Example: Usability recommendations
| Usability recommendations | Resulting actions - IAR 2.0 |
|---|---|
|
1. No modification indicated for the site’s content, clean look, and well-designed glossary. |
|
|
2. Reorganize information. The current structure does not match the ways in which users search for information in a Web site. |
|
| 3. Reexamine all labels to assure they directly map to the information they index. Users had difficulties in telling what labels referred to, particularly the labels Best Practices, Interpreting Data, and Module 1-3. |
|
4. Reduce the amount of information per page and minimize the need for scrolling. Information-packed, long pages have at least three disadvantages for users:
|
|
5. Make the breadcrumbs stand out. Using the different color may help. In particular, make the > character stand out more clearly.
|
|
6. Make important information stand out. Important information should jump out at users; the present design requires them to hunt in down. |
|
|
7. Reduce the white space in glossary pages. Some participants did not like the white space in the glossary pages, because it required more scrolling up and down. |
|
|
8. Make both PDF and HTML pages available. Some participants did not like PDF links, because such documents loaded slowly. |
|
9. Use more graphics and other media. The pages in the site are text heavy. |
|
|
10. Present examples modeling the nine-step process framework or highlight their strength. Some users preferred to look first at examples, yet the examples on the site are studies conducted at other institutions, so it is not easy to see their relevance to the methods, processes, or designs discussed in the IAR site. |
|
Also added:
|
