information architecture or sitemap that included high-level categorization of the content items. 

The results of card sorting and other content evaluation techniques enabled web designers to produce a 

layout based on the proposed sitemap. Design review sessions and several iterations of usability testing, 

one including an eye-tracking component, helped in further refining the design. The result is a Web site 

designed and tested around the interests and needs of users. This paper provides details of the methods and 

lessons learned from each method. At the end, we reflect on the value of using the various methods and 

assess the overall process of redesigning the Census Bureau’s Intranet. 

 

1

This report is released to inform interested parties of ongoing research and to encourage discussion of work in 

progress. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the U. S. Census Bureau.
Content Evaluation Methods 

The following methods contributed to developing the content of the redesigned intranet site: 

Card Sorting

The Intranet Redesign Team began with an analysis of the content of the original intranet site. Working 

with a contractor, the project team identified and grouped over 140 terms, including some new items 

suggested by team members as well as many from the original intranet site. The project team then asked 

the staff of the Usability Laboratory to obtain some input from users to confirm/disconfirm the logic of the 

team’s grouping of topics. The project team wanted to see how actual intranet users would organize the 

topics irrespective of the Census Bureau’s hierarchy. The usability team chose card sorting as the method 

to answer this question because it is a method used widely to elicit groupings of terms from users 

themselves (e.g., Lazar, 2001; Gergle, Brinck, & Wood, 2002; UsabilityNet, 2003). The groupings are 

interpreted as representing the sorter’s mental model of the domain from which the terms are taken. 

Cluster analysis was used to merge the sorts created by the individual participants. Designing the 

information architecture to resemble a composite mental model derived from users was intended to support 

the user’s ease of finding information. 

Usability staff conducted a card-sorting exercise with 10 internal users of the original intranet site. 

According to the card-sorting literature, five to 10 participants is sufficient to extract users’ conceptual 

models of how they expect Web site content to be organized (e.g., Lazar, 2001). These users came from 

various organizations within the Census Bureau and represented a range of experience working at the 

Census Bureau, from a few months to decades. Some were managers. 

Ninety-nine2

 terms were placed on cards, which were shuffled and spread out on a table. In separate 

sessions, participants sorted the cards into groups, based on the instruction to sort the terms for functional 

(logical) similarity. Once they had sorted the cards into piles, participants were asked to name their groups 

of terms with a heading or category label. 

Results of the sorting exercises were input into IBM’s freeware tool, EZSort (Beta version 1.8); and the 

results were analyzed by IBM’s cluster-analysis tool, EZCalc (version 1.3). EZCalc presents the combined 

groupings in the form of a hierarchical tree structure. Deciding on the high-level groupings is not strictly 

straightforward but is guided by the computed results. The application generates several sets of results, 

one that puts greater emphasis on rated similarities between pairs of terms and one that places greater 

emphasis on rated differences. A third set of results represents a balance between the other two. Following 

the recommendations of the tool developers (Dong, Martin, & Waldo, undated), the usability team 

extracted the high-level groupings from the results for similarity and the low-level groupings from the other 

results. 

Card Sorting: Round 2

The Intranet Redesign Team also conducted a second, less formal round of card sorting using team 

members as participants. The team used the results from the first card sort and from the usage analysis as 

input to the process. Each team member was given an Excel spreadsheet with the names of categories and 

the content items within each category. A round table discussion determined categories with an excessive 

number of content items or ambiguous category names. Using Excel, each team member made an attempt 

to group items into smaller categories using a previously decided maximum of three levels. Some grouped 

items were condensed or eliminated. Content items that seemed out of context within the grouping or 

categories were put aside. 

Items out of context, content items from ambiguous categories and items representing groups that were 

resolved in discussion, were then written on “post-it notes” for posting on a white board. The team then 

arranged and discussed items or groups until more specific categories were created. The team then clarified 

 

2

 The IBM analysis tool’s limit was 99 terms. This tool is no longer available at the IBM Web site. 

2
high-level category names. Based on the categories and grouped items, a final sitemap was created and 

distributed for review as an Excel spreadsheet. The process was repeated until the team was satisfied. 

User Survey

The Intranet Redesign Team conducted a user survey to get a better understanding of what sites users of the 

intranet used most and what improvements or suggestions they would like to see on the Census Intranet. 

The survey asked for the following information: 

Q1. Division or Office Name: 

Q2. What is your most important purpose for using the Census Intranet? 

Q3. (a-e.) List the Census Intranet sites or services that are most important to you (please list no more 

than 5). 

Q4. When you use the Census Intranet what is the first site you use or start from? 

Q5. What type of information would you like to see that is not currently available on the Census 

Intranet? 

Q6. Please offer any other comments or suggestions for how we can improve the Census Intranet. 

Other than the selection of division or office name, all questions were open ended. The survey was web 

based and accessible to employees by a link from the original intranet home page. An email message was 

sent to all employees announcing the survey. 

Data were collected into a Microsoft SQL server database. The analysis of questions was divided up 

between project team members. Each team members was asked to convert data for a specific question into 

an Excel spreadsheet and to become familiar with the answers. The team then performed a general review 

and search for keywords to group similar items into broad categories. 

Over 500 employees responded to the user survey. The team compared the respondent’s selected division 

or office to the official employee list in the Commerce Business System database to ensure divisions were 

well represented in the survey results. 

Usage Log Analysis

The purpose of the intranet site usage log analysis was threefold: 1) to determine the web pages that were 

viewed most often; 2) to confirm/disconfirm the card-sorting results; and 3) to identify any content items 

that had been omitted from the card sort. The Intranet Redesign Team used the results to determine 

common categories and to identify content items that should be highlighted on the site. 

The usage log analysis was based on web server logs for a three-month period of time. Web statistics were 

tracked using the SAS Webhound tool (SAS Institute, 2003). The team wanted to use recent information 

but cover a period of time long enough to avoid spikes due to a single announcement or event. However, 

the decentralized nature of the Census Intranet required data to be collected from four different web 

servers. This required importing daily logs from each server into SAS datasets. To keep processing to a 

minimum, the team felt three months was adequate. (Note: The four servers do not account for all web 

servers in use at the Census Bureau. The four that were chosen represent major content, including 

administrative services and human resources, and were available to the team for analysis.) 

The SAS Webhound tool produced individual reports for each web server. A report showing the twentyfive most requested pages was used for analysis. The project team cross-referenced reports from each web 

server to determine the most requested pages overall. The team then developed a list of intranet content 

items that were most important to users. These content items were used in the second card sort and in 

producing the sitemap. 

The team also reviewed a list of the words most frequently used for searching from the Census Bureau 

Home page and the Human Resources Web site. This review identified content items that were labeled 

insufficiently or that were difficult to find under the current design. 

3
Design Evaluation Methods 

This section discusses the methods used to evaluate design prototypes for usability. As shown in Table 1, 

methods used for content and design evaluation were interwoven over the course of the redesign effort. 

Table 1: Timeline of Intranet Redesign Milestones with Content and Design Methods Highlighted 

Date Milestone Activity 

Jul 2003 Deputy Director requested intranet redesign. 

Oct 2003 Contractors hired to provide initial design alternatives 

Oct - Mar 2004 Design alternatives developed in graphical form. Team design review 

sessions 

Mar 2004 Initial card sort

Mar 2004 Stakeholder review of preliminary design 

Jun 2004 Intranet user survey 

Aug 2004 Usability study conducted using design alternatives and eye tracking 

Aug 2004 Web site usage log analysis

Aug 2004 - May 2005 Prototype developed. Team design review sessions 

Jan 2005 Team card sort

May 2005 Team design review session with business/program areas 

May 2005 Usability study using working prototype 

May - Jul 2005 Prototype modified. Team design review sessions 

Jul 2005 Usability review session 

Design Review Sessions

The Intranet Redesign Team conducted design review sessions during various stages of development. 

Design reviews can be performed on simple designs called wireframes, static graphical images, or working 

prototypes with limited or full functionality. A design review session allows designers and developers to 

obtain feedback before resources are expended on a design that does not work as intended or on 

functionality that is unnecessary. Participants in design reviews sessions can vary to include both 

stakeholder reviews for testing and buy-in as well as expert reviews to assess usability, accessibility and 

implementation issues. 

A stakeholder review took place early in the design process. The Intranet Redesign Team identified a list 

of participants who were responsible for intranet content and could represent their area of the Census 

Bureau. Seventeen people attended two sessions each. The idea was to obtain feedback on the design, 

identify implementation issues early and gain buy-in. The first session described the project, explained the 

sitemap, and introduced the design in the form of wireframes. The second session reviewed the design in 

detail and obtained feedback in a question-and-answer format. A tape recorder was used to record 

feedback. 

The Intranet Redesign Team also conducted several iterations of expert reviews within the team itself. 

Team members varied at times but most of the time consisted of web developers and major content 

providers of the intranet, including members from the Information Technology, Human Resources and 

Administrative Service areas of the Census Bureau. Additional members were added for different sessions 

when needed and included members from the business or program areas of the Census Bureau. The 

purpose of the expert review was to compare the design requirements to local standards, guidelines and best 

practices. Many of the design review sessions occurred after major changes were implemented as a result 

of usability studies. Sessions consisted of a review of the site with feedback provided in a round table 

discussion. Some sessions included a web developer to implement changes instantaneously and allow for 

immediate feedback. 

4
Usability testing 

To test the look and feel of the redesigned intranet pages, the Usability Team conducted two rounds of 

usability testing. The first round took place after the card sorting exercise; the second round was near the 

end of the redesign effort, prior to launch of the redesigned intranet. 

Round One Usability testing

Working with the Intranet Redesign Team, the contractor developed two different sample layouts 

(“wireframes”) and sample screens (“composites”). These prototype screens had the same content but 

differed in the colors and graphics used and the general look of the page (“traditional” versus 

“contemporary”). The purpose of the usability testing was to determine whether one of the prototype 

designs was “better” than the other on various dimensions, including accuracy and user satisfaction. 

Figures 1 and 2 show the home pages of the two designs. 

Figure 1: Home page for the "traditional" prototype 

5
Figure 2: Home page for the "contemporary" prototype 

The Usability Team used these two sets of prototype screens for usability testing. These graphics were 

static, and the user could not interact with them. However, substituting for the computer, the test 

administrator could bring up the individual sample screens as the test participant proceeded through the 

tasks. 

In the first round of usability testing, the Usability Team chose to supplement traditional think-aloud 

usability testing with an eye-tracking component to obtain more precise measures of where the user was 

looking. This was important because where the user looks changes so rapidly that it is impossible to 

understand what they are looking at just by observation or self- reporting. Also, since the Usability Team 

was comparing two different designs, precise measures were needed as a basis for comparison. The Eyegaze Response Interface Computer Aid (ERICA) was the system used to record eye movements (Eye 

Response Technologies, Inc., 2003). 

Since this was the Usability Lab’s first experience in using eye tracking, a literature search for information 

on the measures used by other researchers was necessary. The literature tentatively associates the 

following eye tracking measures with various human-performance outcomes, such as search efficiency and 

processing time: 

• Scanpath length. As participants search for the target during a task, their eyes perform a 

succession of rapid movements (saccades) and fixations. During a fixation, visual attention is 

focused on a particular area of a display for approximately 200 to 300 milliseconds (Pan et al., 

2004): A sequence of saccades between fixations defines a scanpath. The length of a scanpath is 

equal to the total distance between all fixation points, starting with the first fixation and ending 

with the last fixation. Longer scanpath lengths are interpreted as indicating more searching on the 

part of the participant (Goldberg & Kotval, 1998, 1999). Shorter scanpaths are thought to reflect 

more efficient search strategies (Goldberg, Stimson, Lewenstein, Scott, & Wichansky, 2002). 

• Average number of fixations. A fixation is a brief period of time during which the eyes do not 

move. The number of fixations is taken as an indication of the number of units of meaning (text, 

6
icon, graphic, etc) processed by the user during a task (Goldberg & Kotval, 1998). Consequently, 

a finding of fewer fixations before selecting the target suggests that the design is requiring the user 

to process fewer items in order to find the target. 

• Average duration of fixations. The temporal length of fixations is another hypothesized 

indicator of processing demands. Longer fixations are associated with longer time to interpret the 

fixated items. Displays that are more tightly packed with content are associated with longer 

fixation durations as compared to less dense displays (Goldberg & Kotval, 1998). 

• Time in Look Zones. Look Zones are rectangular regions of the screen, such as headers and 

bordered content areas. Eye tracking software records gaze paths between Look Zones, providing 

a record of eye movement sequences during a session. The software also records time spent 

within each Look Zone (“dwell time”). Research suggests that longer dwell times indicate greater 

relative informativeness of Look Zones (Pan et al., 2004) but lower search efficiency (Goldberg et 

al., 2002). 

Participants were recruited from within the ranks of Census Bureau employees at the headquarters facility 

in Suitland, Maryland. From those who responded to the call for participants, the researchers selected 16 

people to represent a cross-section of divisions and demographics. 

Testing took place in the Census Bureau’s Usability Laboratory in August 2004. Prior to the test session, 

participants’ eyes were calibrated to the ERICA eye tracking software (Eye Response Technologies, Inc., 

2001). It was possible to calibrate most of the participants, and the eye tracking software was used to 

record their eye movements during the first part of their test sessions. 

Eye tracking data were collected as follows: The participant placed his or her chin in the chin rest and his 

or her forehead against the headrest of an apparatus meant to prevent head movements. Focused on the 

user’s eye, a computer model LCL-902K camera computed the position of the user’s gaze. The 

GazeTracker software recorded this position information for later analysis. The ERICA software was used 

to analyze the data from the camera. Both the ERICA and GazeTracker software programs ran passively 

on the user’s computer throughout the session (Eye Response Technologies, Inc., 2003). 

During the testing session, the test administrator remained in the test room with the participant to manage 

the presentation of the various static screens. In the first phase of a usability testing session, the eye 

tracking software was used to record where on the screen the participant looked as he/she completed seven 

tasks (eight if the participant was a manager). Next, two more tasks were completed using the think-aloud 

protocol, i.e., the participant provided a running commentary while performing each task. After completing 

the tasks, the participant completed a tailored version of the Questionnaire for User Interaction Satisfaction 

(QUIS). The QUIS is a standardized instrument developed by the University of Maryland (Norman, 

Shneiderman, Harper & Slaughter, 1998). The participant was then debriefed on his/her reactions to the 

user interface. 

Round Two Usability Testing

Usability testing of working prototype screens took place in May 2005. Testing was again held in the 

Census Bureau’s Usability Laboratory. The eight test participants represented a range of experience and 

levels of responsibility (e.g., technical staff, management). Participants completed a set of tasks that 

required them to locate target items on the prototype screens. These sessions were conducted without eye 

tracking but using a think-aloud procedure. The test administrator sat in the testing room with the 

participant to facilitate probing and discussion. Using this method, the Usability Team identified user 

interface design issues and then discussed ways to resolve them with the developers. 

Usability Review 

As a final review prior to launch, the Intranet Redesign Team asked the Usability Team to conduct a 

usability review in a focus-group setting. Originally, the Usability Team planned to work with two small 

groups of actual users: six managers and six non-managers. However, because of scheduling conflicts the 

actual groups contained a mix of managers and non-managers. The participants were volunteers 

7
representing a wide range of internal organizations, with varying lengths of employment at the Census 

Bureau, from a few months to over 30 years. The redesigned user interface included the top two 

navigational levels of the Census Intranet. The purpose of this review was to gather feedback from users 

prior to launch. 

For the most part, the Usability Team used tasks that were identical to those used in previous usability 

testing sessions. However, the team needed more tasks for managers. As a basis for formulating these 

tasks, usability staff members interviewed several managers about their use of the intranet. This was 

helpful in identifying tasks that management-level participants would find reasonable and familiar. 

The environment for the review was a computer-equipped classroom. Participants were asked to perform a 

series of tasks designed to mimic their own daily use of the intranet. Tasks varied in complexity, i.e., the 

number of steps required for completion. After each task, the facilitator led a discussion of the perceived 

usability of the site for performing that task: How easy was it? Did the user interface help or hinder the 

participant in performing the task? Do the participants have any suggestions for improving the user 

interface? Members of the development team observed these sessions and participated by asking questions 

and by clarifying the rationale for various design decisions. 

Lessons Learned: Content Evaluation Methods 

Card sorting

 The Usability Team found that formal implementation of this method was useful for gaining insight into 

the user’s perspective. Deciding on the groupings was guided by the EZCalc results but also involved a 

certain amount of expert judgment. Although there were often commonalities across the participants’ 

ratings, there were also many instances of unique groupings. Some terms clearly “belonged” in one group, 

while others were ambiguous enough that they could logically belong in more than one group. Differences 

between users’ job responsibilities naturally affect their view of how to sort the set of terms. Thus, there is 

a need for a systematic method for combining the results of the sorts across users. Expert interpretation is 

still needed, however, because the different methods of cluster analysis produce different results. Even 

when the individual groupings are combined, it makes good design sense to provide alternative paths to the 

same item, especially for ambiguous items. 

Similarly, informal card sorting with the redesign team was helpful for the refinement of generalized 

categories and for clarifying definitions. This was useful for items where users were not familiar with 

various terms and erroneously grouped them. These items usually represented technical terms or jargon. 

Additionally, the refined card sorting with the design team helped to ensure the categories and content 

items adapted well to layout or design specifications. For example, keeping groups and categories to three 

levels was important to ensure users would find items quickly. Lastly, the team’s enhanced knowledge 

helped them prioritize items within the hierarchy based on other input such as log usage analysis. One 

warning note is that the team must be careful not to let their enhanced knowledge of the subject influence 

the outcome. 

User Survey 

The user survey was helpful in gaining a general idea of user requirements. The surveys also involved 

actual users in the design process. Involving users may prove beneficial to increase buy-in later on and 

provide for an easier transition when implementing changes. 

The analysis of open-ended responses overwhelmed the Intranet Redesign Team because of the sheer 

number that they had to process. This proved too time-consuming and required too much subjective 

analysis. Multiple-choice questions are recommended with fill-in options for choices not provided. 

8
Usage Log Analysis 

The web server log usage analysis was useful for verifying the actual use of items that users had identified 

as important in the user survey. That is, this analysis served as a reality check on self-reported data. It was 

important that the team agreed on a specific time period that best represented actual usage. Note that it is 

possible that a specific announcement or event can skew results. 

The team found it difficult to compare logs from many different servers because the Webhound software 

produced individual reports for each server. The team had to carefully compare counts across reports. 

Individual reports gave the impression that web pages were more important than they actually were because 

they showed up higher in the individual report but had a lower count when compared across reports. Using 

an analysis tool that compares logs across servers would be beneficial. 

Lessons Learned: Design Evaluation Methods

Design Review Sessions

Design review sessions are valuable to obtain feedback from a smaller representative sample when testing 

designs, pilots or prototypes. They can also be used to obtain managerial or stakeholder buy-in. Careful 

attention should be made when choosing participants. Members should be representative and consist of 

executives and senior managers through professional and clerical staff. By limiting the stakeholder review 

to content providers, the Intranet Redesign Team found it difficult to obtain feedback on the general design. 

Participants concentrated on how their own content or work would change. 

The Intranet Redesign Team changed members as stages of the project progressed. This allowed for diverse 

input during design and allowed team dynamics to fluctuate so that no one opinion dominated. It was 

particularly valuable to vary team makeup for expert reviews. 

Usability Testing with Think-Aloud Protocol

Multiple rounds of usability testing are necessary, especially when prototypes are changing frequently. It 

would be useful to have a means of tracking usability recommendations. Observation of actual users using 

the intranet in their daily work would have been useful as a basis for developing tasks for test participants. 

Eye Tracking

Since this was the Usability lab’s first foray into eye tracking, it would have been a good idea to do 

selective eye tracking. Using the full functionality of the system generated huge volumes of data. Analysis 

of the data took far longer than expected, even though a summer intern provided additional skilled 

assistance. The Census Bureau Usability Lab is investigating a different system that does not require the 

participant’s head to be immobilized. In the future, the researcher should plan specific analyses using the 

eye-tracking data and should not attempt to interpret all the data. 

Usability Review

This method was used to obtain quick feedback late in the development cycle. It showed that users were 

now able to find items that previous participants had been unable to find, mainly because the items had 

been brought out of obscurity. The Usability Team does not recommend mixing managers and nonmanagers for this kind of exercise. Managing the flow of discussion proved to be somewhat of a challenge 

in these mixed groups. If the groups must be mixed, it would be better to have everyone do the same tasks 

so that everyone can participate in the discussion. 

Epilogue 

Redesigning the Census Bureau’s Intranet involved redesigning both the content and the user interface. 

Design of the content necessarily influenced the design of the user interface and vice versa. When the team 

completed the first round of usability testing, for example, it became apparent that further content 

development would be necessary before conducting a second round. It was often the case that further input 

was needed from users before continuing with the design of the content or the user interface. Thus, as 

reflected in Table 1, a natural flow evolved of going to the users, doing design, and going back to the users. 

9
For purposes of designing or redesigning a Web site, the Intranet Redesign Team recommends that 

usability of both the content and the user-interface design be considered early in the planning process. The 

extra time and effort required must be scheduled accordingly to avoid costly delays in the project. Enough 

flexibility must be built into the schedule to allow for iteration of methods, such as occurred in this effort. 

The payoff for early investment of time and effort comes in the diminished need to retrofit the design later 

when it is difficult or even impossible to make changes. Content and user interface must be designed in 

tandem, not in isolation from each other. 

The availability of a usability lab at the Census Bureau was beneficial. Although many of the methods can 

be applied informally by the project team itself, the use of the lab was much more efficient, and the added 

expertise was invaluable in justifying design decisions. A well-organized and efficient intranet site that 

satisfies users and developers is well worth the investment in usability studies. However, each method 

must be evaluated on its own merit with careful consideration to the overall work involved when analyzing 

results. 

The usability methods applied during the Census Intranet redesign resulted in a design that works well for 

the Census Intranet users who participated in the final usability review and satisfies Web site developers. 

Involving the user community with design decisions increases buy-in and aids developers in understanding 

the need for certain design elements. The use of various usability methods throughout the design process is 

necessary to achieve effective results. The true test will come as Census Bureau employees at large begin 

to use the redesigned intranet and gain experience in its layout and topical organization of content. The 

usability team recommends another user survey about six months after launch of the redesigned site. 

References 

Dong, J., Martin, S., & Waldo, P. (undated). “A User Input and Analysis Tool for Information 

Architecture.” Retrieved on 3/23/04 from http://www-3.ibm.com/ibm/easy/eou_ext.nsf/Publish/410

(no longer available). 

Eye Response Technologies, Inc. (2003). ERICA System Reference Manual. Charlottesville, VA: Eye 

Response Technologies, Inc. 

Gergle, D., Brinck, T., & Wood, S. D. (2002). Designing Web sites that Work: Usability for the Web. 

New York: Morgan Kaufmann/Academic Press. 

Goldberg, J. H., & Kotval, X. P. (1999). Computer Interface Evaluation using Eye Movements: Methods 

and Constructs. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 24, 631-645. 

Goldberg, J. H., & Kotval, X. P. (1998). Eye Movement-Based Evaluation of the Computer Interface. In 

S. Kumar (Ed.), Advances in Occupational Ergonomics and Safety (pp. 529-532). IOS Press. 

Goldberg, J. H., Stimson, M. J., Lewenstein, M., Scott, N., & Wichansky, A. M. (2002). Eye Tracking in 

Web Search Tasks: Design Implications. Proceedings of ETRA’02 (New Orleans). New York: 

Association for Computing Machinery. 

Lazar, J. (2001). User-Centered Web Development. Boston: Jones and Bartlett. 

Norman, K. L., Shneiderman, B., Harper, B., & Slaughter, L. (1998). Questionnaire for User Interaction 

Satisfaction. College Park, MD: University of Maryland, Human-Computer Interaction Laboratory. 

Pan, B., Hembrooke, H. A., Gay, G. K., Granka, L. A., Feusner, M. K., & Newman, J. K. (2004). The 

Determinants of Web Page Viewing Behavior: An Eye Tracking Study. New York: Association for 

Computing Machinery. 

SAS Institute, Inc. (2003). WebHound documentation. Retrieved from 

http://support.sas.com/documentation/onlinedoc/webhound/ on 8/26/2005.

UsabilityNet. (2003). “Card sorting.” Retrieved from 

http://www.hostserver150.com/usabilit/tools/cardsorting.htm on 6/08/05. 

Acknowledgements: The authors appreciate the long hours of data collection, data analysis, and logging 

of videotapes by several of our student interns during various phases of this work. Thanks to Aaron Miller 

(George Mason University) for his help with the card-sorting and eye tracking studies; to Michael Rosen 

(University of Central Florida) for his invaluable contributions to the analysis of the eye tracking data; and 

to Amira Abdalla (George Mason University) for leading the most recent usability testing and assisting 

10
with the usability review. And thanks to our Census Bureau colleagues, Elizabeth Nichols, Robin 

Goldberg, and Sarah Brady, for their valuable comments on drafts of this paper. 

11