Joseph R. – Usability Analysis

November 1, 2022

Individual Assignment 3: Representative User Test

The Website

The Norman Rockwell Museum teaches and maintains the legacy of Norman Rockwell. Its website, nrm.org, is used by the museum for outreach, education and advertising. The site is heavily saturated with information regarding Rockwell art collections, related events, ways to visit the museum, and how to financially support the museum. The museum was founded in 1969 and resides in Stockbridge, Massachusetts. It’s home to the world’s largest collection of original Rockwell art.

The User

The user is a father in his early thirties with a career in digital media production. While the user’s occupation is creative in nature, the user does not typically delve into classical arts. The user desires to visit the Norman Rockwell Museum for the first time with his two children and wife in an attempt to familiarize himself with traditional art. The user lives out of state from the museum and plans on flying.

The Method

The chosen method for studying the user’s behavior is the Think Aloud method. The user has stated that he normally thinks aloud in his everyday life, thus the user should feel comfortable participating in this method. The user has been advised not to filter their statements, but instead say what comes to their mind first. The moderator will attempt to keep questions and interruptions to a minimum so as to minimize their influence on the user’s experience.

Assigned Tasks

The first task is to figure out travel logistics. Our user will be flying into the nearest airport. He will have to figure out how to drive his rental car to the museum from the airport. The second task is to purchase a ticket to the museum. The user will navigate the interface in hopes of buying a ticket to visit on their selected date. The third task is for the user to find a specific work called “Pointing Hand” in the Norman Rockwell Museum’s digital collections. The user has a friend who is a fan of Normal Rockwell’s “Pointing Hand” and has suggested the user see it in person while they’re there.

The first and second task have been refined, as it was more geared to a student. It involved research on an assignment for school, however our new user is out of school. They wouldn’t have academic motivations.

Analysis of the User’s Interactions with Nrm.org

Task 1: Determine Travel Logistics

The user’s first reactions to the website were positive. The layout and quantity of content made the user feel “interested” and “confident.” For their first task, the user noticed two main menus, both containing the option “Visit”. Not sure of which one to pick, the user selected the option in the top menu, as it responded with a drop-down menu containing specific options. The user selected “Directions”. After selecting directions, the website automatically scrolled down to a section of the page. This was alarming for the user. It was unexpected that the website would exhibit this random bit of autonomy after displaying none thus far. Once in the directions section, the user chuckled. This is because the webpage advised the user to “notify their GPS provider” if the directions provided by the provider were wrong. They also provided some written instructions on how to get to the museum from the four major directions. The user typically uses Google Maps, so he eventually clicked on the displayed map.

This linked him to Google maps where he was able to input the nearest airport name (Pittsfield Municipal Airport) and obtain directions from Google. He was also able to determine that the museum has parking from Google maps, but was not able to find out if the museum charged for parking.

Task 1: Analysis

The user experienced problems on the homepage, the Visit page, and the directions section. The website displayed two menus with the same option, performed minor automatic functions after setting the different precedent, and displayed confusing information about GPS providers next to useful information. Ultimately, these flaws cost the user time and mental stamina.

Task 2: Buy a Ticket to Visit the Museum

The user located the “Buy Tickets” button easily. It is the first option you see on the homepage and it is in the header of every page. After clicking, the user was met with a pop-up like window displaying a different UI then what they have become accustomed to. The user stated they felt somewhat “skeptical”. The purchasing options were plentiful. The user commented that the photos being used to advertise each option were taking up a lot of space in the window. The user did not like having to scroll to only select from six basic options. The user chose Museum + Studio Tour on a date three days from today at 11:20am. The user took more time than predicted. The user commented that he wanted to make sure he was selecting the right kind of tickets for him, his wife, and children because the drop-down fields were very nondescript. The labels of the fields weren’t as obvious.

Tripadvisor Ticket Purchasing Widget, All Tickets Selected

Beneath the drop-down ticket selection area, there is a section to input discounts for the tickets selected. The user thought that he had to click the bright red X at the top of each window to decline the discounts, as no discounts applied to his family. Unfortunately, this removed the tickets completely. It even changed the value in the drop-down menu above. The user had to repeat the process. The user was allowed to move on to the next section to complete the payment.

Discount input affecting ticket Selection

Task 2: Analysis

The inconsistent UIs created uncertainty in the user, thus increasing the risk of deterring the user from engaging with the museum at all. But perhaps the most egregious UI flaw was the overabundance of ticket amount input fields. This third-party, ticket purchasing widget from Tripadvisor increases the risk of the user purchasing the wrong number of tickets because it offers multiple, different ways of purchasing and removing tickets. Not only that, but it combines this function with other functions. Why even have the red X to remove a ticket on the discount input function? This flawed UI is possibly the result of Tripadvisor attempting to create a one-size fits all widget for their clients.

Task 3: Finding “Pointing Hand”

The users first instinct was to use the search function in the top right corner of the homepage. This yielded one unrelated result. The user went back to the homepage to start over. The user decided to visit the “Research” page stating “I considered this to be my best bet because “Research” is broad and implies information and data and it’s most likely for art information, not the museum itself. The other options are more for the museum itself or merchandise.”

The user scrolled around and stumbled upon a large button displaying “SEARCH THE COLLECTION”. Based on his last experience, the user was incredulous, but still clicked the new search button. This led to a more robust search page where the user can input many more search terms. This page seemed more “deliberate” to the user.

The user typed “Pointing Hand” into the “Title” search field and the results yielded the correct painting.

Task 3: Analysis

It’s concerning that the art museum’s website search function on the homepage completely failed to find a standard painting. It also makes no sense that it wouldn’t simply link to whatever search page the user found on the “Research” page. The function on the homepage seems to produce articles related to the museum and museum’s events. This is misleading and it shouldn’t neglect the users looking for information related to the actual art at the museum.

Design Recommendations

Referring to Task 1, it’s advised that the information about inaccurate GPS provider data be completely removed. It’s confusing to the user, it’s distracting from the useful information (the map), and it demonstrates a misunderstanding of the relationship between GPS and internet service providers.

Referring to Task 2, it’s advised that nrm.org institute its own ticket purchasing feature to maintain consistency and to employ something more suited to their individuality and services. It’s clear that the Tripadvisor widget is designed to be a one-size-fits-all widget. While it seemingly allows for some customization, it’s leagues away from a proprietary purchasing widget or page specifically designed for the museum. At the very least, Tripadvisor should remove the excess information from the widget. The widget doesn’t need a giant photo for each purchasable item, it doesn’t need multiple ways to remove a ticket, it should reorganize the discount input fields, and it should modernize its layout. Currently, it’s reminiscent of a health provider’s new patient information form. It’s just a long list of input fields.

Referring to Task 3, there should only be one search function or page. All search features need to be combined. At the very least, when using the search function on the home page, one of the results yielded should be the search page for art work. Alternatively, a notification about the other search functions/pages should be displayed. It was pure happenstance that the user found the correct search page.

September 29, 2022

The Norman Rockwell Museum | Shut Up and Take My Money

(1467 Words)

The Website

This is the top portion of nrm.org’s homepage.

The Scenario

To best evaluate the usability heuristics of nrm.org, one should examine the site through the lens of a potential patron. Hypothetically, this patron has enjoyed the work of Rockwell and has finally decided to reciprocate. This patron has found nrm.org and discovered many avenues in which to financially support the museum and maintain Rockwell’s legacy. However, the patron has come across several violations of usability heuristics while exploring the best and most satisfying way to support the Norman Rockwell Museum (NRM). Several avenues of financial support were tested and conclusions were drawn regarding the most ideal way of patronizing the NRM.

First, there’s the standard philanthropic route of providing a simple donation. Second, the patron can simply purchase a tour and act as a standard consumer of the NRM services. This way, they are contributing to the profits of the NRM. Not only does this help to maintain the legacy, but presumably expand the NRM’s outreach capabilities.

By exploring these pathways of patronization, one can detect and analyze nrm.org’s violations of the usability heuristics as described by Jakob Nielsen in 10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design.

Analysis of Usability Flaws

Nrm.org excels at being a source of information. However, in violation of heuristic #8, it overwhelms its homepage and secondary webpages with said information. It’s trying to balance executing its prime directive of being an abundant source of scholarly information with being a marketing tool. As a patron, this made it time-consuming to make a donation because the donation functions were not obvious. The most obvious way to support the NRM via standard donation is to click the “support” tab in the header’s menu on the homepage. However, this violates heuristic #2, as the term “support” is not necessarily synonyms with “donate”. To elaborate, “support” commonly implies technical assistance, and is not an intuitive way to imply patronization. This experienced difficulty is compounded by the fact that there are two main menus on the homepage. The one on top does in fact say “donate”. Nrm.org has chosen to display two main menus, both containing similar options while also using different names for those options. This further violates heuristic #8 but also violates heuristic #4. While both menu tabs will take the patron to the same place, it is inconsistent and may further encourage the user to see “support” as meaning technical assistance.

There is a menu in the top-right and the center of the homepage.

Once in the donations page, I am able to input my desired amount of donation. However, instead of simply being able to type my desired amount, I have to select a number under 1001 from a drop-down menu. So if the patron wants to donate $1000, they would have to scroll down for a very long time. This is a violation of heuristic #7, as it costs the user more time to donate. While this is not an egregious violation, it stands to reason that this also a violation of heuristic #3. Being restricted to this drop-down function limits the user’s freedom by making them use their mouse instead of their keyboard, thus potentially denying the user their preferred peripheral.

This drop-down menu makes the user select an amount instead of typing it in.

After participating in this less than efficient process, the user will eventually have a donation sitting in their cart. However, if the user decides to make another donation or purchase, they can click a “Keep Shopping” button to add more items to their cart.

The “Keep shopping” button is at the top-right of the window.

Unfortunately, this button takes them back to the beginning of the purchase process for their donation. It does not present any different items that can be added to the user’s cart. This is a violation of heuristic #5 as it creates an error prone condition that can result in the user hitting refresh or hitting the back button, which can bring the user back to the check out window.

The second way to patronize the NRM is to simply indulge in their services. The profits gained should not only maintain the NRM, but grow it as well. The best way to do this is to purchase a ticket for a tour and physically visit the NRM. This means that the patron will need information regarding directions and business hours. In violation of heuristic #10, NRM provides users with a crude .pd f containing rudimentary text-based instructions on how to get to the museum. The document also supplied a low-resolution and simplified map. For further context, these instructions exist because “many GPS and online maps do not accurately place Norman Rockwell Museum” as noted in the arbitrarily placed “Directions” section of the Visit tab.

They go on to encourage patrons to “inform the mapping service companies that incorrectly locate the Museum; let your GPS or online provider know and/or advise our Visitor Services office which source provided faulty directions.” This puts an undue burden on the user and does not provide a suitable solution, resulting in a light violation of heuristic #9.

Design Solutions

The most effective thing that nrm.org can do is triage their information and data, while slimming down to one main menu. This is information deemed tertiary, duplicated across multiple webpages or possibly information that might exhibit diminishing returns like over-advertising. This includes, but is not limited to, redundant information on the same Rockwell collections found across several webpages like “current exhibitions”, collections, events, newsletter sign-up prompts, and menu items that can be consolidated into one. Menu items recommended for consolidation include “About” and “Visit”, “Learn” and “Research”, and “Events” and “Calendar”.

Second, nrm.org should institute a proprietary purchasing feature instead of relying on Trip Advisor’s third-party widget. This would allow them more control, while also maintaining a consistent aesthetic instead of incorporating Trip Advisor’s branding.

Trip Advisor’s branding is inconsistent with the NRM’s.

Third, instead of text-based mediums, using video to explain travel directions would not only demonstrate a tech-savvy aptitude, but allow the user broader perspective and context. This is also keeping in line with heuristic #2 as most people rely on GPS with its emphasis on audiovisual communication.

Last, while the following aren’t hindering patronization, they are worth mentioning in order to improve the overall quality of nrm.org:

The “Shop” hyperlink in the body of several web pages is unresponsive. This is violating heuristic #1. It is recommended that this be remedied in the back-end.
When clicking “Shop” in the main menu, it takes the user to a different URL and opens up a new tab. However, when clicking “Annual Report” it does take the user to a new URL, but it does not open a new tab. It is recommended that this is fixed in the backend.
Before purchasing a ticket, the Trip Advisor widget makes you agree to the policy before it shows the policy to you. It’s recommended that this is fixed in the backend.
The NRM has a lot of video content. However, it is buried at the bottom of several web pages. It is recommended that there be a main tab for it in the homepage menu. This content can also replace some of the text-based content of the same subject matter.
There are some instances where nrm.org uses an embedded YouTube player, but some where it uses another third-party player with limited user controls.
The ad for the NRM newsletter should be at the top, not the middle of webpages.
There is no separation of sections on all the pages. Each webpage has sections of information haphazardly stacked on top of one another. At the least, these should be separated with different colored backgrounds.
The events on the “Events” page should be reoriented. Instead of a top-down order, scrolling left to right should be considered.
If a patron wants to donate to the virtual museum only, the option to do so is buried all the way at the bottom of the home page. There is no option to do so in the “Support” page. It is recommended that the option be included in the Support page.
It is inconsistent that one can buy tickets on nrm.org, but is taken to a different URL, store.nrm.org, if one wants to make a purchase from the online gift shop. The page nrm.org/shop should be created.
The “Visit” page says that Rockwell’s studio opens at 10:40am. Everywhere else on nrm.org it says it opens at 11am. One time should be displayed.

This video player only has pause and play controls.

September 6, 2022September 6, 2022

INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT 1: DESIGNING FOR USERS

Word Count: 813

1. Introduction

The website selected for this assignment is Wunderground.com. The screenshot is below. Wunderground.com functions as an informative medium used to gauge weather in any location. The user for this test is a 31-year-old woman. Subjectively, her technical expertise is rated somewhere between novice and intermediate. Her experiences with technology are dominated by her mobile device usage. Her familiarity with Wunderground.com is none whatsoever.

2. User’s Actions

My user’s actions can be described as deliberate, yet cautious. She took the time to analyze the components of the site. She immediately formulated opinions on the website’s front-page, specifically on the advertising saturation coupled with relevant information being displayed. In addition to observing her uninfluenced interaction with the site, I also had her search for specific information so she can experience the entirety of the website.

For her non-specific tasks, she easily found today’s temperature and weather patterns in Tallahassee, as the website automatically used geolocation privileges and displayed that information first. She appreciated this, but ultimately did not value it because it was a similar experience gained from other weather services. In contrast, she was made apprehensive by the amount of advertising. According to her, about 50% of the site was advertising, thus making her very distracted. She did concede that most of the advertising was beneath the relevant information and not too interfering.

Following this general use, the user was asked to find specific information. The data on the front-page alone would not satiate these specific requests, so the user clicked the very apparent button that read “full forecast”. This was interesting because, as an expert user, I know to go to the famous “WunderMap” for detailed information. The user had a difficult time finding information about weather behavior occurring five days from the date of the test. She had to click on the “10 day-forecast” tab and then count the days until she figured out which day was the fifth day from today. One thing that was surprising was that she knew to hover over the line graph depicting humidity, dew point and precipitation. She also instantly noticed the color key indicating which lines represented each weather element.

Her next most problematic task was utilizing a weather radar to obtain information about past and future storm patterns. If she had located and used the WunderMap, she would have been able to capitalize on an exorbitant amount of data and information. However, the 10-day forecast page had a link to a simplified radar. She intuitively clicked on that, as a link to the WunderMap was hidden. The user took the time to observe the simple radar. There was a basic map, a zoom in/zoom out button and a “play” button. After hitting the play button, there were no observable weather phenomena produced or anything indicating a passage of time. The user first assumed the radar was not responding to her input, but eventually figured out that there was simply no storm activity at all in our region. This was after zooming out and seeing activity in other regions. It’s unfortunate that the user did not realize the availability of the WunderMap. To get to this map, one would move to a horizontal menu at the top of the webpage containing a tab called “Maps & Radars”. However, it is a static menu. So after the user scrolled down far enough, the menu was hidden away. Admittedly, beneath the simple radar she was using was a hyperlink to the WunderMap. However, it had a small font size and demonstrated poor placement rendering it insignificant.

3. Conclusion

One of the first improvements to Wunderground would be adding some sort of clock or time indicator to the simple radar. This is so the user doesn’t accidentally assume the radar or page isn’t responding. However, there are much larger improvements to be made. In analyzing the novice user’s experience, there is a clear distinction in benefits gained between expert and novice users. With Wunderground being a weather service, there is an avalanche of dynamic data and available information. The main problem Wunderground has is how it organizes all this data. Expert users eventually learn what the best instruments to obtain data are. Novices seem to be presented with initial, basic information causing them to possibly assume that that is all Wunderground has to offer. This is because Wunderground does not prominently display its most useful assets. Perhaps it is prioritizing revenue streams from advertisements, essentially neglecting its most valuable product? Wunderground should not provide new and novice users with inferior tools and information first, but instead provide a clear path to WunderMap, even if it means deleting the inferior tools and reprioritizing advertising. If people decide not to come back due to ignorance of Wunderground’s robust weather analyzing instruments, then eventually there will be no one around to advertise to.