Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

IRB Web Site Usability Test Final Report English 3367 Web Usability Testing Team Prepared for: Donna Peters, Project Sponsor Human Subjects Research Coordinator.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "IRB Web Site Usability Test Final Report English 3367 Web Usability Testing Team Prepared for: Donna Peters, Project Sponsor Human Subjects Research Coordinator."— Presentation transcript:

1 IRB Web Site Usability Test Final Report English 3367 Web Usability Testing Team Prepared for: Donna Peters, Project Sponsor Human Subjects Research Coordinator Texas Tech University Institutional Review Board

2 Introduction Background Purpose Project Overview

3 Methodology Qualitative Heuristic evaluation Site map Quantitative Lab tests Post test

4 Heuristic Evaluation Visibility of System Status Does the web site tell you where you are? Match of system and the real world Does the web site use realistic language and conventions? User control and freedom Does the web site allow the user to control activities? Consistency with standards Does the web site present information and terms consistently? Error prevention Does the web site make it hard or easy to make mistakes? Recognition Rather Than Recall Does the web site make you remember things or make things obvious? Flexibility and Efficiency of Use Does the web site make it easy to do things in more than one way? Minimalist Design Does the web site encourage interaction? Error Recovery Are error messages plainly stated with clear solutions? Help and Documentation Does the web site present help effectively?

5 Heuristic Evaluation Results CharacteristicObservation Visibility of system statusYes, there is a title page for each main subject. Title tag is not being effectively used: currently, using URL address, could repeat title or be more descriptive over the site Match of system and the real world Technical wording mixed with common understandable language User control and freedom No, feels like there are too many options and if mouse moves just a bit, there are too many options with other sub-categories Consistency with standards The Tech pages are consistent with tables and text, but if it is linked out, the pages change or documentation is too wordy to understand Error prevention Very easy to make mistakes, no clarity to where user is on site. Recognition rather than recall No, overload of information in technical terms, needed information is hidden quite well. Flexibility and efficiency of use No, there is no return to main page/back button; there is really no good navigation. There is also no site map. Minimalist design No, site seems to be very cold and technical, thus making the user shy away from interaction. Error recovery There is an to contact the webmaster for any questions to the site, but there is not a Q&A section available for common questions. Help and documentation There is a lot of documentation but it is not organized well. It seems like there is too much documentation, which makes the user shy away from trying to find the page he/she needs. Wording and organization is poor.

6 Test Objectives 1.Terminology. Do users understand the terminology on the IRB site? 2.Resource types. Do users understand the differences between resource types as described on the site and how that affects the availability of items? 3.Organization. Is the site organization effective and usable for students trying to locate institutional review process information? Are users able to identify parts of the site relating to IRB and differentiate it from other parts of the site (ORS)? 4.Navigation. Is the navigation of the site efficient for an IRB approval task? Are users aware of their current location in the site and how to return to a prior point in the process? Can site be accessed from different locations by different users? 5.Page layout. Are the page layouts confusing or distracting? Are they too similar or too different too dense, or too sparse? 6.Form usage. Are the users made aware of the function of the various forms they need to fill out? Can users understand and be able to properly complete the checklist? 7.User control. Do users feel engaged and in control when using the web site? 8.Quality of writing. Is the site well-written overall and clear enough for users to understand the information they see? 9.Links and controls. Are hyperlinks and controls always spotted and recognized as such on each page?

7 User Personas

8 Tasks Task 1: Find the Getting Started page LinkLink Task 2: (F) Using the Exemptions page for IRB approval Task 2: (G) What are some requirements for Principle Investigators? Task 3: Is TTU approval needed if TTU is not funding your research? Task 4: What are the elements of a consent form? Task 5: Who would you contact to get additional information and how

9 Tasks Linked to Test Objectives Graduate Scenario/Task List: Scenario 1: Allocated time, 10 minutes You are thinking about doing research involving human subjects and are required to obtain IRB permission before proceeding. Locate the How to Get Started link on the site. Relevant test objectives X1. TerminologyX4. Navigation7. User control 2. Resource typesX5. Page layout8. Quality of writing X3. Organization6. Form usageX9. Links and controls

10 User Test Results Task 1: Find the Getting Started page LinkLink 4 out of 5 were unable to find the Getting Started page Task 2: (F) Using the Exemptions page for IRB approval 2 out of 3 had difficulty finding and using the form Task 2: (G) What are some requirements for Principle Investigators? 2 out of 2 had difficulty answering the question Task 3: Is TTU approval needed if TTU is not funding your research? 4 out of 5 answered the question incorrectly Task 4: What are the elements of a consent form? LinkLink 3 out of 5 were not able to answer correctly Task 5: Who would you contact to get additional information and how 5 out of 5 were able to answer correctly

11 Post Test Results

12 Key Findings Language unclear in pages and in forms Navigation of site difficult and navigation bar confusing Introductions to forms unclear and skimpy Users did not know where to start Overall site poorly organized

13 Language Not Clear

14 Introduction Not Useful n.wmv Introduction to forms need more information

15 Navigation Unclear Improve navigation by reducing redundant links.

16 How To Get Started Not Useful Make How to Get Started a series of steps with links.

17 Site Map Evaluation The site is mostly a collection of documents… Organize the site around recognized user persons

18 Site Poorly Organized Organize the site around recognized users Tester -using the site to find information on testing procedures and policies Testee -interested in participating in the testing process Eraider member (password needed)-links that can only be used by those with an eraider account Administrator (password possibility) staff who will be conducting or overseeing testing and research, and may need administrative access to use the link External link -leads to links that are not directly controlled by texas tech (or ORS & IRB website)

19 Recommendations Clarify definitions of terms LinkLink Make How to Get Started useful Improve navigation by reducing redundant links Create informative overviews for forms Reorganize the pages according to user types

20 Conclusion Project Mission: make educated recommendations concerning the effectiveness of the ORS Human Subjects website Project Methods: heuristic evaluation, qualitative and quantitative measurements, usability testing Subjects Studied: terminology, resource types, organization, navigation page, layout, form usage, user control, quality of writing, links and controls Recommendations: Clarify definitions of terms Make Getting Started useful Improve navigation by reducing redundant links Create informative overviews for forms Organize the site around user needs

21 Final Report Please view our entire report at:

22 Questions?


Download ppt "IRB Web Site Usability Test Final Report English 3367 Web Usability Testing Team Prepared for: Donna Peters, Project Sponsor Human Subjects Research Coordinator."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google