from: musicmarkup.info Do not link directly to the PDF file (the hosted address could change). .. The special guidelines for designing to accommodate seniors are not covered in this. Book page for Jakob Nielsen's classic book (1/4 million copies sold) Designing Web Usability: The Practice of Simplicity, available in 22 languages. Approaches, methods and techniques for Web usability. . guidelines based on these theories and aimed at the designers of World Wide Web sites.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Japanese|
|ePub File Size:||19.54 MB|
|PDF File Size:||18.38 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Sign up for free]|
Designing Web Usability by Jakob Nielsen. Book report by Kari Dahn · maid, University of Reading · Oct 24, Jakob Nielsen has been called a guru. designing web usability pdf designing web usability musicmarkup.info is the one-stop source for user experience best practices and strategies. PDF | Web site design is popular and prolific, meeting the communication needs of a large user community. Many of these sites are poorly.
Scientific Research An Academic Publisher. Nielsen, J. Designing web usability: The practice of simplicity. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Publishing.
You know a form when you see it A form is a web page that has boxes you can type into. They know a form when they see one. Look at these two screenshots. They are deliberately too small to read. Even at a glance, you can immediately identify the one that is a form: The three layers: This is a problem with the relationship between the individual and the task imposed by the form. Then they sit down and try it. And on top of all that, government forms are often very ugly.
The appearance is poor. So we constructed our theory of the three layers of the form: Definition The relationship of a form is the relationship between the organization that is asking the questions and the person who is answering.
Definition The conversation of a form comes from the questions that it asks, any other instructions, and the way the form is arranged into topics. Definition The appearance of a form is the way that it looks: And above all, you get a good form by testing it with users—and then doing something about what you learn in the test.
Some definitions and two processes 7 A messy but typical forms design process In our experience most forms get designed in a process rather like this one—if they get any design attention at all. If you are forced into such a process, usually because of lack of time, we hope that the ideas in this book will help you to produce something that at least tries to be a good form that works well for your users.
First draft appears from somewhere Try to persuade stakeholders to change what they want Write and rewrite questions Pull together something logical for topic order Jiggle layout to make the form look tidy Launch it — no time for testing Messy but typical forms design process.
When you start writing questions, Chapters 3 to 6 on conversation should give you some ideas. Arguing about details, like whether to put a colon at the end of your labels? Jiggling layout? Then try Chapter 8, the other half of appearance: Making the form look easy. And, even if you think you have no time for testing, try Chapter 9.
You can test your form in half an hour. The methodical design process that really works We really want you to try the methodical design process, to start from the beginning and work through in the same order as the book. Relationship Persuading people to answer Asking for the right information Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Conversation Making questions easy to answer Writing useful instructions Chapter 3 Chapter 4 The success of your form hinges on persuading people to answer the questions on the form, preferably accurately.
We look at what the organization wants to achieve with the form. Chapters 3 to 6 are all about the conversation layer: Sometimes you need extra words to explain concepts on the form. This starts us on the appearance of forms. Establish trust 20 Rule 2: Reduce social costs 20 Rule 3: Increase rewards 21 A small reward: This represents an investment, even if it is only a tiny one, by the user in the relationship with your organization.
The quality of the information that you can collect depends on the quality of the relationship at the moment when you ask the question. And then the really crucial point: What makes them feel like trusting you? What reward do they want? What do they think of your organization?
This one is from the Open University. He really wants to get this right. Not sure what that means. Mike is a classic reader. He reads everything and will persist through the form until he succeeds with it. Rita is also a student at the Open University, but she is a year into her studies.
She uses this form at least once a day. Her usage pattern is like this: Another interaction pattern with a form: If you understand people, you design better forms To Rita, the form really looks like this; the area in focus is very small. That Open University form is a few years old. His desire to continue the relationship won. Our second user, Rita, knows this form well enough to rush through it. Other users might simply have nothing to do with the form.
Users of forms can be: Readers These users carefully read the form. And a user encountering a website registration form might have any of these three reactions; it all depends on the value the user puts on continuing to use that website. Think back to the last time you signed for a parcel.
Did you rush, read, or refuse when you were given the receipt to sign? Pick the right moment to ask a question Asking for information at the wrong time can alienate a user. The same question put at the right moment can be entirely acceptable. Think about downloading a car. Would you answer? It would be quite odd if the salesperson did NOT do so. Is your form asking its questions at the right moment in the relationship?
Relationship varies question by question The relationship can change from question to question. We sometimes see people work their way quite happily through most of a form, only to become annoyed or frustrated by one poorly placed or ill-considered question. Well, it looks professional. At least, the company has enough money to build a decentlooking website. Visual collaboration, complex products, improve business processes. Sounds like the right product. Where is it? Name, company, phone?
And so it continues until the end of the form. A bit up, a bit down. Of course, not all users will react in the same way that our user did, and they will rarely be as explicit as our user in analyzing their views. But if that relationship deteriorates too far, users bail out or start entering anything at all, merely to get to the end of the form. The key idea behind Social Exchange Theory is that people will answer questions if they feel good about it.
Rule 1: Establish trust. People are more likely to respond to a question if they trust the organization that asks it and agree with the purpose for which the information will be used. Rule 2: Reduce social costs.
Social costs are bad feelings, like being made to feel inferior or being put at a disadvantage. Rule 3: Increase rewards. People are more likely to respond if they perceive that they will get some reward by doing so.
Social Exchange Theory comes from our favorite book on questionnaire design: Dillman, An immediate, small reward can be more effective than a delayed, bigger reward. For example, in , Jeannine M. James and Richard Bolstein reported on an experiment where they tested the effect of monetary incentives on a mail survey of owners of small construction subcontracting companies. The immediate dollar bill shows trust in the respondent, whereas the deferred reward means that the respondent had to trust the questionnaire provider.
If seems like a long time ago, check out this research. A small reward that showed trust. Establish trust Our guidelines on trustworthiness for forms are developed from the Stanford guidelines Fogg, on web credibility.
The form itself can reinforce that credibility by following these guidelines—or undermine it by failing to do so. To increase trust 1. Show that the form is published by a real organization. Make it easy to contact the organization that publishes the form. Ensure that the form has a clear purpose. Make sure that the form looks as if it has been designed by a professional.
Keep advertising away from the form. Check that the form works correctly: To reduce social cost 1. Keep the form short and easy. Help users to feel in control of the form by giving them a progress indicator or summary menu. Minimize requests for sensitive or personal information.
Design questions that users can answer.
Use error messages that respect the effort the user is making. Keep retyping to the minimum necessary to correct the problem. Three rules that influence response rates Rule 3: Is it access to your information, or are you providing a service?
Would you give this site your email address if asked for it? Would you give your email address if the company promised to send you a voucher you could exchange for a can of Coke? A small reward: We started at the home page for the Department of Transportation in each state. That was fairly painless. Three rules that influence response rates Now I need to read some instructions and click Renew Your Vehicle. This is getting annoying.
Now I have to scroll through even more instructions. Where IS this form? Who will answer your questions? Who are they? What do they want to achieve with the form? Design for physical abilities and differences In many countries, you are likely to be under a legal obligation to ensure that people with disabilities have equal access to your form.
You do not necessarily have to provide exactly the same route for people with disabilities as for other people, but it will be a lot easier to maintain your forms if you have one form that works for people whether or not they have disabilities.
Statistics for disabilities vary greatly worldwide. The most crucial problems for us as forms designers are: The United Nations publishes statistics on disability taken from census records at http: Ask them these questions.
What information are you expecting to provide? Would it worry you if you had to give personal information on this form? Or do you expect to have to ask other people or to look things up? How much time can you spare? For example, do you get interrupted? Is it quiet or noisy? Watch carefully: Do you know enough about your users?
Be honest! But there is a difference between who your users could be and who they are likely to be. Then we think about the relationship questions. Do some people use it constantly, others only occasionally? I need somewhere to lay my head on my next business trip.
And we want to choose a sightseeing tour. Will there be space to tell them about that? Might even talk it through with someone before we commit. Want to be done within a minute or two. Happy to spend up to half-an-hour checking that everything is just right. Telephone is ringing, dealing with email, last-minute discussion with colleagues.
A quiet moment at home. Now think about designing the hotel booking form. Will one form meet both sets of needs? The more realistic the personas, the easier it is to envisage whether or not we are serving them adequately in the design. An example of using personas We worked with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales on the design of a form that asks Chartered Accountants a few complex questions about the ownership and conduct of their business, plus many routine questions such as the address of the business.
The Chartered Accountants have to complete this form every year as a condition of continuing their practice. We helped the designers to create these personas: He started in practice on his own 10 years ago. As the designers thought about the personas, they realized that although Leonard had the legal responsibility and would have to answer the complex questions, he would probably want to delegate the process of answering the routine questions to Gerald or Marge.
This conclusion showed that the designers needed to create two types of logon: They also needed to design the form so that it could be saved without being signed. Does this seem too abstract? Then try explaining the bare facts about the persona to a couple of colleagues and then tell them the story. We predict that the story conveys the reality of the user better than the bare facts. If you already have personas for your website, then why not use the same ones for your forms design?
Summary Summary Asking for data from people requires a commitment from them, even if it is tiny. To ensure that you get honest and timely data from your users, make sure that you: Organizations love them: Stick a form in front of them and they leave your site, they lie, or if they are really web-savvy they use a privacy protection service such as Bugmenot www. Bugmenot is a privacy protection service. But we know that this is an unrealistic position, because there will always be commercial or political pressures for registration.
So how can we limit the damage and make the registration process as easy as possible?
Registration forms: Offer a reward: Be polite: Can you restrict your registration form to a single question? Great, go for it. For example, if all you really need to do is assure yourself that you are dealing with adults for legal reasons, then just ask the single question: And in most countries, there are laws about how you handle personal data. Ask once only If you offer an appropriate reward and keep to a small number of questions that appear to be relevant to the purpose of your form then users will register.
They have registered once: The problem is that there is no example that is universally good. Explains benefits. Some users will miss the explanation of benefits on the right. Good clear layout.
All these question are typical for registration forms and expected in this context. Good defaults favor the user. Here are a couple of examples: Conversely, if you ask users to give you some information, then they expect that you will use it. For example, we were testing a form that allowed users to order a printed brochure. It asked for the obvious information name and address but also asked for email address.
The simple solution: Find out why you need the information Every piece of information you ask for puts a burden on your user and creates a burden on your organization to do something with it. Ask your stakeholders Anyone who has an interest in your form is a stakeholder. For example: Do they see any barriers to that success? Typically, we run into one of these two problems: No one is interested.
Record your decisions and make sure you have offered formal and informal opportunities to stakeholders to get involved. Everyone is far too interested.
Senior managers arrive at meetings. There are many opinions, all fervently held and often contradictory. Concentrate on users and do plenty of testing see Chapter 9. Try to make sure that the decisions are based on data rather than opinions. Ask your stakeholders to work in pairs. Get each pair to write a persona for the typical user of your form. You can use the relationship questions in Chapter 1 to prompt them. Then get the pairs to tell everyone else about their particular persona.
This often helps us to get agreement for activities aimed at establishing the facts about users. The main outcome from the discussion is usually one of these: This is good because it shows that there is a consensus about who is using your form.
One caution: This is also good because it shows that you are thinking about many different users and their needs. Taking this action helps you, and your stakeholders, to concentrate on the users you are designing for. There is a short explanation of critical incident technique at www. Use a question protocol to think about how information is used If your form is complicated or you think that there is any risk of disagreements between different departments about what you need to know, then you need a question protocol.
A question protocol is a list of: So then we set up a few meetings with the different departments to wring the answers out of them. Use information that already exists in your organization Sometimes you can use information that already exists either with or without having the users check it. Other times you have to ask the users for the information. Ask user Some of the information you hold can be, or must be, used without asking the users anything.
These information items do not appear on the form but instead are collected from a database somewhere. For example, in the UK and New Zealand, many people with jobs never have to do a tax return.
Instead, the tax authorities use their databases of information collected from the employers. The tax deduction system works so that employees pay the right amount of tax: Check whether your organization already holds the informaiton 39 Often you need to allow the users to check the information that you already hold.
This information is gathered from a database and prepopulates part of the form. All the users need to do is check that the information is correct or change it as necessary. This user has bought before; shipping address and method are prepopulated but can be changed if desired. This information exists, and the user can change it. The information exists and no question is needed. The user may or may not have a gift certificate, so site.
Think about asking for names and addresses. Users often have small variations in the way they enter them. Jane P. Smith Mrs J. Smith Address: The result is a user with two records, with all the associated problems this may cause.
For example, if you are a government department, then you could look at government gateways such as www. Is there a similar organization in another district or country? An example of looking at competitors We were helping a leading business school to design their application form.
We knew that students would consider both this school and at least one other. So we looked at: Ask for information that you need Summary: We were working on a conference booking form in the UK.
The typical users were: It was a popular conference, with reasonable rates and limited places. The users were happy to book their places, and the conference appealed to people who were comfortable with the Internet and with forms. It was a small, simple organization, and we had only a few stakeholders: Our questions, who needs the answer, and our notes are in the table opposite. For what our initial notes? We used to be more formal than we are now. Presenters need it for planning.
When did we last send a fax to a conference attendee? She said: You have to have that. Or would you make a different decision? In the end, we decided to retain title and job title but to remove fax number. In our discussions with the conference manager, we learned that she always talked to the attendee before faxing something, and she always needed a fax number near the attendee at that moment which might be different from the usual fax number.
So it was better to ask for the fax number at the point it was needed. Our conference form example showing a question protocol is straightforward. We wish it were always this easy! In our case, Marketing happened to want information that is also necessary for another purpose that is, the organization an attendee works for. If this were the case, the users would have to do more work. In this chapter, we start by analyzing the process of answering a question because a disruption of any detail of that will undermine the conversation.
Then we go on to think about how to make each part of that process as easy as we can. Nor do we often have to analyze it. Our steps are based on the ideas in Tourangeau, Rips, and Rasinski about answering questions in surveys. We thought about how people answer questions in surveys. We found that there are four steps in answering a question on a form: Understand the question.
Find an answer. Put the answer on the form. These steps may happen almost together, or they may take quite a while. At the other extreme, Mark Barratt of Text Matters http: The users were very large industries. To complete the form correctly, they had to: Most forms fall somewhere in between these two extremes, but the steps in the process are much the same.
Consider the responses of a user looking at a typical login form on an e-commerce site. These are not particularly tricky questions, but each of them does pose a minor problem—each in a different area of answering the question.
What do they mean? Understanding the question Do I trust them enough to give my email address? Judging the answer Catalogue code… I think I put it in the recycling… can I be bothered to find it?
Placing the answer Of course, most people do not sit and agonize over each tiny element of answering a question. For example, the U. Even something apparently straightforward can give the user a bit of a problem to decode. Make the question easy to understand Or, consider the pair of questions in the following screenshot. Look at the following example. Do you think lawyers would understand this?
Computer programmers? Anyone you know who took up computing as a senior, perhaps your grandparents or parents? This example is from the website of a well-known maker of movies for children. A weed is a plant that is growing in the wrong place. Jargon is no problem at all if the users know what it means; then it becomes convenient shorthand for getting at mutually understood concepts. The following screenshot is part of a form used inside an organization.
All the users of this form understood this jargon, no problem. But we often see two questions hidden in a single one. The problem is that users have to unwrap this single question into its separate parts to be able to answer, and then there are more possibilities than answers: Yes or no?
But these double questions can sneak up on you. For example, this form requires users to think about legal responsibility, residence, and whether the child was in their care. All at once. These exclusions mean that users have to answer several questions at once.
Some questions hide two questions in one. Look at the detail from this complaint form. This is really two questions: These questions are definitely in the wron order. Make the question easy to understand Do you agree that the previous two-in-one question is a problem? Turn negative questions into positive ones Questions that include negatives can be harder to understand.
Do not wish Confusing— especially after all those words before the question. A typical double negative in marketing information. This one is from a train ticket business. Look at the exclusions in the next screenshot. But the overall intent is negative: These exclusions look positive but are negative.
Section from a mortgage application form. The user is expecting to provide contact information and pay the conference fee. Because of their position in the conversation, the user assumes that the questions about mailing address are part of the general contact details—in other words that they will be used for contact details.
But, in fact, this information is not for contact purposes at all, but for credit card validation. Incidentally, it also improves data quality: Make the question easy to understand Get rid of decision points Sometimes forms want users to decide between questions or parts of a question.
It lets users look up the selling price of houses in the UK and offers users a choice between entering a postcode or a combination of street and town. This form required a decision between questions 1 and 2. But if we look at the typical form reading pattern, the problem with decisions becomes more obvious. Why do I have to enter the same information twice? In a typical reading pattern, users will ignore the headings.
It is important to examine both sets of attributes when evaluating usability. Thus, in this study, two website evaluation methods were used to obtain quality usability data. Automated tools were used to evaluate internal attributes, whereas heuristic evaluation was used to assess external attributes. The numerous tools available have different usability attributes. In this study, three automated evaluation tools were chosen to analyse various usability factors such as performance, load time, navigation, mobile friendliness, and user satisfaction, as well as aspects such as SEO, accessibility, and security that contribute to user satisfaction.
Table 3 shows the criteria used by each tool, specifically performance, accessibility, mobile friendliness, SEO, usability, and page analysis. The data obtained using this tool represent the extent and level of website download speeds and the sizes of the webpages of the university websites under study.
The total size of each website, the total size of the images on the website, the size of images as percentages of the total website sizes, and the download times were collected see Table 4. According to the usability guidelines , the optimal download time for a home page is 10 seconds. Thus, to improve download speed, the suggested size for home pages is 45 kb to 55 kb.
IMAMU obtained the highest usability score Overall, JU attained the highest score This method was employed in this study. His heuristics consist of 10 items derived from problems found in usability studies of user interfaces. Another well-known standard with the aim of increasing usability is the ISO . These heuristics provide guidance on the human-centred design of software Web-user interfaces. In terms of heuristics designed for evaluating e-learning websites, little appears in the literature, which is disproportionate to the importance of e-learning [39, 40].
The developed heuristics include those formulated by Squires and Preece , Notess , Wong et al. To evaluate the usability of a given website, the website must be checked by one or more experts using a predefined set of heuristic guidelines. For this study, self-evaluation was employed to assess usability by using heuristic guidelines.
The resulting heuristic checklist consisted of questions covering nine components see Table 7. Figure 1 shows the overall percentage of heuristics that were met for each usability component. This can be attributed to most of the evaluated websites fulfilling the heuristics of this component by, for example, displaying the most important items in a list at the top of the page; writing sentences in the active voice; avoiding cute, clever, or cryptic headings; using hypertext appropriately to structure content; defining acronyms and abbreviations on first use; and using words, phrases, and concepts familiar to the typical user.
Forms lacked clear distinction between required and optional fields, as well as completion guidelines, and some forms failed to provide appropriate feedback that allowed error correction. In terms of the help, feedback, and error tolerance component, two e-learning websites did not provide an FAQ page or online help, and the results show that little consideration was given to creating accessible help systems.
Problems included that the FAQ or online help sections did not provide step-by-step instructions to help users carry out the most important tasks, and most websites did not provide useful feedback when needed.
Furthermore, none of the websites allowed users to customize features, for example, by renaming objects or through actions in the interface. The websites studied fulfilled the related heuristics such as the content is up to date, the site contains third-party support, it is clear that there is a real organisation behind the site, the site avoids advertisements, and the site is free of typographical errors and spelling mistakes.
This indicates that half the websites contained usability problems. In contrast, most websites achieved a high score on reliability factors. The JU website scored the lowest for both the validity and expertise factors, followed by the NU website.
Moreover, the heuristic evaluation method showed that Saudi e-learning websites need to improve their home page search engines and provide more advanced search functionality. Additionally, websites must provide sitemaps that link to every page on their websites.
The results of this investigation show that university websites were reliable and well designed but violated basic accessibility and usability guidelines. In addition, Saudi e-learning websites need to improve their home page search engines, and provide advanced search functionality and fully functional sitemaps linked to every page on their websites.
University websites in Saudi Arabia should be required to be evaluated periodically using established criteria such as usability, accessibility, and credibility. The current study should be repeated using the user evaluation method. Nielsen, "How to conduct a heuristic evaluation," retrieved November, vol. Jokela, N. Iivari, J. Matero, and M. Karukka,"The standard of user-centered design and the standard definition of usability: analyzing ISO against ISO ," in Proceedings of the Latin American conference on Human-computer interaction, , pp.
Perlman, "Web-based user interface evaluation with questionnaires," Retrieved March, vol. Tullis and J. Stetson, "A comparison of questionnaires for assessing website usability," in Usability Professional Association Conference, , pp.
Nielsen and R. Hvannberg, E. Law, and M. Polson, C. Lewis, J. Rieman, and C. Wharton,"Cognitive walkthroughs: a method for theory-based evaluation of user interfaces," International Journal of man-machine studies, vol. Blackmon, P. Polson, M.
New Riders Publishing. Mary P. Creative Education , Vol. The primary objective of the curriculum is to provide an early foundation for drug abuse prevention efforts by educating elementary school-aged children about the brain and how alcohol, tobacco, and drugs can harm it.
The program employs engaging and entertaining elements including Flashbased activities and educational games. At post-intervention, there was a significant increase in knowledge scores for the case group; this increase was retained at the six-week follow-up.
Case group attitudes towards science were more positive immediately after post-intervention than at baseline, and at follow up than at baseline. BrainTrain4Kids can be an effective tool for educating children about science and drugs, and has the potential to positively impact attitudes.