COMP6703 : eScience Project III ArtServe on Rubens Emy Elyanee binti Mustapha Supervisor: Peter Stradzins Client: Professor Michael Greenhalgh

Background  It is established in January 1994 by Professor Michael Greenhalgh, who is the client for this project  A website containing mainly visual images (photos from around the world)  ArtServe has attracted many users up to in July 2005

Background - Continue  Problems are: lack of proper database, lack of proper search tool within the website, poor usability  Previous semester, an eScience student has chosen this project and solves the problems  For this semester, I did the usability testing for the website and implement the necessary changes based on the findings and recommendations made by the participants.

Requirements  Installation  Usability Testing  Implementation based on Test Results

Installation  Apache For usability study purpose, an ArtServe folder was created beneath the eScience website.  PHP Automatically used the same php configuration file as eScience website. Trouble with coding – fix the errors  MySQL All the necessary tables were created and a small portion of the real website data was transferred to the eScience machine.

Usability Testing  Cognitive Walkthrough Cognitive Walkthrough is a usability inspection method that focuses on evaluating a design for ease of learning, particularly by exploration. (Nielsen & Mack, 1994)  Heuristics Evaluation Heuristic evaluation is a usability engineering method for finding the usability problems in a user interface design so that they can be attended to as part of an iterative design process. (Nielsen & Mack, 1994)  User Testing Since Cognitive Walkthrough and Heuristic Evaluation do not include real users, I decide to perform a small scale User Testing to get the test results for the improved website.

Cognitive Walkthrough  Purpose To provide the developer with a list of findings and recommendations on how to improve the usability of ArtServe. Guidance for the next usability test conducted to ensure the right test method and task list is prepared.  Problem Statement and Test Objectives To gain quantitative and qualitative data addressing specific concerns about ArtServe’s usability. The focus of the project will be task oriented and directed toward how the user subjectively responds to the issues listed on the task list.  User Profile Available students around ANU.

Cognitive Walkthrough – Test Methodology 1. Participant greeting and pre-test questionnaire 2. Briefing Participants will each receive a scripted, verbal introduction and orientation which will explain the purpose and goals of the test. 3. Walkthrough The performance test consists of a series of tasks that the participants will carry out while being observed. During the performance test the monitor will make notes on elapsed time and participant errors. 4. Participant Debriefing Each participant will be debriefed by the test monitor.

Cognitive Walkthrough – Evaluation Measures Quantitative Data - Time required to complete task - Count of incomplete tasks Qualitative Data - Participant comments and/or mannerisms - Usefulness of the navigational terms used - Stated preference

Heuristic Walkthrough  User Profile EScience students, who are experienced computer users with basic experience with usability testing.

Heuristic Evaluation – Test Methodology The same as Cognitive Walkthrough except for: 3. Actual evaluation The evaluator will evaluate the system as individual and will do this independently. It is expected to be completed in 30 minutes for each evaluator. There are two phases as written by Jakob Nielsen which are a) By stepping through the pre-specified usage scenario b) By performing a more detailed analysis of individual dialogue elements. 5. Severity Rating Since not all usability problems can be solved, therefore a severity rating is done at the end to prioritize which usability problem is crucial.

Heuristic Evaluation – Evaluation Measures The evaluation measures will be subjective observations. The subjective observations include: Participant comments and/or mannerisms Suggestion for improvements Major/minor problems Severity ratings

User Testing  Purpose To get feedback from real users who are in the future going to use the website.  User Profile eScience students Faculty of Art students Repeating participants Administrator: primarily, administrator is Professor Michael Greenhalgh. However, a small group of eScience students might be recruited to act as administrator to the website.

User Testing – Test Methodology The same as Cognitive Walkthrough except for : 3. Actual Testing: Participants complete the task by completing all the task from the ‘user guide’.

User Testing – Evaluation Measures The evaluation measures will be subjective observations. The subjective observations include: Participant comments and/or mannerisms Suggestion for improvements

Test Results: Findings and Recommendation (1)  No index page for Administrator Recommendation: Create a an index page with a simple menu to help admin to navigate the website.  Every function opens a new window, which confused users into thinking they are still in the previous page and keep clicking the ‘back’ button on the browser. Recommendation: Every function does not opened a new window.  Content placement and labelling is not consistent. Recommendation: Ensure all links are labelled consistently and accurately describe the content of the page to which they are directed.

Test Results: Findings and Recommendation (2)  Pages often do not have content titles Recommendation: Add titles to pages that are displayed in the content frame. The titles should also match the link that points to the page. There should be a consistent labelling scheme f or links. The sitemap should be updated to reflect site content.  No site map for naïve users. Recommendation: Ensure the sitemap reflects hierarchy of the site with recognisable titles.  Titles that look like links Recommendation: Instead of underlining the title, it can be highlighted using different colours or increase the font size to emphasize it.

Improvement based on Test Results  For ease of navigation, a main page complete with menu is created for the administrator.  User guide is included online as part of the website to help both visitors and administrator.  Appropriate feedback for actions taken for edit album, edit metadata, delete album, block album and unblock album.  No multiple windows except for the ‘help’ window.

For ease of navigation, a main page complete with menu is created for the administrator.

Administrator’s Main Page

Visitor’s Main Page

User guide is included online as part of the website to help both visitors and administrator.

Visitor’s User Guide

Administrator’s User Guide

Appropriate feedback for actions taken for contact us, edit album, edit metadata, delete album, block album and unblock album.

‘Contact Us’ Form

‘Contact Us’ feedback

‘Edit Album’ Form

‘Edit Album’ feedback

‘Edit Metadata’ Form

‘Edit Metadata’ feedback

‘Delete, Unblocked, Blocked Album’ Form

‘Delete Album’ feedback

‘Unblocked Album’ feedback

‘Blocked Album’ feedback

No multiple windows except for the ‘help’ window.

Conclusion (1)  4 main improvements For ease of navigation, a main page complete with menu is created for the administrator. User guide is included online as part of the website to help both visitors and administrator. Appropriate feedback for actions taken for edit album, edit metadata, delete album, block album and unblock album. No multiple windows except for the ‘help’ window.  3 sets of usability testing Cognitive Walkthrough Heuristic Evaluation User Testing

Conclusion (2)  Background differences effected the test results – eScience and other students  The test monitor (myself) should be an independent person without any interest to the test results.  The test results for User Testing show that the improved website is more accessible and better usability, therefore the participants are more aware of other minor usability issues; colours, text