|
Size: 6521
Comment:
|
Size: 7193
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 18: | Line 18: |
| === Requirements === ''The banner title is just part of the decoration unless I look for the title. I could see from the list what it was though. '' |
|
| Line 19: | Line 21: |
| . ''In photographs in top margin, nothing that immediately strikes as being 'WW1' '' Generally initial impressions of the site were reported as being satisfactory. It is recognised however that the site is not finished and many of the comments relate to developments that are already planned e.g. text that explains what the website is about. The following requirements are worth consideration however: |
|
| Line 20: | Line 24: |
| === Requirements === ''The banner title is just part of the decoration unless I look for the title. I could see from the list what it was though. |
* (1) The web site banner is prominent on all screens and takes up a large proportion of space but does not clearly describe what the website is about. It is recommended that the banner be made smaller, and more simple with fewer images and text that states clearly what the website can be used for. * (2) The site needs to make it as easy as possible for users to find the most useful tools. For instance, the search box is likely to be the first port of call for many users yet it is hidden in the banner. Other users will turn straight to browsing yet their are currently no collections. For researchers the killer function is the compare manuscripts facility yet this is hidden in favourites. On the other hand the site emphasizes advanced search in the side bar but this is likely to used much less frequently (also most search engines put 'Advanced search' links next to search e.g. see Google. Similarly while participants thought 'browse by date' was a useful tool it is debatable whether this should be so prominent. In summary the requirement is for the team to create some use case processes for different types of user e.g. researcher, teacher, enthusiast, journalist, student, then map out the process by which they will use the site (a) on first encounter (b) to complete the core tasks that this type of user would undertake. This will help create the right emphasis in terms of site functionality.''' ''' == Searching for resources == '''Q6. Please rate the system in terms of how easy it is to FIND resources that you are interested in.''' attachment:Q6.jpeg |
| Line 23: | Line 29: |
| In photographs in top margin, nothing that immediately strikes as being 'WW1' ''Generally initial impressions of the site were reported as being satisfactory. It is recognised however that the site is not finished and many of the comments relate to developments that are already planned e.g. text that explains what the website is about. The following requirements are worth consideration however: * (1) The web site banner is prominent on all screens and takes up a large proportion of space but does not clearly describe what the website is about. It is recommended that the banner be made smaller, and more simple with fewer images and text that states clearly what the website can be used for. '''' * (2) The site needs to make it as easy as possible for users to find the most useful tools. For instance, the search box is likely to be the first port of call for many users yet it is hidden in the banner. Other users will turn straight to browsing yet their are currently no collections. For researchers the killer function is the compare manuscripts facility yet this is hidden in favourites. On the other hand the site emphasizes advanced search in the side bar but this is likely to used much less frequently (also most search engines put 'Advanced search' links next to search e.g. see Google. Similarly while participants thought 'browse by date' was a useful tool it is debatable whether this should be so prominent. In summary the requirement is for the team to create some use case processes for different types of user e.g. researcher, teacher, enthusiast, journalist, student, then map out the process by which they will use the site (a) on first encounter (b) to complete the core tasks that this type of user would undertake. This will help create the right emphasis in terms of site functionality. == Searching for resources == Q6. Please rate the system in terms of how easy it is to FIND resources that you are interested in. attachment:Q6.jpeg Q7. Please rate the system in terms of how easy it is to DOWNLOAD resources that you are interested in. |
'''Q7. Please rate the system in terms of how easy it is to DOWNLOAD resources that you are interested in.''' |
| Line 35: | Line 33: |
| Line 39: | Line 35: |
| Line 43: | Line 40: |
| Line 44: | Line 42: |
| '''9. Please rate the system in terms of how easy it is to use to obtain prints that can be used in face to face meetings.''' attachment:Q9.jpeg | '''9. Please rate the system in terms of how easy it is to use to obtain prints that can be used in face to face meetings.'''''' attachment:Q9.jpeg ''' |
| Line 47: | Line 45: |
| In general this functionality worked well with only 2 participants saying more development work is needed. * (6) Make it clearer what will be sent to the printer e.g. any additional information that will be included with image such as hyperlinks or metadata | In general this functionality worked well with only 2 participants saying more development work is needed. * (6) Make it clearer what will be sent to the printer e.g. any additional information that will be included with image such as hyperlinks or metadata |
| Line 49: | Line 49: |
| '''Q11. Please rate the system in terms of how easy it is to use the 'Favourites' functionality.''' attachment:Q%31%31.jpeg |
'''Q11. Please rate the system in terms of how easy it is to use the 'Favourites' functionality.'''''' attachment:Q11.jpeg ''' |
| Line 53: | Line 52: |
| * Allow user to add items to favourites when search results are ticket over multiple pages * Allow items to be re-ordered through drag and drop which would include re-positioning multiple items at a time * Make it clearer what the 'move' functionality is for e.g. mostly to do with slide-show tool? * BUG: Adding multiple items to favourites where this batch of items includes one already added results in an error. Is there need to throw an error? Definitely do not stop all the other items being added as a result of the error |
|
| Line 54: | Line 57: |
| === Quantitative === === Qualitative === === Requirements statements === |
'''13. Please rate the system in terms of how easy it is to use the 'Advanced Search' functionality.''' attachment:Q%31%33.jpeg === Requirements === |
| Line 63: | Line 67: |
| Importance: Not important 1 - 5 Very important Effort: Easy 1 - 5 Very difficult ||<tablewidth="858px" tableheight="607px">'''Id''' ||'''Requirement''' ||'''Importance (i)''' ||'''Effort (e)''' ||'''Score (i x e)''' ||'''Notes''' || ||1 ||Change website banner.||4|| || || || ||2 ||Website emphasis||4|| || || || |
* Importance (i): Not important=1...5=Very important * Effort (e): Easy=1...5=Very difficult ||<tablewidth="858px" tableheight="607px">Id''' ''' ||Requirement''' ''' ||Importance (i)''' ''' ||Effort (e)''' ''' ||Score (i x e)''' ''' ||Notes''' ''' || ||1 ||Change website banner. ||4 || || || || ||2 ||Website emphasis ||4 || || || || |
Overview of methodology
Phase 1: May 2008
The objective of this phase of the user testing process was to gain feedback on the design of the site from close project collaborators. The rationale being to create a list of statements that can be fed into the next phase of the website development process, and be implemented before the stakeholder meeting in June 2008. The methodology involved using a survey tool to guide participants through six scenarios that focused on the core functionality offered by the WW1 website. Participants were asked to use a project laptop to step through the survey with two researchers. Researcher-1 supported the participant and encouraged them to 'think aloud' while they undertook the tasks outlined in the scenarios. Researcher-2 took notes on the interview by added notes into a separate survey in parallel. When answering the survey questions researcher-1 reminded the participant the comments they'd made during the scenarios so that these could be included in their survey responses. The results from this process are discussed below. The outcome of this process is a set of requirement statements that can be fed into further development work.
[attachment:WW1SurveyApril_2008.pdf WW1SurveyApril 2008.pdf]
Phase 2: June 2008
Phase 3: October2 2008
Findings: Phase 1
First impressions
Q4. Please rate the system in terms of how visually appealing you find the design. attachment:Q4b.jpeg
Requirements
The banner title is just part of the decoration unless I look for the title. I could see from the list what it was though.
In photographs in top margin, nothing that immediately strikes as being 'WW1'
Generally initial impressions of the site were reported as being satisfactory. It is recognised however that the site is not finished and many of the comments relate to developments that are already planned e.g. text that explains what the website is about. The following requirements are worth consideration however:
- (1) The web site banner is prominent on all screens and takes up a large proportion of space but does not clearly describe what the website is about. It is recommended that the banner be made smaller, and more simple with fewer images and text that states clearly what the website can be used for.
(2) The site needs to make it as easy as possible for users to find the most useful tools. For instance, the search box is likely to be the first port of call for many users yet it is hidden in the banner. Other users will turn straight to browsing yet their are currently no collections. For researchers the killer function is the compare manuscripts facility yet this is hidden in favourites. On the other hand the site emphasizes advanced search in the side bar but this is likely to used much less frequently (also most search engines put 'Advanced search' links next to search e.g. see Google. Similarly while participants thought 'browse by date' was a useful tool it is debatable whether this should be so prominent. In summary the requirement is for the team to create some use case processes for different types of user e.g. researcher, teacher, enthusiast, journalist, student, then map out the process by which they will use the site (a) on first encounter (b) to complete the core tasks that this type of user would undertake. This will help create the right emphasis in terms of site functionality.
Searching for resources
Q6. Please rate the system in terms of how easy it is to FIND resources that you are interested in. attachment:Q6.jpeg
Q7. Please rate the system in terms of how easy it is to DOWNLOAD resources that you are interested in.
attachment:Q7.jpeg
Requirements
With respect to finding resources the responses were split, with 4 saying further development was needed and 1 saying no extra development is need. We should remember that the participants were all experienced internet researchers, and less experienced users are likely to find the site difficult with respect to search.
- (3) Make search box easier to find (e.g. not in banner). Recommendation: provide link to advanced search next to Search box as per commonly used search engines such as Google, then remove advanced search from side bar.
- (4) Make it easier for user to download resources e.g. provide instructions on how to use File-Save-As option or right click. The current download link is more-or-less redundant. Also make it clear what will be downloaded e.g. just image, image plus link, image + metadata.
- (5) Provide more options for download e.g. download as PDF
It should be noted that some users will use 'browse' instead of 'search' but we were unable to observe this approach to finding resources because browse capabilities are currently not implemented.
Printing
9. Please rate the system in terms of how easy it is to use to obtain prints that can be used in face to face meetings. attachment:Q9.jpeg
Requirements
In general this functionality worked well with only 2 participants saying more development work is needed.
- (6) Make it clearer what will be sent to the printer e.g. any additional information that will be included with image such as hyperlinks or metadata
Favourites
Q11. Please rate the system in terms of how easy it is to use the 'Favourites' functionality. attachment:Q11.jpeg
Requirements
- Allow user to add items to favourites when search results are ticket over multiple pages
- Allow items to be re-ordered through drag and drop which would include re-positioning multiple items at a time
- Make it clearer what the 'move' functionality is for e.g. mostly to do with slide-show tool?
- BUG: Adding multiple items to favourites where this batch of items includes one already added results in an error. Is there need to throw an error? Definitely do not stop all the other items being added as a result of the error
Advanced search
13. Please rate the system in terms of how easy it is to use the 'Advanced Search' functionality. attachment:Q%31%33.jpeg
Requirements
Compound objects
Quantitative
Qualitative
Requirements statements
Analysis
Phase 1: May 2008
- Importance (i): Not important=1...5=Very important
- Effort (e): Easy=1...5=Very difficult
Id |
Requirement |
Importance (i) |
Effort (e) |
Score (i x e) |
Notes |
1 |
Change website banner. |
4 |
|
|
|
2 |
Website emphasis |
4 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|