Heuristic Evaluation and Cognitive Walkthrough - Assignment Example

?Introduction One of a successful means of disseminating information is the World Wide Web, which runs over the internet. Since the internet is not governed, therefore, anyone who has access to a web server can develop and upload a website on any topic. Consequently, the graphical user interface (GUI) and design of a website has frequently been overlooked the explicit standards, accessibility, quality and usability over the internet. The website which is inadequately designed and missing the above factors eventually results in deprived representation of a company, hence, the company losses revenue. Therefore, it is extremely imperative to develop and upload the website is not only easy to use but also adaptable, learnable and memorable. In this regard, some authors have provided guidelines and methods for developing and evaluating graphical user interfaces (GUI) and web designs. Some of the guidelines and methods for evaluating a website are given below: i. Heuristic Evaluation ii. Cognitive Walk-through iii. Pluralistic Walkthrough iv. Summative Evaluation v. Formative Evaluation Apple Web Design Guideline vi. IBM Web Design Guidelines vii. Library of Congress World Wide Web Style viii. Yale Web Style Guide Selection and Justification of Two Methods In this paper, I have evaluated a website having URL: http://www.thorpepark.com/, using two of the above usability methods for evaluating a website. The first method that I have chosen for evaluation of the website is Heuristic Evaluation, developed by Jakob Nielson, it is the most increasingly used method for evaluation and improvement of user interface designs. As per a study on comparison of four techniques of evaluation, the largest number of problems in a website (more than 50 %) were found by the method of heuristic evaluation, this include most severe as well as least severe. Four to Five (4-5) user interface evaluators (experts) are required, in order to evaluate a website by this method, but as far as this assignment is individual, therefore, the website has only been evaluated by me. The second method that I have chosen in this paper in order to evaluate the said website is Cognitive Walkthrough, a method for identifying and fixing errors that transpire when browsing and searching for information on a website. This method helps defining and evaluating goals, assumptions and tasks in users’ perspective. The cognitive walkthrough focuses on the user’s tasks, user interface design, user’s experience and how fast the user can learn the functions/tasks. Furthermore, this method uses fewer resources in terms of human, equipment and time. I chose both of above methods, for not only the advantages given above but also they are poles apart from each other and we are expecting to have diverse results. Furthermore, these methods are used to evaluate the accessibility, usability and adaptability of the website, interface evaluation, with both perspectives user’s as well as website and its behavior. The browser that I have used in this paper is the Internet explorer version 9. Furthermore, I have given below the URL of the pages that I have included in this paper for evaluation. Heuristic Evaluation Technique In order to evaluate the website through the heuristic evaluation technique, I have used set of criteria mentioned by Jakob Nielsen heuristic. Sundry aspects of the website were reviewed, violations identified, and severity ratings assigned to the evaluated issues. It is based on a permutation of occurrence, impact, and determination of usability problem. The ratings of the Nielson follow a 0 to 4 scale and map to the following information. 0 = I don’t agree that this is a usability problem at all 1 = Cosmetic problem only: need not be fixed unless extra time is available on project 2 = Minor usability problem: fixing this should be given low priority 3 = Major usability problem: important to fix, so should be given high priority 4 = Usability catastrophe: imperative to fix this before product can be released Following are the ten (10) set criteria defined by Jakob Nielson. I have chosen some of the following (that pertains to Accessibility and Usability) in order to evaluate the website. i. Visibility of system status ii. Match between system and the real world iii. User control and freedom iv. Consistency and standards v. Error prevention vi. Recognition rather than recall vii. Flexibility and efficiency of use viii. Aesthetic and minimalist design ix. Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors x. Help and documentation Visibility of the System S.N Issues Rank Suggestions for improvement 1. The following figure shows the main menu links of the website, the links which the user already visited has not changed its color; therefore, the user may get confused whether he has visited this link before or not. 4 There are three forms of link i-e link (standard link yet to be visited), alink (mouse on the link) and vlink (visited before), should be differentiated by using different colors, underline or bold, with consistency. 2. After clicking any link, the user has not been informed where he is now, this may confuse the user. Furthermore, there is no back button on the page or even no site map is available. 4 The website should include four components of way-finding that are orientation (where I am?), route decision (to find the way for going next), mental mapping (consistency and prediction for where to go) and closure (satisfaction of arriving the right place). 3. The pages of the website contain links even over pictures, tags, ads etc. And if the user clicked any of the links mistakenly, the user would be taken to the next page without knowing where and why he is here. This enhances misinterpretation of the website. 4 The links of the website should be managed more sophistically keeping in view the above suggestions. Furthermore, it should be avoided to place links over the pictures, tags and ads, unless, one necessarily needs it. Consistency and Standards S.N Issues Rank Suggestions for improvement 1. Too many figures instead of text and simple links along with dark colors have been used in the website that hides the actual objective and therefore, the company may reduce revenue. 3 Usually, too many figures should be avoided for text and links. Moreover, sophisticated, consistent and appropriate number of colors with combination of light and dark colors may used in the website. 2. Every page of the website has different font colors, with inconsistent sizes and styles. 2 Same font sizes, styles and colors may be used on every page. By developing the consistent website in respect of font, figures and colors makes the website more learnable, hence increases usability. 3. The font on the page that showing student packages is too small, this is not only font inconsistency but also the information on the page is unreadable. 4 Readable font sizes may be used on every page. By developing the consistent website in respect of font, figures and colors makes the website more learnable, hence increases usability. Recognition Rather than Recall S.N Issues Rank Suggestions for improvement 1. Inappropriate text used on the links (Plan Your Visit) leads to users’ confusion. User clicks the link having assumption that he could plan his visit through this link. However, this link shows only the map of the park. 3 Appropriate and meaningful text on the links should be used so that the user can understand what is coming up on the next page. This enhances users’ understandability and adaptability of the website. 2. The information uploaded to this website is poorly structured as almost the same things are being shown by different links. For example, Groups & Pricing, both provides information of discounts; however, in the Pricing link user can also provide information regarding number of persons for advance booking, which is again an inappropriate text for link. 3 Every page of the website should have an informative title, brief information regarding the title, creation/revision date, a copyright statement, and mini-sitemap showing where the user is. Furthermore, the information on the web pages should not be repetitive, however, information on single page can relate to the information on other page, through hypertext link. 3. The structure of the website is inappropriate without local navigation, searching options, etc. 3 The proper structure according to Yale Web Style guidelines is given below for consideration. The heuristic evaluation is not yet completed, only three (3) of ten (10) heuristics have been evaluated due to the restrictions of completing this assignment to 2000 words. However, the issues along with suggestions have been documented properly. Cognitive Walkthrough As the Cognitive Walk through describes users point of view, therefore I have taken two different tasks/usage scenarios of the user could perform. I have evaluated all the steps that are required to achieve the specific objective of the user. Task/Objective: Advance booking of Eight (8) family members Step 1: You have to go to the PRICES menu and click Park Tickets, as shown below. Step 2: In this step, you have to provide three types of information, first the number of days you want a booking and for how many people. The second is bifurcation of people you have selected in first. Then you have to select the date from the calendar. Lastly you have to confirm the booking after reviewing the entries you have made. As shown in the following figure. Step 3: The following webpage shows the total prices and the number of people going to visit the park, you just need to review the page and click continue button. Step 5: It is assumed that at this webpage you need to enter your cridet card information for payment. But unfortunately, the webpage has error as shown below. Suggestions The above error may be reported to the developers for its rectification, moreover, the inforamtion/documentation and exception handling may also be included in the website to recover from the above errors. Compliance with Current UK Legislation Previously, the website was evaluated in terms of Usability and Accessibility according to set criteria as given above. This part of the paper shows that either the website is in accordance to the current UK Legislation, in this regards the criteria along with the evaluation comments as provided by the experts is given below: S # Criteria Comments 1. Access Key The website is access key enabled, as recommended by the Government of United Kingdom. 2. Disclosure of users’ Information As per policy of the website, your information would not be shared to anybody until and unless a specific permission has been taken by the user. This is in accordance to the UK Government Legislations. 3. Contacting Users’ for Marketing Once you have given your information to the website, they will reach you automatically for marketing. But if you don’t want to have such information you can stop this as per policy of the website. This is in accordance to the UK Government Legislations. 4. Cookies Policy The cookies are being used in the website in order to improve the services provided by the website. This is in accordance to the UK Government Legislations. 5. Update Users’ Information The users are allowed to change their existing given on the website as it has been stated in the Data Protection Act 1998. 6. Usability of Disable People The website does not cater the services for disable people (low visionary or hearing sense etc) as given in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Conclusion The website was evaluated in terms of Usability, Accessibility and Compliance to UK’s legislation, by using techniques of Heuristic Evaluation and Cognitive Walkthrough on set criteria. It was found that most of the issues were found by the experts of Heuristic Evaluation, however, fewer issues were determined by the Cognitive Walkthrough. But on the other hand Heuristic Evaluation’s issues were not as much catastrophe as found in Cognitive Walkthrough that must need to be addressed before further delay. Furthermore, overall, the website compliances the rules and regulations issued by UK government, however, the website does not facilitate the disable people for using their website as mentioned in Disability Act. Reference List Thankam Paul Thyvalikakath. 2009. Comparative Study of Heuristic Evaluation and Usability Testing Methods. [online]. Available at: [Accessed 19 June 2012] Robin Jeffries, James R. Miller, Cathleen Wharton, Kathy M. Uyeda. 1991. User Interface Evaluation in the Real World: A Comparison of Four Techniques. Software and Systems Laboratory. HPL-91-03. Sarah J. Swierenga, Casey Rudden, Vivek Joshi. 2006. A User Interface Heuristic Evaluation of Freester.com. Usability & Accessibility Center, Michigan State University Marilyn Hughes Blackmon, Peter G. Polson, Muneo Kitajima, Clayton Lewis. 2002. Cognitive Walkthrough for Web. Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA Patrick J. Lynch, Sarah Horton. (2009). Yale Web Style Guide – 3rd Edition. Yale University’s of Information Technology Services. [online]. Available at: [Accessed 21 June 2012] World Wide Web Consortium. 1995. World Wide Web Home Page Guidelines. Washington, D.C. [online] Available at: [Accessed 22 June 2012] Government of United Kingdom. Legislation. Data Protection Act 1998. [online]. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/7 [Accessed 23 June 2012] Read More