1.0    HEURISTIC EVALUATION

Heuristic Evaluation involves a group of usability experts reviewing a website’s interface to compare it against already established principles of usability. The final result of the analysis is a list of issues regarding usability that have been identified. Heuristic evaluation though helpful should not take the place of usability testing. Although, heuristic evaluations identify issues relating to the usability of the website, the issues identified differ from the issues identified from a full-fledged usability test.

Nonetheless, a heuristic evaluation can inexpensively provide analysis regarding the usability issues much faster than a full-scale usability test. It can also be used together with other usability methodologies. (Usability.gov, 2007)

Conducting heuristic evaluations involves the following three steps:

1. Planning the evaluation:

In this step, a set of tasks is developed which is to be carried out by the evaluators. The evaluators are to be provided with the goals of the system which may enable them in turn to develop further tasks on their own. Dialogue elements should also be evaluated.

2. Choose evaluators:

Usually about five evaluators may be used. It is often suggested that a mix of experienced and non-experienced individuals both may be used.

3. Review the heuristic:

After the approach has been determined and the evaluators have been selected, the evaluators are briefed on the ten heuristics that have to be evaluated.  (Dannino, 2001)

Nielson, in 1994, proposed certain characteristics for heuristic evaluations. Each of these is presented in structured manner and may have multiple elements. The elements are:

1. Conformance Question:

What should be the performance be from the system and the user to meet the heuristic?

 

2. Evidence of conformance:

What are the things looked, such as design features of lack thereof which may exemplify partial or total non-compliance of the heuristic?

 

3. Motivation:

Are there any problems that the heuristic tries to avoid?

 

Following are Nielson’s characteristics for heuristic evaluations which can be used as a checklist:

1. Viability of System Status:

Is appropriate feedback provided to users within time about the progress of the system to keep the users informed?

 

2. Match Between System and the Real World:

Are the concepts and languages used by the system user-familiar or are they system-based. Is logical order followed for the information displayed?

 

3. User control and freedom:

Are users allowed to do what and when they want?

 

4. Consistency and standards:

In different situations, do the design elements like actions and objects have the same meaning?

 

5. Error Prevention:

Is making of errors allowed, i.e. is the system designed in such a manner so as to prevent errors from occurring?

 

6. Recognition Vs Recall:

Is visibility of design issues such as objects, options and actions visible? Or are the users required to remember such information while in different parts of the system?

 

7. Flexibility and Efficiency of Use:

Do users have the ability of customization? Can shortcuts be used for frequently used options or actions?

 

8. Minimalist and Aesthetic Design:

Is unnecessary or irrelevant information contained in dialogues?

 

9. Help users Recognize, Diagnose and Recover from Errors:

Are errors presented in user-understandable language? And are the problems accurately described and are the solutions suggested accurate?

 

10. Documentation and Help:

Is appropriate information provided for user’s help? Is such information easy to find and is it relevant to user’s task? (Darryn Lavery, 1996)

 

2.0    COGNITIVE WALKTHROUGH

Cognitive walkthroughs are a method to evaluate the design of an interface of a website where particular attention is paid to how much the interface facilitates the new-learner, i.e. the person who is using the website for the first time. Until a few years ago, this kind of walkthrough consisted of a questionnaire which had detailed questions which were asked from the first time user. Nowadays, the method for cognitive walkthroughs has been further distilled after recent studies about user interfaces based on display. Evaluations of the earlier method of the cognitive walkthrough methods revealed criticisms of the tedious nature of the exercise involving filling of forms. The current versions therefore require minimal form-filling and involve only a small number of evaluators.

The cognitive walkthrough is based on the CE+ theory of exploratory learning that explains that all interactions between humans and computers can be broken down into four simple steps:

1. The user gives the computer a task which is to be performed.
2. Then the user scans the display interface for items that are currently available.
3. The user then selects the action that is seemingly the one that takes him closest to the performance of the desired task.
4. The user then performs that function and checks the feedback provided by the system to ensure that the current goal is currently progressing.

Following elements are required to perform a cognitive walkthrough:

1. A brief summary of the users of the system and any experience they may have in the prior usage of the system;
2. detailed description of the task that is required to be performed; and
3. list of all the actions that are required to perform the tasks using the current interface that is under review.

Usually the cognitive walkthroughs are performed by the designer of the interface and some members of his team. However, walkthroughs of a smaller scale can even be done by individual designers. After duties have been assigned and all relevant elements of the walkthrough are in place, the walkthrough is performed to judge each of the individual steps to in the proper direction and making a proper determination as to whether a potential user would select that option or not. This is a key part of the walkthrough and doesn’t involve a discussion about the reasons why the user may select the option, just whether he might select it or he might not.

In most cases, it is very easy to judge that a user will select a particular option and whether it is correct or not. But in other cases, the choice may not be as clear cut. To determine whether the correct option will be selected or not in ambiguous cases, the walkthrough process provides guidance of the same four steps which form the basis of the human-computer interaction, i.e. consideration of the goal of the user, how accessible the correct control is, whether the control’s label is a high quality match with the goal and what feedback is provided after the control is used. (John Reiman)

3.0    QUESTIONNAIRE

Questionnaires are the most popular method for determining the usability of the website by requiring users to provide answers to questions regarding the layout of the website and its usability. The questionnaire usually has three parts but it may also have only one or two. The three parts are:

Background Questionnaire

Background questionnaires are used to find out historical information about the participants in a questionnaire. It is usually a collection of questions which provide information about the participants’ attitudes, life experiences and preferences. This questionnaire is usually filled out some time before the test. Two important reasons for conducting a background test is that it ensures that only the appropriate people are being tested. For example, in case of a website usability test, only people who are internet literate would be considered appropriate. The second key reason for the background questionnaire is that it provides a basic summary of the participants being tested to the persons invigilating the test.

While conducting a background test, focus should be on all those characteristics that are relevant to the performance within the test and the operation of the website. The questionnaire should be made to be easy to fill out and easily understandable. A great technique is to completely avoid questions that are open-ended. Preferred are the questions, which can be easily answered by circling the options given. If the questionnaire is only one or two pages long, then it is preferred that it is taken just before the test.

 

Pre-test Questionnaire

The main purpose of the pre-test questionnaire is to hit conspicuous aspects of the test objectives. This may be done by asking the participants about their initial impressions of the website being used prior to using it. Other questions that can be asked may be if the participant understands the vernacular used or if it seems similar to any other websites that the participant may have used.

The first few impressions by the participants are very crucial as if the website appears to be easy to use, it already has a leg up as there is a higher potential of the participants staying on the website and using it before moving on to another webpage. While if the website seems intimidating and hard to use at first glance, it has a bigger hill to climb in getting the participant to stay on the same page and not switch to another one. The same pre test questionnaire can also be provided after the end of the test so that comparison can be made of the difference actual usage of the website had on the preference of the participants.

 

Post Test Questionnaire

The key objective behind a post test objective is to find out information from the participants about their preferences to further clarify the strengths and weaknesses of the website. Usually information can be gathered about how much ease (or lack thereof) the participants experienced using the website, or learning its layout. Post test questionnaire should be effective, as clearly stated as possible and unambiguously designed. Questions asked should be related to topics that have subjective preference and cannot be independently observed.

4.0    FINDINGS FROM QUESTIONNAIRE

 

Results of Pre Test Questionnaire

Number of people questioned: 12

Category	Number	Percentage
Average Age	25.833	N/A
Gender
–          Male	5	41.667%
–          Female	7	58.33%
Marital Status
–          Single	4	33.33%
–          Married	8	66.66%
Level of Education
–          School	1	8.33%
–          College	2	16.67%
–          University	9	75%
Internet Literacy
–          Highly literate	11	91.67%
–          Literate	1	8.33%

 

Results of Post Test Questionnaire

Principle	Question	Average User Rating	Result
WEB PAGE ISSUES	Adequate information was provided.	4.25	Agree
	Appropriate level of color was used throughout the website.	4.41	Agree
	There were no problems with the navigation of the website.	2.33	Neutral
	There was ease of reading the text on the website.	3.00	Neutral
	Appropriate levels of computer jargon were used.	2.66	Neutral
ACCESSIBILITY	Main information and supporting information were adequately separated from a visual standpoint.	2.08	Disagree
	The most important information was highlighted.	4.16	Agree
	It was required to read long passages of text to determine locations.	3.33	Neutral
	All users in terms of experience were accommodated.	2.75	Neutral
CLARITY	Terminology used was confusing.	4.00	Agree
	Adequate feedback was provided after completing questions.	4.41	Agree
	Length of sentences was appropriate.	4.75	Strongly Agree
	Tone of sentences was conversation was friendly.	4.83	Strongly Agree
GRAPHICS	Text and illustrations were satisfactorily integrated.	4.50	Agree
	Animations were fluid.	3.25	Neutral
ORGANISATION	Headings were self-explanatory.	3.16	Neutral
	Layout was consistent on all webpages of a similar nature.	2.83	Neutral
	Adequate levels of white space were used.	3.66	Agree
TECHNICAL ACCURACY	Control panel was placed in appropriate place.	3.50	Neutral
	Messages displayed were easy to see.	3.0	Neutral
	Messages were displayed in plain language.	3.33	Neutral
Principle	Question	Average User Rating	Result
TECHNICAL ACCURACY	Additional controls are desired.	1.83	Disagree
	Meaning of icons used was self-explanatory.	2.66	Neutral
NAVIGATION	Menu and navigation are properly positioned.	4.16	Agree
	Pages were in a simple and non-confusing sequence.	3.16	Neutral
	The search functionality is adequate and easy-to-use.	4.33	Agree
	Links are focused and not confusing.	4.25	Agree
	Buttons are very easy to use.	4.0	Agree

 

Post Test Questionnaire Key:

Strongly Agree: 5

Agree: 4

Indifferent: 3

Disagree: 2

Strongly disagree: 1

5.0    RECOMMENDATIONS

The website could benefit immensely if pertinent information/ commonly searched links were made available at the top of page such as FAQ, login, contact etc.

The My Account menu has too many unnecessary items which can cause confusion. A non-member or a general first time visitor is not logged on to the site so the “My Account” information should only display when the user has logged in. Currently, ALL links under my account take the user to the login/ signup page, so why not provide just the login link. As any link that needs the user to be a registered member would take them to the login/signup page anyways.

The pop-up sub navigation is big no-no. Consider ‘Pantry’ and the pop-up having many products. What if the Company had thousands of products under Pantry? You get the idea. The recommended way is to remove direct product links from the popup retaining only the categories.

Converting the website to a responsive layout is highly recommended. As statistically, more and more users are viewing and making their purchases on the go using their phones. A very big advantage would be a wider audience, improved sales and of course a boost to usability on different devices.

Subscribe link can be used in the footer, on the home page, sidebars etc using standard form elements which are not bound to break if the Javascript is turned off. No Javascript means no subscription popups means no subscribers.

Contact link should be clearly visible. In this case it is buried between ‘Sale’ and ‘Blog’. Moving it to the top right as recommend above will improve overall website usability.

Navigation bar links should be properly grouped with a separator between each group. For example something like Home | New & Popular | Sale | Products | Brands, comprise of  a group which pertain to what the site has to offer and information about their products while Info | Blog | Shipping | Contact is another group which provides the visitors with information they might seek while or before ordering. Likewise, My Account is a separate group, which pertains to client account information.

 

Bibliography

Dannino, N. (2001, September 3). Heuristic Evaluation – a Step By Step Guide Article. Retrieved February 4, 2015, from Sitepoint: http://www.sitepoint.com/heuristic-evaluation-guide/

Darryn Lavery, G. C. (1996). Heuristic Evaluations – Usability Evaluation Materials. Glascow: University of Glascow.

John Reiman, M. F. (n.d.). Usability Evaluation with Cognitive Walkthrough. Retrieved February 3, 2015, from Sigchi: http://www.sigchi.org/chi95/proceedings/tutors/jr_bdy.htm

Usability.gov. (2007, August 31). Heuristic evaluations and expert reviews. Retrieved February 4, 2015, from Usability.gov: http://www.usability.gov/how-to-and-tools/methods/heuristic-evaluation.html