Usability testing is very task focused. You tell the user to find something. The user completes the task. You then move on to the next task, looking for errors and difficulties along the way.
What if the interface is great, but the content isn’t very helpful?
In some cases (e.g. transactional scenarios), this task-focused testing alone may work just fine, assuming you allow the user to complete the task all the way through. But at the same time, there’s something very artificial about it. For example, in a usability test:
You say to the user: “I want you to purchase a blue shirt.”
The user, who is not really buying a blue shirt, performs a search, picks the first blue shirt he sees, adds it to the cart and checks out.
Success! Task complete.
When was the last time you haphazardly made a purchase online without making a decision about your purchase at the same time? Do you typically just pick the first item that matches your search and buy it?
This test didn’t necessarily evaluate whether the content (shirt descriptions, sizing information, images) was helpful in making the purchase decision.
In the real world, the task isn’t complete until you walk away with what you needed.
I’ve done testing on a number of academic library websites and seen this same problem. Users are in such a hurry to find an article (to complete the task) that they pay little attention to which one they pick.
If you’re writing a real paper on a real deadline and need a very specific article to support your work, the results of your search and all of the content within become much more important. Not only do you have to find the right article, you need all of the instructions to tell you exactly how to get your hands on a copy of it, now.
Usability vs. Utility
There is a difference between usability (the site is easy to use) and utility (the site provides what the user needs). Both are very important, but for some reason usability gets all of the attention.
It doesn’t matter if you have the best content in the world if nobody can find it. On the flip side, it doesn’t matter that your site is extremely easy to use if your content is not useful.
Your website has to be BOTH usable AND useful.
A little more conversation, a little less action
I agree with those who say that focus groups and interviews are not usability testing. That’s true. But they are an important precursor to usability testing and give great insight into the utility of a site. How do you create realistic usability scenarios or measure the usefulness of content without first talking to your users about what they need from your site?
Talk is cheap—we come pre-installed with the tools to do that. So find some real users of your site and spend some time understanding their real content needs by talking to them. Use what you learn to develop better testing scenarios—or better yet, observe real users doing real tasks in their native environments.
When testing, balance the usability with the utility
- If the user skips your big introductory paragraph, don’t just document it. Ask why. Is it a formatting issue? Or might it be that the user doesn’t care about your welcome message? Get them to tell you in their own words.
- Don’t just ask users to find the program or service they’re interested in and stop there. Ask them to evaluate your offerings based on what they find on your website. Would they choose you over a competitor for that service? Are you providing what they need to make that decision?
Are you testing the usefulness of content?
If so, we’d love to hear what’s working for you. Share your tips in the comments.
>>>
J. Todd Bennett is the co-founder and managing partner of decimal152, providing website [pre]design for do-good organizations.
Image credit: Flickr user W9NED
Tags: content strategy, testing, usability
My challenge: cut your content in half. Now, have our departments and offices taken that to heart? No, not yet. But I will continue to voice that! Second challenge: take the top 3-5 things you get phone calls or visitors about, and make sure those tasks are self explanatory on your website.
Good luck getting departments to heed your advice. Maybe you could offer to help
Then offer to cut it in half again. Academics love their words!
I like your second challenge a lot. We do the same thing with clients, particularly when we're doing content strategy and IA at a more micro-level with a department or functional area. In fact, we'll sometimes have front-line staff keep a log of phone calls/emails/walk-ins to record the nature of the inquiries. Then, as you said, make sure those tasks and questions are easily answered on their site (and not hidden in a catch-all FAQ section either).
Thanks for your input, Holly!
J – completely agree. Getting people to agree to cut copy is a difficult endeavor. But I think your comment about offering to help, while said jokingly in a sense, is right on.
Sometimes you have to go out of your way to show people the true potential and correct scope of their content before they can catch the vision of a good content strategy and IA.