Research


11
Aug 10

Trickle-down website redesign doesn’t work

dripping paint

By now you have probably seen the xkcd cartoon mocking university websites. It highlights the differences between what users want and what the leaders of these organizations provide them. Inside Higher Ed published an article about the cartoon last week that ruffled lots of feathers and caught the attention of some of the very administrators and faculty responsible for the mess on these websites (yes, believe it or not, this is a leadership problem!)  Like the 65 people who had commented on the article when I last checked, I too have lots of opinions on the topic.

But that’s not the point of this post.

This morning, Inside Higher Ed published a follow-up article on the subject, “Web Re(design)”. While they made some great points about the need for institutions to do their own research and understand their unique audience needs (they should have called the article [pre]design!), the debates among the “experts” about how to structure the home page left me with one thought…

ENOUGH ABOUT THE HOME PAGE ALREADY!

I’m not saying that navigation is not important. On the contrary, evidence shows that the find-ability and quality of content are the most important things on a college website to all audiences. I have years of primary research with thousands of high school students, parents, college students, faculty, staff and alumni that has always consistently pointed to this. I recently wrote about the need for usable and useful websites, which is borne out of my experience with this research. And if you don’t believe me, Noel-Levitz released a study last month that found the same thing.

But fixing the navigation and content on the home page doesn’t fix the problem. The home page is not a destination, it’s a starting point (and with search, you can’t even guarantee visitors start there to begin with). Perfecting the search engine and top-level architecture helps get users to their destination with greater ease, but what happens when they get there? Has the same level of attention been given to offices and departments at the college as to the home page and the slick top-level marketing veneer?

If you think college home pages are bad, you’ll really enjoy their department sites

For years, colleges and universities have been practicing what I call “trickle-down redesign”. They think that by redesigning the first couple of layers of the site and providing prettier templates and CMS tools to their departments, everything will get better. I can’t point to many examples where this has worked. Actually, I can’t point to any… because the problems with their department sites are more than skin deep.

I understand why they do this. Higher ed websites are decentralized behemoths. Not many schools have the time or resources to overhaul everything and they can’t afford to pay a consultant to do it all either. So they pay for the home page—give it all they got and hope for the best.

At the risk of sounding self-serving, I’m here to say the cost of trickle-down redesign is high. You can’t afford to trust that “owners” of mission-critical websites at your institution will take your tools and get it right all by themselves.

You may be thinking to yourself, “we don’t let that happen on mission-critical pages of our site.” Well, think again!

The destination

We know from research that the most important content to the largest, most important external audiences on a college or university website is information about academics and majors. This is followed by cost and financial aid information. And for competitive, tuition-driven private institutions with sticker prices near $50,000 a year, this information becomes even more important. Yet the entire website redesign budget is spent on the homepage and its accompanying bells and whistles.

I’m arguing that for these institutions, THE DESTINATION for many of your most important visitors is the academic department site or the financial aid section of the site (a.k.a. the financial aid office’s website). I challenge you to pick a college, any college, and go to these sections. Most of the time you’re going to find hard to use, out of date, amateur looking sites that sound like they were written by financial aid administrators and faculty for a policy manual (because in many cases they were!)

These are generalizations, of course. I’ve been fortunate to work with a couple of schools that really get it and have devoted time, money and expertise to helping improve these mission-critical areas of their sites. We’re currently engaged with a great college client in a hard-core research, architecture and content strategy project for their financial aid, scholarship and billing areas of their site. A project like this doesn’t just help with recruitment, it helps make sure students enrolled at the college have access to information they need to STAY at the college. Can you say that you’re doing the same on your site?

Please, for the sake of your users, don’t stop at the home page. In fact, maybe you don’t even start at the home page. Find out what really matters to your audiences and start there. If prospective students want better academic and financial information, put your resources there. Talk to your enrolled students and find out if they really need or want that big portal you’ve been working on (we did that with a client once and learned all they really wanted was a better calendar). Find out what information your faculty need and if the website is the best place to get it. Determine whether or not that expensive alumni community is worth the time and money when your alumni tell you that they prefer to interact on Facebook and LinkedIn.

There’s so much more to a university website than the home page. Maybe someone will create another cartoon that helps people get that.

J. Todd Bennett is the co-founder and managing partner of decimal152, providing website [pre]design for do-good organizations.

Image credit: Flickr user Jeremy Brooks


21
May 10

Usability doesn’t matter if your content isn’t useful

Useful junk image by W9NED

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


12
Feb 10

Your website needs a [pre]design

Have you ever visited a redesigned website that looks nice, but is no more usable than before (or worse)? Did your organization implement a new content management system only to find your content never got any better? Were you disappointed when the new portal failed to revolutionize the way you work?

What are the first things many people think to do when their website has problems?

“Hire someone to redesign it! Get some new technology!”

Why? Because that’s what they always do. That’s what their competitors do. And quite frankly, they just don’t have the time or expertise to think about it. It’s a vicious cycle– a website gets redesigned, a tool gets implemented and people are happy with it for a little while. But old problems resurface, frustration mounts and it’s time to redesign again.
You blame the tool, blame the vendor, blame the people who work for you, but never blame the process.

Einstein defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

By this definition, the organizations we work with are ALL insane. So are we, and we admit it.

It’s so easy to fall into old patterns and behaviors. Trying to keep up with competitors, trends and the mounting pile of work in front of you leaves little time to think. You just do what you know. We have spent time on both sides of the table– the client side and the vendor side. In former roles, we redesigned hundreds of enterprise and small scale sites in response to a pre-determined scope of work spelled out in a complicated RFP. The projects usually addressed surface-level issues that resulted in nominal improvements in the look and usability of the site.

We have made our fair share of mistakes, but now we are learning from them. We had the tremendous benefit of a fresh start and new perspective that comes from creating a new company. We now find ourselves questioning everything we do and constantly asking “why?”

Here’s a sample from a Skype chat we had a shortly after starting decimal152 at the end of 2008:

Todd: [they] redesigned their website and it still sucks
Adam: that’s blunt
Adam: why does it still suck?
Todd: maybe the design or the cms was never the problem to begin with
Adam: or maybe it was, but it wasn’t done right
Todd: or maybe it was only part of the problem
Adam: or they got railroaded by a committee or a vendor
Todd: ahh, yes. like us.
Todd: in a past life :-)
Adam: people define scope for a redesign RFP without doing the predesign work to determine scope in the first place
Todd: we need to start with good research that leads to good strategy before tackling solutions
Adam: and educate the entire organization along the way

Let’s stop the redesign insanity! Ask questions. Think before copying what another organization is doing. What works for them may not work for you. Besides, how do you know if it even works for THEM? (Chances are they don’t know if it’s working either). Redesigning a website to fix a problem you haven’t fully diagnosed is like putting a band-aid on a tumor.

It’s time to focus on pre-design the research, strategy and planning that takes place BEFORE you decide to redesign your website.

We’re looking forward to an honest conversation… and lots of questions. We hope you’ll join us.

Side note: This is our very first blog post! We’re so glad you found it. If you care about your organization’s communications and the people responsible for getting them done, we hope you will subscribe to our blog. You can get updates on future posts by subscribing to our RSS feed, email updates, Facebook fan page, LinkedIn or Twitter. One last favor– help us get the word out and share this  with a friend! Thanks– Todd.