1

Advisor Finder tool:Usability testing debrief

28th June, 2011

2

Agenda

• Background • Methodology• Findings and recommendations • Questions and comments

3

Background

• PTG Global was engaged by the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, and Research to perform usability testing on the Advisor Finder tool.

• Usability testing was conducted on the live product in order to determine which features and/or functions would likely benefit from further development from a user-experience perspective.

4

Methodology• Ten one-on-one usability testing sessions

Gender No. participants

Male 5

Female 5

Age bracket No. participants

18 – 25 1

26 – 35 3

36 – 45 0

46 – 55 4

56 - 65 2

Profile No. participants

Small to medium size business owner/operator

6

Internal accountant/bookkeeper

2

BEC Representative 1

Aus. Industry Representative

1

5

Methodology (cont’d)

• During the testing sessions, participants were asked to complete 5 tasks using the Advisor Finder tool and encouraged to use the ‘think aloud’ protocol.

• A content analysis was performed on transcriptions of participants’ responses to extract key themes. Two criteria were used:– 1. If the response emerged consistently across the

sample.– 2. If, in our expert opinion, the response highlighted a

usability or accessibility issue.

6

Findings and recommendations

7

Advisor Finder

Participants considered the Advisor Finder tool

potentially useful and valuable.

Participants commented the Advisor Finder tool had a

simple and straight forward look and feel.

8

Homepage

There was some

confusion among

participants about the

purpose of the tool.

9

Homepage recommendations

• Consider making the text larger and explicitly stating that the tool focuses on helping users to locate their nearest face-to-face contact and assistance.

10

Performing a searchSome

participants suggested additional ‘Type of advice’

categories.Many

participants overlooked the

‘Add’ and ‘Remove’

buttons during the search.

Several participants

overlooked the ‘Type of

industry’ drop-down.

All participants considered the current location

options inadequate to perform a

specific search.

Some participants were unsure which category to select and some asked for additional categories. The

term ‘ICT’ was largely unknown.

11

Performing a search recommendations• ‘Type of advice’:

• Consider adding additional categories to reflect areas such as ‘Tenders’, ‘Contracts’, ‘Human Resources’, and ‘Training’.

• Consider allowing users to select items directly from the category box, therefore, streamlining the process and making it more intuitive.

• ‘Type of industry’: • Reconsider the need for this search criteria. However, more

white space between the 3 search criteria may ensure visual recognition of the distinct items.

• Consider expanding the acronym ‘ICT’ to reduce potential confusion.

• Location: • Provide users with the ability to enter in more specific search

criteria, such as postcodes, suburbs, and advisor. • Future implementations could consider allowing users to enter

in a specific address, subsequently displaying the results according to proximity.

12

Error prevention and management

Most participants who experienced

the error message thought it was clear

and suitably informative.

Most participants had difficulty

identifying which fields were mandatory.

13

Error prevention and management recommendations

• It is recommended that text be included, above the ‘Type of advice’ section, to indicate the meaning of the asterisk, e.g. * Denotes a mandatory field.

14

Search results – list view

Not immediately obvious to

some participants how many

results were available.

Some participants found the

listed results too long to

scroll through.

Most participants did not understand the

separation between the advisors found for their location and national

advisors.

When prompted, participants were

unsure of the meaning of the

different coloured markers.

15

Search results – list view recommendations

• Consider implementing one set of results with the ability to toggle between the different types using either radio buttons, links, or tabs.

• Further, a pagination approach may be used instead of the scroll-bar, which will more clearly indicate to users the number and type of results.

• A legend may be used to more clearly indicate to users the meaning of the different coloured markers.

16

Search results – map view

Most participants found the

mapped results to be cluttered

and hidden behind other

markers.

Some participants

were unable to navigate the

map.

17

Search results – map view recommendations

• In the short-term, it is recommended the markers used on the map are decreased in size to help reduce clutter when many options are presented in the search results.

• In the longer-term, the implementation of more search criteria, and the display of only one type of result per list, will reduce the number of results shown on the map at any one time.

18

Search results – sortingSeveral

participants attempted to

enter a postcode or suburb name.

One participant commented that having access to

the search function on the

results page may make the

process easier.

19

Search results – sorting recommendations

• As mentioned previously, consider allowing users to enter a postcode, suburb, or advisor on the initial search page or results page.

• Consider allowing users to modify (and be reminded of) their search criteria by providing the search menu on the results page. This will eliminate the need to go back to the main search menu, speeding up the search process, should users need to change their search.

20

Search results – pop-up box

Several participants commented that the pop-up box should have the following information: name,

address, contact number, website link,

and description; otherwise, this feature

was deemed unnecessary.

Most participants expressed a

preference for clicking on the website

hyperlink if they wanted to find out more information.

21

Search results – pop-up box recommendations

• Where possible, the name, address, contact number, website link, email address, and description should be made available in the map pop-up feature.

22

Help information

Nearly all participants overlooked the help box located at the bottom of the results page.

23

Help information recommendations

• A link to help, below the page heading on the right-hand side, may ensure that assistance can be accessed without the need for users to scroll. This is likely to reduce confusion for users who require assistance with their search.

24

Navigation

Most participants considered the left-

hand navigation menu to be a feature

of the tool.

Several participants followed the left-menu

links during tasks, regarding them as a part

of the tool’s functions.

25

Navigation recommendations

• In the short-term, removing the left-hand panel, while providing a clear link back to the main business.gov.au homepage, may help to reduce confusion about the functionality of the Advisor Finder.

• In the longer-term, the Advisor Finder may be implemented as part of the main navigation panel, allowing users to: – Recognise the left-hand panel as the primary navigation point

for the remainder of the website – See how the tool fits within the context of the broader website.

26

Questions and comments