EDF Information Center

1. EDF Information Center Usability Test Results and Recommendations November 2007

2. Scope of testing • Usability of the interface • Content (presence, not quality of info) • Home page organization & navigation • Search feature • Toolbar actions • Glossary access • Most of STA-SI users • In-depth testers = 9 • Brief testers = 18 • Total = 27 of 36 target users, or 75% • Novice, intermediate, and expert EDF users

3. Quotable quotes • I can see it still needs work, but how do I rate the idea of it? It’s out of this world! • This is something that should have happened a long time ago. • I can see it to be very useful—a one-stop shop. • Can I bookmark this site? [Yes!]

4. Rating the overall help system • Data from 9 in-depth testers 4= Excellent 3= Good 2= Fair 1= Poor • “It’s like dating.” (A few excellent ratings dropped to good.)

5. Rating the overall experience • Data from 9 in-depth testers 3= Fully sat 2= Somewhat sat 1= Unsatisfactory • Post-test ratings

6. Users’ top information needs

7. Top information needs found? • Results from all 27 users • Chose 1 of 3 top needs

8. Comparative test results (1 of 3)

9. Comparative test results (2 of 3)

10. Comparative test results (3 of 3)

11. Results interpreted (1 of 2) • Home page navigation • moderately difficult • users studied the page a long time before clicking • data • usually led to the answer (91% completion) • was fairly time-consuming (<1.68 minutes) • with few errors (.72 false attempts) • Search • very difficult • users tried several searches • users studied results lists, often without clicking any items • data • often did not lead to answer (44% completion) • was very time-consuming (<2.37 minutes) • with moderate errors (2.30 false attempts)

12. Results interpreted (2 of 2) • Toolbar • not noticeable • after error, users typically stopped trying or didn’t notice their error • data • usually was missed (39% completion) • spent little time (<1.22 minutes) • with few errors (.81 false attempts) • Glossary • easy • data • usually led to the answer (96% completion) • was quick (<1.11 minutes) • with few errors (.17 false attempts)

13. Users’ top comments & suggestions • Bland appearance; columns out of whack • Overwhelming amount of content on home page • Ambiguous major headings • Links on the main page are not descriptive • Search functionality is not intuitive • Unique country processing app. needs to go live • Layout of document links & abstracts is confusing • Toolbar isn’t noticeable; also needs better tips • Left pane is in the way; doesn’t help • Country codes need link to db for accuracy • Users need to be able to add/modify content

14. Next steps (1 of 3) • Improve appearance & organization: • Simplify the home page • Make the toolbar larger with better tool tips; include all tools needed to avoid alternating w/browser toolbar • Redesign the page layout • Eliminate drop-down abstracts for documents; use “summary” instead of “abstract” if needed

15. Next steps (2 of 3) • Improve content retrieval: • Convert long documents to help topic chunks for easier search, retrieve, scan, & use • Modify the Search feature’s method of operation (if possible) or provide search tips

16. Next steps (3 of 3) • Enhance technology: • Link to country name database • Finish the country processing app. • Enable user content contribution