1

1

The Usability of a Website evaluated by Survey Methodologists

QUEST Workshop, Ottawa 2007

Bente Hole, Tore Nøtnæs and Gustav Haraldsen

Statistics Norway

2

Evaluation Tools

Checklists for question and questionnaire evaluation:

• Simplified version of Forsyth’s O-Questionnaire Review Coding System and Snijker’s Expert Questionnaire Appraisal Coding System

– text evaluation

• Own checklist inspired by Don Dillman– evaluation of visual design

3

4

5

6

What can survey methodologists contribute with?

• Focus on text and concepts – simple, unambiguous and clear

• Simple and consistent use of visual effects– Both on symbols and numbers (nonverbal language), and on text

(verbal language)

• Interaction between text and visual design

• Information flow

• Knowledge of cognitive processes

7

Example I: unclear text I

8

Example II: unclear text

9

Example: text and visual design that doesn’t play together well

10

Example: text and visual design that play together

11

Example II: text and visual design that play together

12

Example: poor information flow

13

Example: good information flow

14

Additional evaluation criteria when it comes to web applications

• Technical preconditions– Speakers, java, flash, etc.

• Evident confidentiality and data security measures

• Efficiency– Speed of server and PC

• The screen layout– Size, scrolling

• Navigational tools– Menus, buttons, links, etc.

• Audio and video effects

15

Discussion

• Do you agree or disagree with our conclusions concerning what survey methodologists can contribute with?

• Do you have any experiences yourselves?

• Other things survey methodologists can contribute with?

• What can survey methodologists learn from traditional Web-design?

• Do you know of any literature on this topic?

16

If you have comments or questions, do not hesitate to contact us:

bente.hole@ssb.no

tore.notnas@ssb.no

gustav.haraldsen@ssb.no