Transcript EEA usability workshop proceedings

EEA – Usability workshop
June 28, 2004
TietoEnator © 2003
Agenda
13.00 – 13.15
Welcome
Guidelines for Web Usability
13.15 – 13.30
13.30 – 14.00
14.00 – 14.45
First rule of usability: Know your users!
Heuristics – Usability’s Rules of thumb
Exercise: Heuristic evaluation
14.45 – 15.00
Break
Methods for improving usability
15.00 – 15.20
15.20 – 15.30
Usability testing as a way of improving the web site
Other user studies
Writing for the web
15.30 – 16.00
16.00 – 16.45
How to write good text for the web
Exercise: Web writing
16.45 – 17.00
Wrap-up
TietoEnator © 2003
Welcome and introduction
Antonio de Marinis
TietoEnator © 2003
Know your users!
First rule of usability
TietoEnator © 2003
Target groups and communication objectives
 Many under estimate the importance of knowing one’s target groups
and defining clear communication objectives
 Some producers of web content wrongly assume that users are similar
to themselves or that all users are the same
 Sometimes it is necessary to prioritize some groups in connection to
certain content, thereby down-prioritizing other groups.
TietoEnator © 2003
Communication objectives
What are the goals of the web site?
 How should the web site support the overall objectives of the EEA?
 What do we want to achieve with the communication?
 Which concrete goals do we have for the web site?
 Which problems should the web site help solve?
 Can critical success factors for the web site be defined?
TietoEnator © 2003
The message, the medium, the users, the goals
Laswell’s model of communication:
–
–
–
–
–
Who says
What?
Through which medium?
To whom?
With which (desired) effect ?
It must be clear what our message is,
who we are talking to, how we want to
use the medium and what our goals are.
–
–
–
–
–
–
Who seeks
What?
Through which medium?
From whom?
With which desired effect?
And with which behaviour
It must also be clear what the target
users expects from the communication,
the image of the sender and the medium.
And it is of course necessary to know the
users reasons for visiting the page and
his ultimate goals for using it. And finally
we must know how their behaviour si
TietoEnator © 2003
So what do we know about your users?





The survey tells us a lot about who your users are
It gives some indications of what they think of you
It says a little about what they use it for
It says a little about what they want from it
It says almost nothing about the practical use of the page –
whether or not it is usable.
 This can be clarified through a usability test or other user study
TietoEnator © 2003
The Heuristics
Usability’s Rules of Thumb
TietoEnator © 2003
The heuristics
Rules of thumb in usability
 A set of principles and best practice recommendations for user friendly
web design
 Used by producers of web sites and usability specialists as a memory
aid for usability issues
TietoEnator © 2003
The Heuristics











Support the User’s Sense of Control and Freedom
Speak the User’s Language
Support Sense of Place, Provide Overviews
Provide Feedback
Minimize the User’s Memory Load (Recognition rather than Recall)
Be Consistent
Support Flexible Patterns of Use
Support Efficient Use
Follow De Facto Standards
Provide Help
Prevent Errors, Make Recovery Easy
TietoEnator © 2003
Support the User’s Sense
of Control and Freedom

Users should be able to feel in control of the situation and that it is
easy to perform the actions required to get what they want from the
solution. Don’t lock users into unwanted states, and take care to
provide clearly marked ‘emergency exits’.
TietoEnator © 2003
Support the User’s Sense of Control and
Freedom - Good example
TietoEnator © 2003
Support the User’s Sense of Control and
Freedom - Bad example
TietoEnator © 2003
Speak the User’s Language

As far as possible, use terminology, concepts, symbols and
interaction styles the user is already familiar with, and that support the
user’s existing worldview. Avoid system centric engineering terms and
organization centred concepts that are irrelevant from the user’s point
of view. Use as simple, concrete and friendly language as other goals
for the solution allows.
TietoEnator © 2003
Speak the User’s Language – Consumers
TietoEnator © 2003
Speak the User’s Language - Professionals
TietoEnator © 2003
Speak the User’s Language – Bad example
TietoEnator © 2003
Support Sense of Place, Provide Overviews

Make it easy for users to discover where they are, what they can do
there and where they can go from there. Also, always make it easy for
the user to get an overview of his or her possibilities in the solution.
TietoEnator © 2003
Support Sense of Place, Provide Overviews –
Good example
TietoEnator © 2003
Support Sense of Place, Provide Overviews –
Bad example
TietoEnator © 2003
Provide Feedback

When a user performs an action, clearly and immediately
communicate what has happened as a result of this. Also, provide
hints to what can be done next. For example “Registration has been
completed”, “Caution: File was not saved, please try again”, “Check
complete: No new messages”.
TietoEnator © 2003
Provide Feedback – Good examples
TietoEnator © 2003
Provide Feedback – Bad example
TietoEnator © 2003
Minimize the User’s Memory Load (Recognition
rather than Recall)

Make all currently relevant parts of the solution clearly visible. Do not
require users to remember information from one part of the solution to
another. Make instructions for how to use the solution clearly visible
or easy to find.
TietoEnator © 2003
Minimize the User’s Memory Load – Bad
example
TietoEnator © 2003
Be Consistent

Use the same terminology, concepts, symbols and interaction styles
throughout the solution. Do not give the same thing different names,
or different behaviours, in different situations.
TietoEnator © 2003
Consistency – Bad example
TietoEnator © 2003
Support Flexible Patterns of Use

People have different preferences and abilities with respect to
interaction mechanism. For example, some people may find it difficult
to operate a computer mouse but have fewer problems with keyboard
input. And some people may prefer using a search engine to
browsing a hierarchy for finding what they are looking for. Therefore,
to the furthest extent possible, support several, redundant interaction
styles for performing the same actions in the solution.
TietoEnator © 2003
Support Flexible Patterns of Use – Good
example
TietoEnator © 2003
Flexible use – bad example
TietoEnator © 2003
Support Efficient Use

User interfaces that are used frequently must afford efficiency. For
example, it is often just as important to focus on making a solution
usable with the keyboard as it is to make it usable with the mouse.
TietoEnator © 2003
Efficient use – Good example
TietoEnator © 2003
Efficient use – Bad example
TietoEnator © 2003
Efficient use – Bad example
TietoEnator © 2003
Follow De Facto Standards

Consider if standard solutions exist to your problems. Wherever
feasible, follow interaction design standards for the platform or type of
solution you are designing for. In most cases, de facto standards
exist, such as the interaction style of an entire program or suite of
programs. For example Microsoft Outlook type icons can be used
with some advantages if all users of a new solution are known to be
Outlook users.
TietoEnator © 2003
De facto standards – Good example
TietoEnator © 2003
De facto standards – Bad example
TietoEnator © 2003
Provide Help

Ideally, the solution should be designed to be usable without the need
for explicit help. However in complex solutions with diverse users, it
will often be necessary to make explanations of terminology or
procedures available. As a general rule, help for terminology or
functionality should be provided contextually. Procedural help, guiding
the user in how to get from point A to B in a fixed sequence of actions,
is often also necessary. The language of any help should conform to
the guideline above.
TietoEnator © 2003
Help – Good example
TietoEnator © 2003
Prevent Errors, Make Recovery Easy

To the furthest extent possible, anticipate possible user errors and
remove error prone design elements from of the solution. If an error
occurs, make sure it has the least possible negative consequences
for the user. As far as possible, re-establish the user’s context prior to
the error, and don’t require users to retype information already
entered.
TietoEnator © 2003
Errors – Good example
TietoEnator © 2003
Errors – Bad example
TietoEnator © 2003
Exercise: Heuristic Evaluation
 Go to http://www.defra.gov.uk (the UK’s Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affair) and try to evaluate the web site using the
heuristics
TietoEnator © 2003
Methods for improving usability
TietoEnator © 2003
Usability testing – Why?
 The website will be tested by the users
– You can decide whether you will run the test before launch
– or after launch
 Do-say Triangle
Observed
behaviour
(Do)
?
Do
Say
Expressed
satisfaction
(say)
Recollection
of behaviour
(recall)
TietoEnator © 2003
Usability testing – What do you get?
 Qualitative tests
– You don’t get a grade but you get help
 Knowledge about users behaviour
 No need to guess…
 Possibility to identify which parts work and which parts don’t work
TietoEnator © 2003
Usability testing – how? (1)




Thinking aloud method
Identify target groups
4-6 users / target group
Simple set-up
– One user
– One test facilitator
– One observer
– Website
– Video camera
TietoEnator © 2003
Usability testing – How? (2)
 Introduction
 Tasks for the user
– The user reads and thinks aloud
 Maybe interview
 Maybe questionnaire
 Take notes
 Present results to web writers and web developers
 Change what is needed
TietoEnator © 2003
Other methods for improving usability
 Focus group studies (to get to know your user population)
 Contextual user studies (to get a full picture of the users and their
working environment)
 User surveys (to gather quantitative data about your users)
TietoEnator © 2003
Writing for the web
TietoEnator © 2003
The characteristics of the media
 Non-linear (there’s no telling where the reader will start)
 Interactive
– Active, not passive
– Expectations of action
– The reader can reply
– The reader can engage others
 We must trust readers to take what they need, not what we want to give them
TietoEnator © 2003
Reading on screen
 The screen
– Blink rate drops from 12 to 5 times per minute
– Dehydration
 The reading situation
– Screen and reader has low mobility
– Scrolling text (not more than two pages down)
– Nausea
 What does this mean?
– Reading screen text takes 25 % longer than reading conventional text
TietoEnator © 2003
Scanning
 The reading situation results in:
– 79% of readers scan the text
– 11 % read word-by-word
 Therefore:
–
–
–
–
–
Write short
Break up the text in short chunks to improve scanability
Use sub headers
Use bullets
Use Bold (not italics or underscore)
TietoEnator © 2003
Header
introductory paragraph introductory paragraph introductory paragraph introductory
paragraph introductory paragraph introductory paragraph introductory paragraph
Sub header
Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy
Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy
Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy
Sub header
Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy
Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy
Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy Copy
TietoEnator © 2003
TietoEnator © 2003
TietoEnator © 2003
TietoEnator © 2003
Linear structure
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
TietoEnator © 2003
Hypertext-structure
TietoEnator © 2003
The inversed news triangle
Short summary, keywords
Identification of Who, What, When
Explain How
Explain Why
Consequences
Comparisons
Perspectives
TietoEnator © 2003
Rules of web writing












Structure the text using the inverted news triangle
Divide the text into paragraphs
Use informative subheadings
Use bullets when the text allows for
Limit text to that which is necessary
Avoid superfluous words - write shortly and clearly
Use short sentences – one thought per period
Use active verbs
Update the text frequently
Use oral language and address the user directly
Be careful when using bold, italic or underlining.
Be consistent in your style and consider the target group carefully
TietoEnator © 2003
Exercise: Writing for the web
Local authorities (and in exceptional circumstances, the Secretary of State) have powers to make changes to the footpath
and bridleway networks in their area. They can create new routes, or divert or extinguish existing routes. Orders that
create such changes are normally referred to as "public path orders". Anyone may ask their local authority to make a
public path order, but, unlike definitive map modification orders, the powers are discretionary rather than a duty.
New routes may be created either through an agreement between the local authority and the landowner, or compulsorily
by order. Local authorities may create footpaths or bridleways where they believe there is a need. In considering the need
for a new route the authority must take into account how much the way would add to public enjoyment of the network and
the effect the creation would have on the rights of the landowner. Compensation for created routes may also be payable
depending on the effect of the creation on the landowner’s interest in the land.
Extinguishment of a footpath or bridleway can only be achieved where it can be shown that there is no longer a need for
the way. In deciding this, an authority must take into account how much the route is likely to be used by the public before
extinguishment and the effect of the extinguishment on the land over which the route passes.
The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 will introduce new powers for the creation, diversion and extinguishment of
rights of way. These include the right for landowners and occupiers to apply for diversion or extinguishment in the interests
of agriculture, forestry or the breeding or keeping of horses, the diversion or extinguishment in the interests of crime
prevention, the diversion or extinguishment in the case of rights of way that cross school premises in the interest of
protecting pupils and staff at the school and the diversion for the protection of Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
Temporary diversion of a footpath or bridleway for up to fourteen days is also possible in cases where dangerous works
are being carried out.
TietoEnator © 2003