Dear diary...
I have developed the questionnaire to be used during the market research phase of site development. Ultimately, I would have liked to start with some focus groups with key stakeholders to determine things they liked/didn't like about academic life/mentoring in general, rather than proceed with the questionnaire. The questionnaire is about gaining a more quantitative representation of user requirements, and I think it should be informed by the focus group. Anyway, not to matter.
The questionnaire will be distrubuted to academics and post-graduate students at my University. I'm hoping to get a good sample size (at least 40) though with current time pressures this may be a little optimistic ;) We'll see.
I'm not sure if the questionnaire will load properly here because I can only attach an image - if not and you want to see the whole thing before I put it in with my assignment, please email me at cpitts@psy.unsw.edu.au.
[insert a couple of very frustrating minutes...]
OK, I can't upload it because it won't take a pdf and the jpeg only displays half of it. How frustrating! Will determine a solution soon.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Site analyses for NED23
As part of the NED23 course we're asked to analyse a couple of sites with usability in mind. Some of the sites were appalling and I acted as if this were an everyday situation - got myself outta there.
http://www.elementk.com/
What draws your eye - 1st, 2nd, 3rd?
The first thing that drew my eye was the changing picture. It was quite attractive, initially.
The second thing to draw my attention was the ‘element k’ logo in the top left corner.
The third was the picture – again. It had changed and caught my eye.
Note if something draws your eye again - or causes you to avert your eyes
The picture keeps drawing my attention, but unfortunately it doesn’t tell me anything about what the company does! I gather they don’t specialise in mountain climbing gear, but the animation on the picture makes it difficult for me to focus on anything else.
What role is white space playing?
The white space makes the whole page look ‘cleaner’ – and works to delineate the text from the rest of the page.
Can you determine if the design is intentionally directing your eye? How?
The page seems to be intentionally drawing my attention to the pictures – though this isn’t telling me a whole bunch about what the site is about.
What is the purpose of this site?
Element K specialise in helping companies develop learning and development solutions.
Is this site of value to you? Would it be of value to anyone else? Why?
This site is valuable to me because I have a special interest in learning and development, especially online learning. It would be valuable to companies wanting to design and implement a targeted, internal training program, particularly if the company was large or was geographically distributed because they could deliver the training online.
How is this site organized?
The site is organised into products and services – though there seem to be other things on the site which should be a ‘product’ or ‘service’ so I’m not sure why they’re listed separately.
How does it work? How are people supposed to use it?
Customers are supposed to navigate around the site to see if Element K can help their company with training solutions.
How long did it take for your partner to figure out what the site was about, or "Get It"?
Still don’t know if I get it properly, but spent probably five mins looking around.
http://www.convergys.com/employeecare_learning.html
What draws your eye - 1st, 2nd, 3rd?
The first thing to draw my eye was the Convergys logo, placed in the top left corner. The next was the picture of the woman along the banner, and the third was the heading of the page: “Learning: Driving performance improvements and better return on investment”.
Note if something draws your eye again - or causes you to avert your eyes
Nothing ‘kept’ drawing my attention except the text – I was actually motivated to read it!
What role is white space playing?
The whote space makes it perfectly clear where I’m supposed to be looking – there’s little redundancy on the page and the white space is used to good advantage.
Can you determine if the design is intentionally directing your eye? How?
It seems as if they want me to read the homepage text. It describes what they do – as well as why they do it better than anyone else – and it’s in a slightly larger text than the rest of the page (including left nav). The text has clear headers which make scanning easy.
What is the purpose of this site?
The purpose is to advertise the products and services of Convergys.
Is this site of value to you? Would it be of value to anyone else? Why?
Yes, because I’m interested in training and development. It would be valuable to companies if they need organisational development.
How is this site organized?
The site is organised much more simply than the other – into the different services they provide, by ‘division’, e.g. ‘business support systems’ and ‘customer management’. It would be easy to navigate around the site if you had a clear idea of what your business required.
How does it work? How are people supposed to use it?
Companies would use it to find out information about the company, and to discover its relevance to the success of their company (i.e. it does a good sell job!)
How long did it take for your partner to figure out what the site was about, or "Get It"?
Almost immediately. The text was clear and non-redundant and explained what the company offered, and how it was better than anyone else.
http://www.madxs.com/
What a pain. This site will not load, and they have lots of instructions about how to make it load – all of which I can’t be bothered to take. They want to me download Flash and other software (even though I’m sure I have it) and they recommend IE 5.0 or above – I have 7 and its not working. Leaving!
http://www.virtualflowers.com/home.asp?se=1
What draws your eye - 1st, 2nd, 3rd?
The flowers pictures in the middle of the screen draw my attention first, then theVirtual Flowers logo in the top left corner (its flashing). After that, the flashing banner-something in the top right corner.
Note if something draws your eye again - or causes you to avert your eyes
The flashing! I’m trying to avert my eyes but it keeps drawing me back to it. Annoying!
What role is white space playing?
The white space seems to be nothing more than a background colour. The site would be worse with a coloured background, but at the moment it doesn’t particularly seem to be adding anything to the site.
Can you determine if the design is intentionally directing your eye? How?
The site is using a lot of animated signs – too many. They’re detracting my attention away from their products.
What is the purpose of this site?
To make me read their advertisements? Presumably to sell flowers, though they’re not doing a very effective job.
Is this site of value to you? Would it be of value to anyone else? Why?
The site is of value to me because I occasionally send flowers to people. I’m not sure though that it’s utilitarian value would overcome the site’s poor design though.
How is this site organized?
Badly! The site’s organised into the ‘types’ of flowers people might want to send – though these are not mutually exclusive so you’re left thinking – something Steve Krug would never have! For example, they have a link to both “send fresh flowers” and “birthday flowers”. This leaves me thinking:
Are birthday flowers not fresh?
Can I not send birthday flowers?
Why would they put “send” there? Isn’t that self evident from the site?
I’m annoyed with this site and at this point in my shopping expedition, I’d be outta there…
How does it work? How are people supposed to use it?
People are supposed to navigate around the site, select the flowers they like and send them to people after paying for them. Whether this happens in reality is another question.
How long did it take for your partner to figure out what the site was about, or "Get It"?
It’s easy to figure out what the site is about – selling flowers. They make the actual process of choosing and paying for your flowers a little more difficult.
http://www.ibm.com/us/
What draws your eye - 1st, 2nd, 3rd?
The first thing to catch my eye was the text on the left – though it changed almost as soon as the page had properly loaded. The second was the IBM logo, and the third was the detail in the picture.
Note if something draws your eye again - or causes you to avert your eyes
Nothing really ‘grabs’ my attention except the changing picture across the top third of the page, though it changes slowly so it still gives you time to read the [very small] text.
What role is white space playing?
The white space creates strong contrast between the text and the surrounding area. It’s really important here because there’s a lot of text (all links) and you need to be able to read them easily and understand where you want to go.
Can you determine if the design is intentionally directing your eye? How?
The page is directing my attention to the top banner, but it seems only because everything else is really difficult to read. I just noticed that the picture changes with my moving the mouse over separate icons on the page – it took me a while to realise this though!
What is the purpose of this site?
To ‘learn about’, ‘shop for’ and ‘get support’ for IBM products. The site is organised well – information, e-comm and support. It’s user focussed in that respect.
Is this site of value to you? Would it be of value to anyone else? Why?
The site doesn’t have great value to me because I’m a Mac-er (!), though I can see it having great value for people wanting to find out about IBM products, purchase them, and then find out what’s wrong with them ;)
How is this site organized?
The site is organised in the same way as people would want to come and use it (its purpose).People either want to find out about the products, buy them or get support for them, and its organised in exactly the same way – its organised by the user’s tasks and goals.
How does it work? How are people supposed to use it?
See above – all very consistent.
How long did it take for your partner to figure out what the site was about, or "Get It"?
I ‘got it’ almost immediately – though that was probably only brand recognition. The site fulfilled my expectations about what I thought I should be finding on such a site.
http://www.disney.com.au/#
What draws your eye - 1st, 2nd, 3rd?
There’s an AD in the middle of the screen! Get me out of here! Sorry, at this point I’m totally turned off. I don’t mind inconspicuous advertising, but this is appalling – it completely dominates the whole view, and it’s for a product that I find disgusting (kids lollies marketed as ‘fruit’). I’m out of here on ethical grounds.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Market Research ideas...
I've been thinking about a site I could design. I have a couple of options:
1. My Dad's business desperately needs a new website. He imports electronic pipe organs from Italy (quite a niche market!) and sells them to churchs and some private buyers (even more niche!). His website at the moment is - to say the least - quite 'elementary' in style and functionality and I think it could do with an overhaul. It's an informational site - rather than a transactional, e-comm site (mostly because no one is going to fork out $80K online for an organ without playing it!) - which makes it (for me, with more experience with e-comm sites!) a little harder to conceptualise. But I love a challenge and I'd love to be able to help him out. The cons to this idea are that (1) it's an already existing site (though I'd almost be working from it 'not' being s site considering the amount of overhaulin' needing to be done) and (2) it would be very difficult to distribute questionnaires to the target audience. Being a niche market, there would have to be things on the site that appeal to and are understood by 'pipe organ' types - though I think an advantage of me designing it (with little pipe organ knowledge) would be that it would be from the perspective of someone that knows nothing. So, someone without pipe organ know how could understand and appreciate the site.
2. My second idea (and one that I'm a little more taken with) is to develop a 'mentoring and meeting site' for female academics. I like this idea for several reasons:
- There is a finite, contained 'problem' that I believe could be addressed by this site. In short, female academics (at least in my department) suffer from feelings of disenfranshisement with the general academic community because of the strains imposed by competing demands - family life, mostly - and, from my experience, they can really benefit from being mentored, and mentoring others. Mentoring is an opportunity for people to connect with and learn from the experience of people that may have 'trodden their path' already. I've found it immensely helpful with my research, yet I think there are opportunities still to be addressed. These are particularly for females in smaller or more remote areas that don't have access to established mentoring programs.
- Being online, it could avoid the time commitment needed by attending formal meetings - a synchronous discussions, like we have on WebCT, could be a really useful forum for airing concerns and discussing issues without having to commit to meetings.
OK, so that's what I'm working with at the moment. Questionnaire questions to follow :)
1. My Dad's business desperately needs a new website. He imports electronic pipe organs from Italy (quite a niche market!) and sells them to churchs and some private buyers (even more niche!). His website at the moment is - to say the least - quite 'elementary' in style and functionality and I think it could do with an overhaul. It's an informational site - rather than a transactional, e-comm site (mostly because no one is going to fork out $80K online for an organ without playing it!) - which makes it (for me, with more experience with e-comm sites!) a little harder to conceptualise. But I love a challenge and I'd love to be able to help him out. The cons to this idea are that (1) it's an already existing site (though I'd almost be working from it 'not' being s site considering the amount of overhaulin' needing to be done) and (2) it would be very difficult to distribute questionnaires to the target audience. Being a niche market, there would have to be things on the site that appeal to and are understood by 'pipe organ' types - though I think an advantage of me designing it (with little pipe organ knowledge) would be that it would be from the perspective of someone that knows nothing. So, someone without pipe organ know how could understand and appreciate the site.
2. My second idea (and one that I'm a little more taken with) is to develop a 'mentoring and meeting site' for female academics. I like this idea for several reasons:
- There is a finite, contained 'problem' that I believe could be addressed by this site. In short, female academics (at least in my department) suffer from feelings of disenfranshisement with the general academic community because of the strains imposed by competing demands - family life, mostly - and, from my experience, they can really benefit from being mentored, and mentoring others. Mentoring is an opportunity for people to connect with and learn from the experience of people that may have 'trodden their path' already. I've found it immensely helpful with my research, yet I think there are opportunities still to be addressed. These are particularly for females in smaller or more remote areas that don't have access to established mentoring programs.
- Being online, it could avoid the time commitment needed by attending formal meetings - a synchronous discussions, like we have on WebCT, could be a really useful forum for airing concerns and discussing issues without having to commit to meetings.
OK, so that's what I'm working with at the moment. Questionnaire questions to follow :)
Friday, March 9, 2007
Moments with Krug - Eureka!
Steve Krug's book, Don't Make Me Think, is candid, fresh and original. My first (of a few!) eureka moment happened early on in the book - page 19.
"Your competitor is only one click away" is bandied about almost to the point of being trite as the first and foremost reason for companies to invest in usability. Krug suggests another, more basic reason, which is backed up by psychological research.
His argument is that "making pages self-evident is like having good lighting in a store: it just makes everything seem better" (author's emphasis). It's so true! As usability practitioners, we witness users getting increasingly frustrated as they struggle to navigate their way through badly designed sites. People simply don't just switch sites when they encounter frustration - they have spent some time and energy getting to the site in the first place and they want this to pay off. Only when the frustration becomes too much do they throw their hands up in the air and move to another site. So in fact, your competitor may be more than one click away, but a user's negative exp[erience on your site could have even worse ramifications (e.g. never visiting again, or even worse, associating a poorly designed site with poor quality products).
On the other hand, a good experience at a website could have great consequences for brand image and product awareness. Dion et al's (1972) famous article "What is beautiful is good" argued that people ascribe positive personality traits and life outcomes to more attractive people. I tend to think that the same would happen for websites - a more positive experience on a webiste that looks better would probably have an effect on people's perceptions of the products and services offered by the webiste. Shoddy website = shoddy products: easy, usable and attractive website = great products and services (see my post on usability and aesthetics for a more in depth look at this).
A recent study by Everard and Galletta (2005) supports this notion. They found that poor style, hypothesised errors and incompleteness were inversely related to users' perceptions of the quality of the online store. This relationship also held for their level of trust in the store, as well as their purchase intention.
So the moral of the story is: your competitors are only a click away. But most users won't take this opportunity. Instead they will persist with your unusable, badly designed site and transfer their negative affect from the experience onto your products, brand, services, etc. Perhaps its time to see usability not as a service associated with IT, but marketing?
Refs:
Dion, K., Berscheid, E. & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285-290.
Everard, A. & Galletta, D. F. (2005). How presentation flaws affect perceived site quality, trust, and intention to purchase from an online store. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22, 55-95.
"Your competitor is only one click away" is bandied about almost to the point of being trite as the first and foremost reason for companies to invest in usability. Krug suggests another, more basic reason, which is backed up by psychological research.
His argument is that "making pages self-evident is like having good lighting in a store: it just makes everything seem better" (author's emphasis). It's so true! As usability practitioners, we witness users getting increasingly frustrated as they struggle to navigate their way through badly designed sites. People simply don't just switch sites when they encounter frustration - they have spent some time and energy getting to the site in the first place and they want this to pay off. Only when the frustration becomes too much do they throw their hands up in the air and move to another site. So in fact, your competitor may be more than one click away, but a user's negative exp[erience on your site could have even worse ramifications (e.g. never visiting again, or even worse, associating a poorly designed site with poor quality products).
On the other hand, a good experience at a website could have great consequences for brand image and product awareness. Dion et al's (1972) famous article "What is beautiful is good" argued that people ascribe positive personality traits and life outcomes to more attractive people. I tend to think that the same would happen for websites - a more positive experience on a webiste that looks better would probably have an effect on people's perceptions of the products and services offered by the webiste. Shoddy website = shoddy products: easy, usable and attractive website = great products and services (see my post on usability and aesthetics for a more in depth look at this).
A recent study by Everard and Galletta (2005) supports this notion. They found that poor style, hypothesised errors and incompleteness were inversely related to users' perceptions of the quality of the online store. This relationship also held for their level of trust in the store, as well as their purchase intention.
So the moral of the story is: your competitors are only a click away. But most users won't take this opportunity. Instead they will persist with your unusable, badly designed site and transfer their negative affect from the experience onto your products, brand, services, etc. Perhaps its time to see usability not as a service associated with IT, but marketing?
Refs:
Dion, K., Berscheid, E. & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285-290.
Everard, A. & Galletta, D. F. (2005). How presentation flaws affect perceived site quality, trust, and intention to purchase from an online store. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22, 55-95.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
The secret: Read this for lasting happiness!
After discovering the Positive Psychology movement about six months ago, I would like to pass on some of its findings to others because I really think they have the potential to change the way we think. Here I've reviewed an article by Seligman et al (2005, complete ref below) so you can get a bit of a flavour for what's happening in the field without having to read the whole thing yourself! I've also included a little at the end about this theory's relevence to The Secret, a [very!] popular 'motivational' style dvd that draws from 'laws of attraction', among other things (personally I think the science might be a bit suspect but it provokes some interesting thoughts...)
Seligman (and colleagues) have been investigating interventions for making people ‘lastingly happier’; an endeavour that is almost squashed at the outset by the popular opinion that people have a baseline level of happiness, and that while some things may increase it temporarily, that ultimately everyone returns to their normal, baseline levels. Seligman et. al (2005) conducted a randomised control trial over the Internet with 411 participants over a six month period. The sample was slightly biased in that they were mostly White, of average or above average education and income, and were slightly depressed at the outset.
They used a number of interventions:
Placebo control: Early memories
Participants asked to write about their early memories every night for one week
Gratitude visit
Participants asked to write and deliver a letter of gratitude in person to someone who had been especially kind to them but had never been properly thanked
Three good things in life
P’s asked to write down three good things that went well each day and their causes every night for one week. Note that they were asked to provide a causal explanation for the good thing,
You at your best
P’s asked to write about a time when they were at their best and then to reflect on the personal strengths that they had displayed.
Using signature strengths in a new way
P’s asked to take Seligman’s inventory of character strengths (available at www.authentichappiness.org) and to receive individualised feedback about their top five (“signature”) strengths. They were then asked to use one of these top strengths in a new and different way every day for one week
Identify signature strengths
A truncated version of the one just described, without the instruction to use the strengths in a new way. Instead they were asked to use them “more often”.
Results
The results were quite astounding. Two of the interventions – Three good things and Using signature strengths in a new way – increased happiness and decreased depressive symptoms for six months. That’s right – after using them for only one week, people were statistically significantly more happy and less depressed six months on, compared with the placebo controls. The effect size was ‘moderate’ or larger. All other groups, except Gratitude visit, experienced increased happiness the week after they finished the intervention, but this was not maintained. The Gratitude visit participants were significantly happier for one month after the intervention. Participants who, of their own accord, decided to continue with the intervention, experienced even greater happiness six months down the track than those that had done it only for one week (I think it’s incredible that people were seeing improvements after only seven days of reflecting on positive aspects of their day!).
The link with The Secret is that this has major implications for how we treat and manage depressive (and other) disorders. Current psychotherapy best practice is talk therapy, based around challenging negative thoughts, to argue against negative thoughts, to gain insight into the sources of conflict, etc. Note that this is focussing on the negative thoughts. Of course, these methods are quite successful. But I think that I’d much prefer to spend my time thinking about how things were good, and about my strengths, rather than ruminating on my weaknesses.
Finally, it was interesting to note that these participants saw an improvement without the help of an experienced therapist or coach. The authors suggest that even greater improvements may be made with the help of a coach.
I found this article very enlightening and wanted to share it with you!
Abundance and flourishing to you all ;)
PS: The article, if you would be interested in reading the whole thing, is as follows:
Seligman, M. E. P, Steen, T. A., Park, N. & Peterson, C. (2005) Positive psychology progress: empirical validation of interventions. Annual Review of Psychology, July-August, 60, 410-421.
Seligman (and colleagues) have been investigating interventions for making people ‘lastingly happier’; an endeavour that is almost squashed at the outset by the popular opinion that people have a baseline level of happiness, and that while some things may increase it temporarily, that ultimately everyone returns to their normal, baseline levels. Seligman et. al (2005) conducted a randomised control trial over the Internet with 411 participants over a six month period. The sample was slightly biased in that they were mostly White, of average or above average education and income, and were slightly depressed at the outset.
They used a number of interventions:
Placebo control: Early memories
Participants asked to write about their early memories every night for one week
Gratitude visit
Participants asked to write and deliver a letter of gratitude in person to someone who had been especially kind to them but had never been properly thanked
Three good things in life
P’s asked to write down three good things that went well each day and their causes every night for one week. Note that they were asked to provide a causal explanation for the good thing,
You at your best
P’s asked to write about a time when they were at their best and then to reflect on the personal strengths that they had displayed.
Using signature strengths in a new way
P’s asked to take Seligman’s inventory of character strengths (available at www.authentichappiness.org) and to receive individualised feedback about their top five (“signature”) strengths. They were then asked to use one of these top strengths in a new and different way every day for one week
Identify signature strengths
A truncated version of the one just described, without the instruction to use the strengths in a new way. Instead they were asked to use them “more often”.
Results
The results were quite astounding. Two of the interventions – Three good things and Using signature strengths in a new way – increased happiness and decreased depressive symptoms for six months. That’s right – after using them for only one week, people were statistically significantly more happy and less depressed six months on, compared with the placebo controls. The effect size was ‘moderate’ or larger. All other groups, except Gratitude visit, experienced increased happiness the week after they finished the intervention, but this was not maintained. The Gratitude visit participants were significantly happier for one month after the intervention. Participants who, of their own accord, decided to continue with the intervention, experienced even greater happiness six months down the track than those that had done it only for one week (I think it’s incredible that people were seeing improvements after only seven days of reflecting on positive aspects of their day!).
The link with The Secret is that this has major implications for how we treat and manage depressive (and other) disorders. Current psychotherapy best practice is talk therapy, based around challenging negative thoughts, to argue against negative thoughts, to gain insight into the sources of conflict, etc. Note that this is focussing on the negative thoughts. Of course, these methods are quite successful. But I think that I’d much prefer to spend my time thinking about how things were good, and about my strengths, rather than ruminating on my weaknesses.
Finally, it was interesting to note that these participants saw an improvement without the help of an experienced therapist or coach. The authors suggest that even greater improvements may be made with the help of a coach.
I found this article very enlightening and wanted to share it with you!
Abundance and flourishing to you all ;)
PS: The article, if you would be interested in reading the whole thing, is as follows:
Seligman, M. E. P, Steen, T. A., Park, N. & Peterson, C. (2005) Positive psychology progress: empirical validation of interventions. Annual Review of Psychology, July-August, 60, 410-421.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)