usability report (final)

A Usability Report: Rethinking the

University of Central Arkansas’ (UCA)

Writing Dept. Website

4/26/2015

By: Jeremy Parker

University of Central Arkansas’ Writing Dept. Internship

Program

Usability Report Usability testing results…

4/27/2015 Page 1

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 2

2. GENERAL STATEMENT & TESTING RESULTS ................................................................................................... 2

A) HOME PAGE TESTING RESULTS ................................................................................................................................ 2 B) MENU BAR TESTING RESULTS ................................................................................................................................. 3 C) FIRST YEAR WRITING (FYW) TESTING RESULTS .......................................................................................................... 4 D) CREATIVE WRITING (CW) TESTING RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 6 E) WRITING MAJORS AND MINORS LANDING PAGE .......................................................................................................... 9 F) PROFESSIONAL WRITING (PW) ............................................................................................................................. 10 G) WRITING MINORS ............................................................................................................................................... 11 H) COURSE DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................................................... 12

3. ASSESSMENT OF RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 14

4. PROPOSED SOLUTION(S) ............................................................................................................................. 14

A) CONSISTENCY SOLUTION ...................................................................................................................................... 14 B) MENU ORGANIZATION ........................................................................................................................................ 15 C) DEFINING AUDIENCE ........................................................................................................................................... 15 D) MOBILE USABILITY ............................................................................................................................................. 15 E) COURSE DESCRIPTION NAVIGATION ....................................................................................................................... 15

APPENDICES – USABILITY SCENARIOS .................................................................................................................. 17

APPENDIX A – HOME ................................................................................................................................................... 17 APPENDIX B – MENU ................................................................................................................................................... 17 APPENDIX C – FIRST YEAR WRITING (FYW) ...................................................................................................................... 17 APPENDIX D – CREATIVE WRITING (CW) ......................................................................................................................... 18 APPENDIX E – WRITING MAJORS AND MINORS ................................................................................................................. 18 APPENDIX F – PROFESSIONAL WRITING (PW) ................................................................................................................... 19 APPENDIX G – PW AND GENERAL WRITING (GW) MINORS ................................................................................................. 19 APPENDIX H – COURSE DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................................. 19

Usability Report A Usability Report: Rethinking…

4/27/2015 Page 2

1. Introduction

This white paper discusses the design that is current with the University of Central Arkansas’

Department of Writing website. An analysis of the layout consistency, relevant content (both

image and writing), ambiguous language used, and processes by which tasks are carried out

was done in order to determine the usability of the site. Results were found via usability testing

conducted with faculty members and students. I conducted the test with 3 faculty members and

3 students, each resulting in similar feedback. I will further explain the method and results of

the test throughout this document, as well as propose possible solutions to any issues present

with the website.

2. General Statement & Testing Results

Above all, a website should be usable and accessible to its intended audience. The purpose of

my testing was to analyze the content, arrangement, and navigability of the university’s

Department of Writing website. I tested the homepage, menu bar, first-year writing (FYW)

page(s), creative writing (CW) page(s), writing major’s and minor’s page(s), and professional

writing (PW) page(s). The test was designed to test pages related to the above pages as well,

though not to an in-depth extent. The following sections will outline the results of the testing

from the specific pages mentioned, and conclude with an assessment of global concerns, if any,

that came up throughout the entire site.

a) Home page testing results

The home page test (see Appendix A) found both positive and negative feedback. The

faculty statements about the design of the homepage communicated a strength to the

degree that the page serves its purpose providing a mission statement (brief overview

of the department). There were consistent comments on the lack of innovation or

inventive design on the homepage. The page does not provide elements that invite

further exploration of the site, nor does it say anything about the majors and/or

minors. There was also a noticeable lack of mentioning “students” or “writing.”

The students tested made similar comments about the lack of significant information

on the home page. Elements mentioned were lack of method/materials taught in the

department, and the lack of “writing” in the content. One student mentioned that the

content on the home page seemed geared specifically to Arkansas (students). This

could be perceived as the department catering primarily to students in, or from

Arkansas. This presents the possibility that students from outside Arkansas, or the

U.S. may feel excluded, though this is not necessarily a strong possibility.

Generally, all participants made note of the visual aspect of the page, or lack thereof

(see Fig. 1). The only image present on this page is the header image that is supposed

to be Thompson (the building in which the department resides), but it proved hard to

distinguish the building. The participants lacked the knowledge to give a full

description of what the Writing Department offers based on the content present on the


4/27/2015 Page 3

homepage. There proved to be a lack of descriptiveness as to what can be found

at/through the Writing Department for current or potential students.

Figure 1: Writing Department Homepage

b) Menu Bar Testing Results

The menu bar is set to the left side of the screen (see Fig. 1), and was initially well

received with its overall design and its sense of being organized and unambiguous in

its language. I tested (see Appendix B) the possibility of ambiguous language in

headings and proximity of headings. The testing presented the following results:

i) Organization (specifically MFA being several headings away from majors/minors

and CW major headings): some participants mentioned trouble locating MFA; all

participants suggested moving the heading higher up the menu.

ii) All participants made comment of “Our Blog” seeming to be a blog by the faculty.

2 participants did not know what MFA (Masters of Fine Art) was.

iii) Participants said the miscellaneous headings (Writers in Residence, Toad Suck

Review, Vortex, Arkatext, Great Bear Writing Project, etc.) should be presented

under a parent heading. One participant explicitly stated that he/she would like

more descriptive headings. All participants had trouble finding the course

description heading under advising, which is under the writing majors and minors

tab.


4/27/2015 Page 4

iv) 2 out of 6 participants disliked using the dropdowns for navigation and

organization purposes in general, a separate participant commented on the

difficulty of dropdowns for mobile/touchscreen devices, another stated that he/she

did not realize the items were rollover dropdowns.

v) 1 out of 6 participants stated that there is too much going on in the sidebar menu,

though 2 more participants alluded to the same thing.

The menu test results suggested initial receptivity of the aesthetic was good, though

the navigability of the site presented some issue. When asked who the intended

audience was, most participants concluded with the impression that the site is for

multiple audiences of both students and faculty. All participants mentioned their

dislike of the miscellaneous items interrupting the menu’s hierarchy, and 2

participants wanted a more prominent search bar. I attribute some of the feedback

from the menu and navigability to the content found on the pages (i.e. lack of

descriptive headings).

c) First Year Writing (FYW) Testing Results

I tested the FYW landing page (see Appendix C) for 5/6 of the participants, the

content pages of course description, Inkwire, and Afterwords were tested with all

participants. The test resulted in the following:

i) The landing page test resulted much like the homepage in that it provided a short,

general statement about FYW. Student participants expected/wanted more

information regarding courses.

ii) Specifically tailored task regarding linear navigation to accompany nonlinear

navigation netted agreement that some linear navigation (hyperlinks) would be

helpful, especially if using a mobile device.

iii) Visual aesthetic of the FYW landing page proved to be “plain, and uninteresting.”

iv) Course Description page was commented as too text heavy, table design does not

serve its purpose of minimizing “cluttered” look and feel (see Figure 2)


4/27/2015 Page 5

Figure 2 (Course Description FYW)

v) 1 participant found the sub-heading of Afterwords to be too wordy

vi) No clear audience for Composition Conference landing page, this led some

participants to wonder who could attend

vii) Identification of the 1st place prize for Inkwire based on mediary page content was

not found, it could not be done due to lack of informational content for Inkwire

(See Figure 3)


4/27/2015 Page 6

Figure 3 (Inkwire Mediary Page)

There was relevant information present on the content page of course description, but

all participants had trouble identifying specific information because of the amount of

text present. It was stated that students would be unwilling to read through all of the

text to find out what they will be learning in a course they are required to take. The

mediary page for Inkwire (see figure 3) did not present informational/descriptive

content. (The Inkwire page has since been revised)

d) Creative Writing (CW) Testing Results

The Creative Writing page(s) test (see Appendix D) consisted of the landing page

content, other activities closely associated with CW (4 of 6 participants tested), and

the Master of Fine Arts Creative Writing (MFA) page(s).

The CW landing page is starkly different from the rest (see Figure 4). The landing

page itself provides informational content regarding the major including:


4/27/2015 Page 7

Figure 4 (CW landing page)

Type of coursework

What will be taught (i.e. form types, submitting for publication, etc.)

Clearly states mission with bulleted point

The arrangement of the text proved to be easily readable and structured. The use of

bullet points to describe the mission was helpful. However, participants still could not

find some significant information on the page. The findings consisted of the

following:

i) The participants could not find the information on the page when asked about the

major/minor requirements.

ii) The participants could not find the information on the page when asked how to

declare for CW.

iii) Information about other activities/events closely tied with CW is listed on the

page, but limited, vague, or having no description. Text does not stand out in any

way.

A secondary part of testing the CW major was to test their MFA program’s page. The

MFA heading’s location at the bottom of the menu was found to be difficult to locate.

Its ties to CW were not initially recognized because of the proximity between the two

items. Below are the results of the testing for the MFA page.


4/27/2015 Page 8

i) The location of the MFA heading on the menu bar presented difficulty to the users

when identifying what MFA was (see figure 5). 2/6 participants did not know

what MFA was. Note, the 4 members that did know what MFA was were either

faculty or majoring/minoring in one of the tracks of Writing.

ii) One participant liked that the credit hours were clearly broken down on the

“courses” page, however, this same participant commented on the difficulty

experienced when trying to locate information on a specific course. All

participants mentioned having difficulty finding course descriptions due to heavy

content and an excessive amount of “scrolling,” one participant had to use “ctrl+f”

to find the information.

*Note, the designated times a course is offered is not intended to be found

because they are offered at different times due to various factors, so why

do most say which term they are offering the course*

iii) One participant gave the wrong answer when asked to find how many hours were

necessary to complete the MFA program. Another participant questioned why the

landing page said 60hrs and the courses page said 45hrs (this presents information

inconsistency).

Figure 5 (MFA heading on menu)

The amount of text present has its positives on the CW landing page, but lack of some

relevant information became apparent. The proximity between the CW and MFA tabs

proved to be an issue when identifying what MFA is.


4/27/2015 Page 9

e) Writing majors and minors landing page

The landing page for writing majors and minors stands out visually because it is,

hierarchically, the first page on the menu in which the user encounters images. The

landing page is quite different from FYW and CW in the amount of content, what is

communicated, and inclusion of images. Results from the landing page test (see

Appendix E) found:

i) The participants found no clear statement of mission on either major (PW and

GW), though PW is clearer in its purpose than GW. This shows a lack of

consistency between this page and the FYW, CW, and Home page.

ii) All but one participant liked the design of the page with its visuals and colored

heading fonts. The one participant that did not like the page did not like the

placement of the images and felt they did not communicate anything about the

majors. Another participant mentioned he/she did not like the placement of the

images.

iii) The page content progresses from PW to GW and back to PW (see Figure 6). One

participant agreed with the arrangement noting that if the two majors were

separated by images and text then users may not notice the second major.

iv) It is impossible to navigate to the PW landing page without use of the menu bar.

When asked if there were design cues that would lead one to believe they could

accomplish this task, the users stated that because the font color (purple) used on

the headings is the same color that hyperlinks typically appear after having been

clicked, they assumed the headings were hyperlinks.


4/27/2015 Page 10

Figure 6 (Majors and Minors landing page)

50% of the users tested found the language describing the GW major to be either

ambiguous or uninformative. Participants questioned why CW was not included on

this page as well.

f) Professional Writing (PW)

I tested (see Appendix F) the images on PW page first, followed by the type of

coursework that can be expected based on the content of the page. I then tasked the

participant to find a brief course description of one of the core courses. Finally, I

tasked the participants to locate information telling what “specific” jobs a PW major

might find.

i) I found the participants to be confused to the relevance between images and PW.

The primary image of concern is the eyeball, though one participant was able to

ascertain the relation, it was not initially clear to him/her and it took time to

understand how the eyeball applied to PW. All student participants reacted with

confusion about the image.


4/27/2015 Page 11

Figure 7 (PW landing page)

ii) All participants clicked on the hyperlink in the first sentence when asked about the

coursework one can expect to find. All participants were linked to a PDF of the

check sheet. Only 2 participants were able to find the “for course description…”

footnote (1 faculty and 1 student) when asked to give a course description of one

of the core courses, another student looked for course description on menu bar and

once found clicked on the heading. He/she was taken to the “bulletin,” at this

point the participant said he/she would give up, find another major, or contact

someone for help. All other participants gave up immediately after finding pdf.

iii) Participants communicated that the information was not present when asked about

specific jobs a PW major could lead to, or apply to, at all. Participants mentioned

that types of work were existent on the page, but no specific jobs. All participants

say the content on the page suggests things you can do, but not any type of field.

g) Writing minors

I tested (see Appendix G) the content of the landing page for the minor tracks (see

Fig. 8) heading. The participants only found there to be links to checksheets for the

minors. Participants, if commented, said they would like to see more information

present on the page that talks about the benefits of writing in academia and/or

professional setting (4/6 commented).


4/27/2015 Page 12

Figure 8 (Writing Minors page)

h) Course Description

The task (see Appendix H) for this section set the participant out to find a course

description of Discourse Analysis. All participants started from the last page they

were on, which in most cases was the minors landing page. I will outline the most

common procedure taken by the participants to find this information.

i) Locating the course description heading presented difficulty for most participants

as it seems none expected it to be a sub-heading to a child (Advising information)

under Writing majors and minors. The participants initially checked the menu and

then on the landing page for degrees and programs It took most participants some

time to find the heading

ii) Landing page only has one link titled Undergraduate Bulletin, so participants not

familiar with navigating the website were not expecting the link. Participants

clicked on the link and were taken away from department page

iii) On the new page there was a new sidebar menu. 3 participants clicked on the

“Colleges, Departments, etc.” heading and were taken to a landing page (see Fig.

9) to locate and click on Department of Writing. From there they were required to

scroll to the bottom and find the link to courses, 2/3 scrolled to the bottom to find

the link. The other participant went back to the previous page and chose the

“courses” heading in the menu.


4/27/2015 Page 13

Figure 9 (Depts. page)

iv) 2 participants used the “courses” tab that took them to a different page (see Fig.

10) with a list of subjects from which to choose. At the bottom, they found

writing. When they clicked, they were taken to a page with courses listed with

descriptions.

Figure 10 (Courses page)


4/27/2015 Page 14

One participant chose an alternate route that used the web address found at the bottom of

the pdf check sheets found via the Writing Department’s pages and followed the process

from there, while another participant gave up completely.

3. Assessment of Results

The testing results found that most participants liked the dropdown menu, but some would

like to see clickable links to the children as well. Specific results outlined above and a

questionnaire answered at the end presented common themes across the website that

hindered the appeal and usability of the site.

Lack of incorporation of images or content related images (see section F.i).

Landing pages were either too text heavy and without a clear mission statement,

or too brief and lacked informative content regarding the

department/major/minor/FYW. Some participants disliked the amount of white

space on the landing pages with little text and the home page.

Participants stated that the site seemed to lack consistency/cohesiveness

throughout the pages.

The menu had feedback stating that the organization should be revised, and some

participants had trouble finding certain items and information on the menu.

The navigability presented difficulty with specific items, such as finding a course

description.

Participants had difficulty identifying the audience, such as the case with the PDF

links, and the Composition Conference.

4. Proposed Solution(s)

a) Consistency Solution

The results in this report are used to help identify inconsistencies between the home

page and the majors’ pages, primarily the landing pages and home page. Most

participants mentioned lack of images on FYW, Home, and CW pages and later

mentioned they liked the incorporation of images on the PW and Writing Majors’ and

Minors’ pages. I suggest establishing some uniformity by incorporating more images,

at least, on the Home page and landing pages for FYW and CW (and its related MFW

landing page). I believe that this will assist in applying consistency. I also suggest that

more informative content is incorporated on the Home page, FYW landing page, and

Minors landing page; mission statements should be included and clearly stated on the

Majors and Minors landing page, and PW and GW landing pages. The FYW course


4/27/2015 Page 15

description page should either be broken down into two sections or condense the text

on the page to only hit major points in order to make readability easier.

b) Menu Organization

I propose that a parent heading be created for the miscellaneous tabs of Toad Suck

Review, Writers in Residence, etc., or have CW related items under the CW heading

in dropdown format with CW being the parent. The MFA heading should be moved

directly under CW’s heading, but still maintain its place as a main (parent) heading

with Our Blog being submissive as a child heading to MFA; doing this will help

eliminate the possibility of students not drawing association between MFA and CW,

and eliminate the misunderstanding of Our Blog being a blog by the faculty of the

Writing Department. The Advising heading should be a prominent heading on the

menu bar and contain Course Descriptions either on the landing page or as a sub-

heading; information regarding declaration should be included on the landing page.

c) Defining Audience

Clear definition of audience did not increase difficulty of any particular task, but was

noted when identifying whose blog “Our Blog” belonged to, and who could attend the

Composition Conference. Reference to the PDF check sheets was directed as being

for faculty reference, however, seeing the links to the PDFs come up in descriptions

for PW major and GW major was misleading as many participants believed this

would lead to a course description (the same applies to minors landing page). I

suggest that the PDFs be placed under a new heading titled “For Faculty” which FYW

already has as a sub-heading; other items specifically geared toward faculty can be

placed under this tab as well (Composition Conference, Great Bear Writing Project,

etc.).

d) Mobile Usability

I suggest the incorporation of hyperlinks on the landing pages to the children of the

parent headings to increase usability for users of mobile devices and present a linear

navigation to complement the nonlinear navigation. If images are incorporated, use

could be made of the images to provide links to the related pages.

e) Course Description Navigation

The solution for navigation to course descriptions is to have the sub-heading of course

descriptions link directly to the corresponding page rather than having to follow the

process through bulletins.

Participants suggested the search box be more prominent, incorporate linear navigation,

provide more descriptive headings, incorporate clickable text on the “MFA courses” page

that will directly take you to the course description of a specific course, eliminate the

conflicting number of hours for completion on the MFA pages, and to open a new tab if

directed to a new page outside of the Writing Department’s site. These solutions are intended


4/27/2015 Page 16

to initiate a change for greater appeal and usability for the audience of the site. They are not

all-inclusive, but recommendations for the larger scale global concerns


4/27/2015 Page 17

APPENDICES – Usability Scenarios

* indicates questions that were not used with all participants due to time constraints, or test

revisions.

Appendix A – Home

1. In what way, if any does the homepage clearly state the purpose of the website?

2. *What is the mission of the Writing Department? *

3. Does the mission statement fully communicate the purpose and function of the

department? Why/why not?

4. Does the homepage capture your attention and make you want to further explore the

site? Please elaborate.

5. *Based on the information present on the homepage, what elements exist that may

draw in more majors or minors? *

Appendix B – Menu

1. Do you find the sidebar menu easily navigable? Why/why not?

2. Are the dropdowns effective in their design (i.e. accessibility, minimizing clutter)?

Elaborate.

3. Do you find the proximal arrangements of heading effective (i.e. are they closest to

the next most relevant heading/space)?

4. Do the headings properly and unambiguously communicate what is to be found in

each section? Could you provide a couple of examples?

5. Could please identify which headings/topics, both parent and children, are geared

specifically toward faculty and which ones for students?

6. Click on the Our Blog heading, please tell me whose blog this is. Based on the

heading “our blog,” was this what you expected?

Appendix C – First Year Writing (FYW)

1. *Click on the FYW heading. Based on the landing page text, what can I expect to

find under this heading/tab? *

2. Based on the information on the landing page, give a brief description of what I will

learn via FYW (i.e. what useful skill or concepts will I have experienced and/or

attained through this coursework)?

3. From the landing page, locate a more specific description of what the coursework

entails, please try this without making use of the various dropdown/children present

on the menu.


4/27/2015 Page 18

4. Via the menu bar, locate course descriptions for FYW. What concepts will the

student learn in order to be better equipped to “advance their own arguments?” In

which course will this take place?

5. *Please read the description for 1320 (including table), what is the prerequisite for

1320? *

6. What was your initial visual impression of this page?

7. What other opportunities/events exist for students of 1320 or 1320 (please utilize

the site when answering this question).

8. Click on the Inkwire heading, based on the information provided only on the

landing page, tell me what the 1st place prize is.

Appendix D – Creative Writing (CW)

1. Click on the heading for CW, at a quick glance tell me what information is

presented about the major.

2. Based on the text, what type of coursework/classroom environment can one

anticipate?

3. Does the content clearly convey what the students will be able to take away from

this major/minor and apply in professional employment?

4. What are the major/minor requirements for graduating as a CW major?

5. *Are there other activities/events that are closely tied to CW/ If so, what are they

and how are they related? *

6. Locate the heading for MFA in Creative Writing, is it where you would expect to

find it? If not, then why?

7. Locate the courses to be taken. How many total credit hours must one complete to

graduate?

8. Locate the course description for the Advanced Poetry workshop, from there tell me

when the course is offered.

9. What steps are needed to declare a major or minor in CW?

Appendix E – Writing Majors and Minors

1. What is the mission of each major?

2. Does the landing page capture your attention? Why or why not?

3. The landing page communicates what majors and minors are offered. I the

information on the page located withing proximity of its respective major?

4. Navigate to the major track 1 landing page without use of the menu bar. Are there

design cues that communicate the possibility to do so?


4/27/2015 Page 19

Appendix F – Professional Writing (PW)

1. Do you find the images on the landing page relevant to the text? Why or why not?

2. What type of coursework can one expect to find as a PW major? Could you give a

brief description of one of the core courses?

3. Based on the information present, what are some specific jobs a PW major can lead

to?

Appendix G – PW and General Writing (GW) minors

1. *What courses are overlapped between the two cores of the minor? *

2. Based on the information on the page, how would being a writing minor benefit the

student when venturing out into the professional world?

Appendix H – Course Description

1. From the landing page, follow the path and give a description of the course

“Discourse Analysis.”

Documents

usability report (final)