u1055939 individual report

7/30/2019 u1055939 Individual Report

1/33

U1055939 2512 words

Lawrence Tsuro

Usability Engineering Individual course

work

U1055939

1


2/33

U1055939 2512 words

Table of Contents

Lawrence Tsuro..................................................................1Usability Engineering Individual course work........................1

U1055939...........................................................................1

Table of Contents...............................................................2

1.Introduction....................................................................5

1.Designing an evaluation protocol......................................5a.Reasons for Choosing Heuristics Evaluation............................5

2.Results and Recommendation Loughborough University.....6

3.Usability Testing on University of Birmingham.................11

4.Reasons for choosing usability testing ............................12

5.Usability problems.........................................................12

6.Conclusion.....................................................................15

1.Introduction...................................................................17

2.Requirements gathering.................................................17

3.Task Analyses................................................................18

4.Design...........................................................................195.Evaluation.....................................................................21

6.Further Enhancements...................................................22

7.References....................................................................23

8.Appendix Part 1.............................................................24

a.Structured Tasks Results................................................24

b.Data Analysis Of Usability tasks......................................26

c.End Usability testing Questioner.....................................27

d.Data Analysis of the Questioners....................................29

7.Appendix Part 2.............................................................30a.Questioner: Completed by Participant 1 to evaluate mobilewebsite. ................................................................................30b.Questioner: Completed by Participant 2 to evaluate mobilewebsite. ................................................................................31c.Data analysis of the questioner.............................................32d.Structured Tasks Results......................................................33

2


3/33

U1055939 2512 words

3


4/33

U1055939 2512 words

Part 1

4


5/33

U1055939 2512 words

1. IntroductionI will carry out an evaluation on two websites using theprocedures mentioned below and supporting documentsare located in the appendix.

1.Designing an evaluation protocolTo evaluate the websites I will use Heuristic evaluation,which is a usability inspection method that was developed

by Jacob Nielsen according to Sharp, Rogers and Preece(2007). To investigate further, I will also use Usabilitytesting which involves measuring users performance andsatisfaction on typical tasks in laboratory conditionsaccording to Sharp, Rogers and Preece (2007).

a. Reasons for Choosing Heuristics Evaluation

According to Sharp, Rogers and Preece (2011), heuristicevaluation is less time consuming and cheaper compared

to other evaluation methods. This is because there are noparticipants involved, which also means that there are zerochances of violating ethical issues.

I used Nielsens (1994) heuristics for guidelines to evaluatethe website and the steps taken were:

Inspecting web interface and its function more than fourtimes due to my limited knowledge as a usability

consultant. I focused on different sections of the websiteindicated in figure.1 and complemented them withheuristics guidelines

Index page. Metaphors icons and symbols

Menu and navigation. Interaction design and types.

Structural layout. Hyperlinks and

Content layout Accessibility for disabled

Search tools or technology. Colour and text appearance.Figure.1: Sections focused on when evaluating the

5


6/33

U1055939 2512 words

website.

All inconsistencies and usability problems discoveredwere recorded on a table against each heuristic as

shown in figure.2. Severity rating was used to check the problems

frequency, persistence and impact on the website usedby Nielsen (1994).

Screen shorts were also recorded to indicate usabilityproblems.

Recommendations were given after each usabilityproblem extracted.

There was no time factor set to evaluate the two

websites, however professional consultants, do workunder a time schedule.

ID EvaluationHeuristics

LoughboroughUniversity

BirminghamUniversity

Problems Found[1] Visibility of system status 0[2] Match between system and the real

world0 0

[3] User control and freedom 1 0[4] Consistency and standards 4 0[5] Error prevention 1 0[6] Recognition rather than recall 3 1[7] Flexibility and efficiency of use 1 1[8] Aesthetic and minimalist design 4 1[9] Help user recognise, diagnose and

recover from errors1 0

[10]

Help and documentation 1 0

Figure.2: Usability problems discovered on each Nielsens

heuristics.

2.Results and Recommendation

Loughborough University

Figure.3 indicates cluttered information with long andunclearly spaced sentences about news of the students

who have recently been graduated.

6


7/33

U1055939 2512 words

[Recommendation:1]Even spacing and ordering by using numbers or bulletspoints will make it easier to perceive and identifyinformation searched for and according to Sharp, Rogers

and Preece (2007), which would give the website a goodstructure.

Figure.3 Cluttered information of graduates.

Unrecognisable main navigation links that are located ontop of the banner with an inadequate colour contrastbetween the darker shade of purple font and the lightpurple background. This is similar within all the pages ofthe website but more significant on the home page asindicated on Figure.4.

[Recommendation:2]Situate the banner and navigation sections separately,

possibly with standard, suitable dark coloured font and lightcoloured background to make the website accessible tocolour blind people. Aligning the main navigation horizontalwill utilise all that right space and reduce page height,which would reduce vertical scrolling of the page.

Referring again to figure.4, to search for items in thewebsite does not immediately offer a textbox but it is a linkthat takes the user to a non-functioning Google search

engine. The search tools are only located in the home pageas a link and not implemented in the rest of the website.

7


8/33

U1055939 2512 words

[Recommendation:3]A named search text box would be recognisable by theuser rather than spending more time attempting to locate

it. Text boxes are a popular technique to recognise than torecall. Textboxes are common interface objects used bypopular search engines such as Google, yahoo and evendesktop applications use them too. Therefore most userswould be expecting them when it involves to searching forsomething.

Providing a text box in this situation would reduce memoryload of the user attempting follow a procedure to get to the

search engine and then attempting again to search for therequired results.

Figure.4: Emphasis on colour contrast and navigationalstructure.

The term Information for in Figure.5 has been usedinappropriately in this situation. Both current student

and staff are links on the same section with the newswhich is not a link. On that section the term used wouldsound as (information for:current student|currentstaff|news).

[Recommendation:4]Standard link colours should be used to mark a differencebetween hyperlinks and non-hyperlinks.

Still focusing onFigure.5,

according to Nielsen (1998), outdated information has to be avoided because it creates

8


9/33

U1055939 2512 words

poor impression with the users. They are quite a few ofcluttered chunks of information that still date back to theyear 2003.The news is made of a section that is located onthe right side and occupies approximately 40% width and

80% height of the page. The middle section is left withunedited white space when scrolling the page vertically.

[Recommendation:5]Use of different medias with the users full functionalcontrols such as play and pause buttons. A possibleexample would be slide show images for the news toreplace text in order for the user to perceive and locatenews information of their choice. Simply to keep up and

update the page with latest information that would beinteresting and attractive to gain the users attention.

Figure.5: Emphasis on the News not being a link.

Dead links such as the TOP to scroll up and ClickHere hyperlink that causes the browser to give an errormessage because it is unable to connect. There are noback buttons or any source of recovery on the websitewhen dead pages are accessed. Shown in figure5&6.

[Recommendation:6]Check the website against link checker tool such as theW3C Linker otherwise dead links cause distrust of

information quality.

9


10/33

U1055939 2512 words

Figure.6: Indicates dead and deceptive link.

Figure.6 indicates a deceptive hyperlink were it statesWebmaster: Christine Bagley. It is not specificwhether this is a link that would take the user to ChristineBagley personal web page or her contact details. What itdoes it takes the user to the systems email client with out

informing them.

[Recommendation:7]Use icon metaphors such as a telephone or mail envelopesand symbol of an email to notify the user of the intention ofthe hyperlink and its meaning.

All of the website pages do not have a site map which mayassist the user when ever they have navigation difficulties.

[Recommendation:8]Provide a sitemap which gives a brief description of thelinks in the whole website and allows users to master theirway around the website according to Sharp, Rogers andPreece (2007).

Figure.7 indicates a client that requires user to login as acurrent student. It does not distinguish between an error

and information message and the blue question marksymbol remains the same when incorrect information isentered. A question mark symbol is often used for helpsituations but in this here it does not do anything. If theuser clicks cancel, they cannot escape from the popupbecause it takes them to a page that confirmsauthentication has been unsuccessful.

[Recommendation:9]

Good use of the graphical symbols such as an errormessage of a red X and an informative exclamation mark

10


11/33

U1055939 2512 words

will make users recognise and understand the meaning ofthe of what is required of them. Password recovery or helpbutton would be useful to prevent users being logged outfor failing to provide correct details within a certain number

of times. Plain message would be helpful to describe thenature of the problem and suggestions of how to solve itaccording to Sharp, Rogers and Preece (2007).

Figure.7: Error Reporting, Diagnosis, and Recovery

[Recommendation:10]

It is difficult to try and remember pages that have beenpreviously visited which could be frustrating for the user. Iwould recommend back and forward buttons that wouldallow the user to retrace their steps back and forthamongst visited pages until they recognize the contentthey want.

Figure7.a: indicates incomplete wording and inconsistencywhich may cause users suspicion of the website beingprofessional.

3.Usability Testing on University of

Birmingham.

The procedure to carry out the evaluation was adaptedfrom my second presentation and the following steps were

11


12/33

U1055939 2512 words

taken:

Data collection techniques were observations and an endtest questioner to extract usability and accessibility

problems from the participants. Simulated laboratory condition to carry out the

experiment.

Two non-UEL and diversified participants volunteered tocarry out tasks against time.

Two computers and timers were used. Video recorderwas set to focus on the users activities.

Data gathered was analysed and interpreted to find outmajor usability problems. Read appendix for the tests.

4.Reasons for choosing usability testingWhen using Heuristics evaluation on University ofBirmingham. I extracted insignificant number (3) ofusability problems due to evaluating by myself andaccording to Sharp, Rogers and Preece (2011); state thatapproximately an increase of 5 evaluators increases theproportion of usability problems discovered by 25%.

Usability testing became an alternative that would involveusers and obtain evidence of usability issues throughcompleting timed tasks.

5.Usability problems.

Inadequate colour contrast between a darker shade grey ofthe font and slightly lighter shade of grey on the

background. Participant: 1 mentioned difficulties ofidentifying any content on the following left-navigation andfooter section indicated on Figure.8&9.

[Recommendation:2] : applies here.Allowing users to manipulate color scheme will improvereadability.

Video recordings indicated that participants did not click

the doted lined search area, shown on figure.8.[Recommendation:3] : applies here.

12


13/33

U1055939 2512 words

Insufficient media control settings to stop and play, eventhough participants could forward and rewind the slideshow images.

[Recommendation:11]I would recommend a stop and play button should beincluded to provide more interactivity and control. Controlof slide shows speed would allow information to be easilyperceptible. That is alsosuitable for photosensitive epilepsyusers.

Complex cascading menu, which is inaccessible when using

tab key and storyline horizontal navigation used less than30% compared to the vertical navigation on the left sectionof the pages as indicated in Figure.8.Different media previewed on a cascading menu andimmediately abandoned by participants. No clicks tolinks were video recorded.

[Recommendation:12]Well-coded and Accessible single text based drop down

menu that would accept tab key navigating and a findingby Shneiderman (1998) state that a simple looking menu isusable compared to more complex menu structures.

Task 2 indicated difficulty by participants to locateservices because there it is labelled differently indifferent parts of the websites. Figures.9&10 as OurService and Professional Services on the menu andServices and Facilities on the footer. This indicates

variation of a similar term for a novice or dyslexic users.

[Recommendation:13]Use the wording Services once and have different typesservices as subsections to allow easy recognition by theuser.

Participants attempted task 4.a by clicking on the slideshow, to get current news, which is inconsistent right

through the site. This is because the slide show images arenot links in other pages.

13


14/33

U1055939 2512 words

[Recommendation:14]Standardise slide show images as either links or non-linksright through the website to avoid confusing and frustrating

the user.

Figure.8: Indicating inadequate colour contrast and mediacontrol.

Figure.9: Indicating inadequate colour contrast.

14


15/33

U1055939 2512 words

Figure 10: Cascading navigation menu

6.ConclusionDifferent evaluation methods work differently in differentscenarios. This is noticed through to the failure of finding asmall number of usability issues on the BirminghamUniversity through using heuristics evaluation, which led toan alternative evaluation method. Complimentingevaluation methods would be a good practice to evaluatethe website all round by involving users and expertconsultants.

15


16/33

U1055939 2512 words

Part 2

16


17/33

U1055939 2512 words

1. Introduction

After carrying out usability evaluation on LoughboroughUniversity, I have designed a usable and accessible websitethat is cross platform and browser compatible on a mobileand tablet device. The prototype will signify a correctapplication of usability and accessibility principles,guidelines and standards which the original website did nothave initially.

2. Requirements gatheringVolere Requirements Specification Template adapted fromRobertson and Robertson (1999) version6.1 was used. Aquestioner was handed out to extract general informationabout the users experience with mobile websites.

RequirementNumber

1

Requirement

type

9

Description Prospective students should be able to locateeither post or undergraduate course list.

Rationale Users should be able to locate requiredinformation.

Source Prospective studentsFit Criterion 80% of the users should locate the required

information within 5minutes of their firstattempt.

UserSatisfaction

3

UserDissatisfaction

2

VolereCopyright Atlantic Systems Guild

Figure 2.1: Functional requirement.

RequirementNumber

2

Event /Use caseNumber

17


18/33

U1055939 2512 words

Requirementtype

11

Description The University website should be easy to learn.Rationale Users should recognize the website rather than

recall.Source Student and staff membersFit Criterion 90% of the users should be to use the website

without training less than 5 minutes.UserSatisfaction

4

UserDissatisfaction

0

History


Figure 2.2: Non-functional requirement.

RequirementNumber

3

Requirementtype

12

Description The website should be cross browser and

platform compatible.Rationale Users should access the website with out

affecting its structure and layout.Source Student and staff membersFit Criterion Website should work in 75% popular browsers

and 5 / 6 popular device platforms of the users.CustomerSatisfaction

3

Customer

Dissatisfaction

2


Figure 2.3: Non-functional requirement.

3. Task Analyses.I implemented Hierarchical Task Analysis which indicatestasks supported by a website according to Sharp, Rogersand Preece (2007).

For a current or prospective student to search for any

18


19/33

U1055939 2512 words

academic degree or information on the mobile website,possible steps are indicated on figure figure.4.1.

Figure 3.1: HTA of mobile website.

Plan 1:New users do: 1-2-3Current users do: 2-3Plan 2:New users do: 1.1-2-3

4. Design

Univesity Logo

Home page

key words S e a r c h

L i s t e le m e n t

S u b -h e a d in g

List element

S u b - h e a d in g


S u b -h e a d in g


S u b -h e a d in g

Copyrights | Site-map | Top

Univesity Logo

Page Title

key words S e a r c h

Copyrights | Site-map | Top

Back

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x





< P a g e C o n t e n t>

List element

S u b - h e a d in g

Adjustable

Adjustable

a b

19


20/33

U1055939 2512 words

Figure.4.1. Paper based prototype mobile or tablet website.

The website adapts to the screen resolution of either atable or mobile device without affecting the interface

layout and structure. This also applies to whether thedevice is in a landscape or portrait position.

Figure.4.2. Home Page.

20


21/33

U1055939 2512 words

Figure.4.3: Content Layout.

5. Evaluation

Usability testing and end test questioner were used toevaluate the website. There where 0% usability andaccessibility issues identified by the participants from thetasks completed. The website code validated with 0%errors on the W3C tool (2012) against CSS3 and HTML5.

The site was also checked against W3C mobile Checker(2012) tool. Results were inconclusive because the tooldoes not validate HTML versions other than XHTML.

21


22/33

U1055939 2512 words

6. Further EnhancementsI attempted to apply assistive web technologies such ascolour contrast and texts resize options. Have thenavigation as a popup menu on the tablet device. Due tolimited java script knowledge, I could not manage toimplement that on the website.

22


23/33

U1055939 2512 words

7.ReferencesNielsen, J. and Mack, R.L. (1994) Usability InspectionMethods. John Wiley and Sons.

Reif, V. (2011) Usability and user experience of an onlineservice. Unpublished Bachelors thesis. Oulu University of

Applied Sciences Business Information Technology.

Sharp, H., Rogers, Y. and Preece, Y. (2007) InteractionDesign: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. 2ndEdition.

John Wiley and Sons.

Sharp, H., Rogers, Y. and Preece, Y. (2011) InteractionDesign: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. 3rd Edition.

John Wiley and Sons.

Sheiderman, B. (1998) Designing the user interface:

strategies for effective human-computer interaction. 3rdEdition. Addison-Wesley.

Sheiderman, B. (2010) Designing the user interfaces:strategies for effective human-computer interaction.London: Addison-Wesley.

Robertson, S. and Robertson (1999) Mastering theRequirements Process. Addison-Wesley.

W3C (2012) Mobile Checker (Version1.4.2)[Online ValidatorTool]. Available at: http://validator.w3.org/mobile.(Accessed 21 April 2012).

Reif, V. (2011) Usability and user experience of an onlineservice. Unpublished Bachelors thesis. Oulu University ofApplied Sciences Business Information Technology.

23
http://validator.w3.org/mobilehttp://validator.w3.org/mobile


24/33

U1055939 2512 words

8.Appendix Part 1

NB: Some of the questioner questions were adapted from Sharp,Rogers and Preece(2007) book including techniques of datagathering.

a.Structured Tasks ResultsTemplate from HutchWorld evaluation case study used in Sharp, Rogers

and Preece(2007) book.

Participant number: 1 2 Average

Gender FM M

Age 36 21 29

Extra Notes Participant 1:uses reading glasses. Good test for

color contrast.

Structured Tasks

1.Task: Explore the University website. (3-5minutes)

a. Open the website http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/b. Familiarise yourself with website

Time Taken 2 3 3

2.Task: Identify different sections on the website. (6minutes)

a. Click on Study Here Link. 1 1 1

b. Click Services. 4 3 4

c. Click Undergraduate degrees Link. 2 2 2

d. Navigate to the Home Page. 2 2 2

24


25/33

U1055939 2512 words

Time Taken 6 3 5

3.Task: Searching (6minutes)

a. Click search for Events 3 2 3

b. Search for Latest news. 3 3 3

c. Search for visit us on main navigation. 3 4 4

Time Taken 4 3 4

4.Task: Get information. (6minutes)

1. Check for latest news. 2 3 3

2. Look for Campus life 3 3 3

3. View campuses 3 2 3

Time Taken 3 3 3

5.Task: Communication (4minutes)

a. Find a link to send email. Please do notsend.

2 1 2

b. Find University contact number. 2 1 2

Time Taken2 2 2

Average Time Taken/ 30minutes 3 3

ParticipantAverage: Difficulty level 3 2

1-easy, 2-ok, 3-difficult, and 4-needed help.

Table 8.1: indicates data gathered from structured tasks.

25


26/33

U1055939 2512 words

b.Data Analysis Of Usability tasks

Key: 1-easy, 2-ok, 3-difficult, and 4-needed help.

Graph 8.2: Indicates average difficulty results of the two

participants when completing the twelve tasks

26


27/33

U1055939 2512 words

c.End Usability testing Questioner.

I. Questioner: Completed by Participant 1

Complete the question by and circling or underlying the answer you have chosen.

Participant Name: Jenny

1. Strongly Agree

2. Agree

3. Neutral

4. Disagree

5. Strongly Disagree

Please take a few minutes to complete post-test questioner.

1. Was the website easy to use?1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly Disagree

2. Was the navigation easy to use?1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly Disagree

3. Was the Color contrast adequate enough to enable you to explore the website?1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly Disagree

4. Were terms and symbols used clearly?1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly Disagree

5. Was information easy to locate?1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly Disagree

6. Did you have control over the media e.g. videos and slide shows1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly Disagree

7. Will you visit the website ever again?1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly Disagree

8. I can easily recognize the pages that I have previously visited.1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly Disagree

9. It was enjoyable exploring the website.

1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly Disagree

10. Was the content written understandable and professional1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly Disagree

Please provide comments on your experience that has not been addressed above or

that could be improved.

Make the text black not grey.

Separate the main navigation links clearly. I thought it was a University slogan

not links.

Website looks fine and simple. Similar to some websites that I use.

27


28/33

U1055939 2512 words

II. Questioner: Completed by Participant 2.

Complete the question by circling or underlying the answer you have chosen.

Participant Name: Mike

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree


1. Was the website easy to use?


2. Was the navigation easy to use?


3. Was the Color contrast adequate enough to enable you to explore the website?


4. Were terms and symbols used clearly?


5. Was information easy to locate?


6. Did you have control over the media e.g. videos and slide shows1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly Disagree

7. Will you visit the website ever again?


8. I can easily recognize the pages that I have previously visited.




10. Was the content written understandable and professional


Please provide comments on your experience that has not been addressed above or that

could be improved.

No comments recorded. Participant did not realize this part behind the document.

28


29/33

U1055939 2512 words

d.Data Analysis of the Questioners.

Participant 1 2 Averages

Questions

1 2 2 2

2 3 3 3

3 3 2 3

4 3 3 3

5 2 2 2

6 3 2 3

7 4 3 4

8 3 2 3

9 2 2 2

10 1 2 2

Table 8.3: Data gathered from the questioner of the two participants.

Table 8.4: indicates user experience of the two participants on each

individual question.

29


30/33

U1055939 2512 words

7. Appendix Part 2

a. Questioner: Completed by Participant 1 toevaluate mobile website.

Complete the question by circling or underlying the answer you have

chosen.

Participant Name: Kevin

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree



1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree 5.Strongly

Disagree



Disagree

3. Was the Color contrast adequate enough to enable you to explore the

website?


Disagree



Disagree


1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree

5.Strongly Disagree

6. Was the font size and images easily recognizable?

1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree5.Strongly Disagree



5.Strongly Disagree



5.Strongly Disagree



5.Strongly Disagree


30


31/33

U1055939 2512 words


5.Strongly Disagree

b. Questioner: Completed by Participant 2 toevaluate mobile website.

Complete the question by circling or underlying the answer you have

chosen.

Participant Name: Rachel

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

DisagreeStrongly Disagree




5.Strongly Disagree



5.Strongly Disagree

3. Was the Color contrast adequate enough to enable you to explore the

website?1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree

5.Strongly Disagree



5.Strongly Disagree



5.Strongly Disagree

6. Was the font size and images easily recognizable?

1.Strongly Agree 2.Agree 3.Neutral 4.Disagree5.Strongly Disagree



5.Strongly Disagree



5.Strongly Disagree



5.Strongly Disagree

31


32/33

U1055939 2512 words



5.Strongly Disagree

c. Data analysis of the questioner

Participant 1 2 Averages

Questions Kevin Rachel

1 2 2 2

2 1 2 2

3 1 2 2

4 2 2 2

5 2 2 2

6 2 2 2

7 5 2 4

8 2 2 2

9 2 2 2

10 2 2 2

Table 8.1: Questioner data gathered from the two participants.

Table 8.2: indicates user experience of the two participants on each

individual question based on the questioner.

32


33/33

U1055939 2512 words

d.Structured Tasks Results

Template from HutchWorld evaluation case study used in Sharp, Rogers

and Preece(2007) book.

Participant number: 1 2 Average

Gender FM M

Structured Tasks

6.Task: Explore Mobile website. (3-5minutes)

a. Familiarise yourself with website

Time Taken 1 2 2

7.Task: Identify different sections on the website. (5minutes)

a. Click on Location on Campus 1 1

b. Click Site Map 1 1

Time Taken 1 1 2

8.Task: Searching for degrees. (5minutes)

a.Search for Latest news for Firat Batmaz 1 1 1Time Taken 1 2 1

9.Task: Control and navigation. (5minutes)a. Navigate to Postgraduate page. 1 1 1

b. Return to home page. 1 1 1

Time Taken 1 1 2

10. Task: Communication (4minutes)c. Find a link to send email. Please do not

send.

1 1 1

d. Find General Office contact number.

e.

1 1 1

Time Taken 1 2 2

Average Time Taken/ 24minutes 1 1

ParticipantAverage: Difficulty level 1 1

1-easy, 2-ok, 3-difficult, and 4-needed help.

Table 8.2: indicates data gathered from structured tasks.

u1055939 individual report

Documents