1. 1 1 The Usability of a Website evaluated by Survey Methodologists QUEST Workshop, Ottawa 2007 Bente Hole, Tore Nøtnæs and Gustav Haraldsen Statistics Norway

2. 2 Evaluation Tools Checklists for question and questionnaire evaluation: Simplified version of Forsyth’s O-Questionnaire Review Coding System and Snijker’s Expert Questionnaire Appraisal Coding System –text evaluation Own checklist inspired by Don Dillman –evaluation of visual design

3. 3

4. 4

5. 5

6. 6 What can survey methodologists contribute with? Focus on text and concepts –simple, unambiguous and clear Simple and consistent use of visual effects –Both on symbols and numbers (nonverbal language), and on text (verbal language) Interaction between text and visual design Information flow Knowledge of cognitive processes

7. 7 Example I: unclear text I

8. 8 Example II: unclear text

9. 9 Example: text and visual design that doesn’t play together well

10. 10 Example: text and visual design that play together

11. 11 Example II: text and visual design that play together

12. 12 Example: poor information flow

13. 13 Example: good information flow

14. 14 Additional evaluation criteria when it comes to web applications Technical preconditions –Speakers, java, flash, etc. Evident confidentiality and data security measures Efficiency –Speed of server and PC The screen layout –Size, scrolling Navigational tools –Menus, buttons, links, etc. Audio and video effects

15. 15 Discussion Do you agree or disagree with our conclusions concerning what survey methodologists can contribute with? Do you have any experiences yourselves? Other things survey methodologists can contribute with? What can survey methodologists learn from traditional Web- design? Do you know of any literature on this topic?

16. 16 If you have comments or questions, do not hesitate to contact us: bente.hole@ssb.no tore.notnas@ssb.no gustav.haraldsen@ssb.no