TableOfContents([2])

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

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

Q11. Please rate the system in terms of how easy it is to use the 'Favourites' functionality. attachment:Q%31%31.jpeg

Requirements