DESIGN PROCESS

Preparing the Evaluation

TARGET USERS

For this project, we aim to target visitors of FMNH, who have visited or plan to visit FMNH, but are novice to its website. Both males and females, they tend to be interested in arts and history. Even though there is not clear age restriction, they are more likely to be at least teenagers who are capable of surfing on the Internet.

METHODOLOGY

Heuristic Evaluation was used in this project. It is usually conducted by having each usability expert inspect the interface alone with a set of pre-determined tasks and aggregating the findings after all the evaluators complete the inspection. Each finding or issue identified will be assigned with one or more heuristics it violates, based on Nielson’s ten usability heuristics (Figure 1). A severity rating scaled 0 to 4 will also be assigned to indicate the urgency such issue needs to be solved (Figure 2). Assuming that the experts are well-skilled, Heuristic Evaluation is advantageous due to its easy quick completion, flexibility and cost efficiency. 

THE EVALUATORS

All of three evaluators were graduate students from IXD Program at Pratt Institute. They were familiar with Heuristic Evaluation but were new to the FMNH website - it felt like a true first-time user experience. Within the 30-minute timeframe, they placed themselves in the mindset of target users and perform a set of tasks with the website link presented on a web-based browser.

FORMING THE TASKS

During research (4 interviews and secondary research on museums), I noticed that the main purposes of people visited the museum website was to find exhibition information and purchase tickets/pass. Therefore, I designed the tasks catering to those user needs.

Conducting the Evaluation

Each evaluator completed the tasks alone and noted down the findings in a provided form. This form recorded the detailed descriptions of the usability issues, places it occurred, heuristic(s) it violated and the severity rating assigned. The forms were then collected for further analysis.

Analyzing the Data

Based on three evaluators, there were eight unique issues identified, four of which were identified by two or more evaluators. Overall, these issues mainly related to three distinct problem areas, which are exhibition search, ticket purchase and calendar display. Even though all of the issues were rated 2 (minor problem) to 3 (major problem), they did indicate room for improvement for a better interface.

The complete evaluation form aggregating findings from all three evaluators can be found on the right. The issues with higher severity rating are highlighted.

Findings & Recommendations

#1: Standardize the exhibition page and improve event search

#2: Eliminate unnecessary options on ticket purchase page

#3: Update calendar display for free admission days

Feedback & Insights

I received full score and positive feedback from my professor.

“This is a very good report with clear findings and recommendations. Good analysis in the evaluation form. The description of the issues is very clear.”

It was conveyed that I had a thorough investigation of the usability and in applying the heuristics correctly, I was well-reasoned in my articulation of the proposed design solutions. On a personal note, I enjoyed completing this exercise because it provided me with an opportunity to solely focus on improving usability without needing to update all the UI and branding components of an existing product. These guidelines gave me a surprising amount of freedom as well as familiarized me with heuristic evaluation, an vey effective and efficient method to inspect website issues.

The full report can be found here.