Research


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.