Table of ContentsExecutive SummaryIntroductionStudy PurposeStudy Methods and ContextStudy SummaryParticipant ProfileAcknowledgmentsStudy is notA MethodologyEnd-user test methodologyParticipantsAssessment ToolsTest ProceduresParticipant ObservationsData AnalysisTesting FacilityTasksTask 1 – First ImpressionsTask 2 – Task Scenario: StudentTask 2 – Task Scenario: FacultyTask 3 – Feedback QuestionnaireB Data and FindingsPerformance DataSatisfaction DataUsability FindingsGood FindingsCritical FindingsMajor FindingsModerate FindingsMinor FindingsNext StepsContact InformationReferencesGold, E.. (1995). The Business of Graphic Design. Watson-Guptill PublicationsFleming, J. (1998). Web navigation: designing the user experience. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly & Associates, Inc.Rubin, J. (1994). Handbook of Usability Testing. John Wiley & Sons.Nielsen, J., Snyder, C., Molich, R., Farrell, S. (2000). E-commerce User Experience: Methodology. Nielsen Norman Group. http://www.nngroup.com/reports/ecommerceAppendicesUsability Evaluation InstructionsConsent FormParticipant Background Questionnaire4- If you are a student, please check all that apply5- Please state your field of study/research:1- About how long have you been using the Internet?Usability Evaluation TasksTask 1: First ImpressionsUsability Evaluation TasksTask 2: Tasks Scenario: StudentUsability Evaluation TasksTask 2: Tasks Scenario: FacultyUsability Evaluation TasksTask 3: Site FeedbackUniversity of Texas at AustinDepartment of Art & Art History WebsiteUsability ReportCarrie Newsom: School of InformationNatacha Poggio: College of Fine ArtsUniversity of Texas at AustinApril 21, 2005Table of ContentsEXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4INTRODUCTION 5STUDY PURPOSE 5STUDY METHODS AND CONTEXT 5STUDY SUMMARY 5PARTICIPANT PROFILE 5ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 6STUDY IS NOT 6METHODOLOGY 7END-USER TEST METHODOLOGY 7PARTICIPANTS 7ASSESSMENT TOOLS 7TEST PROCEDURES 8PARTICIPANT OBSERVATIONS 8DATA ANALYSIS 8TESTING FACILITY 9TASKS 9TASK 1 – FIRST IMPRESSIONS 9TASK 2 – TASK SCENARIO: STUDENT 9TASK 2 – TASK SCENARIO: FACULTY 10TASK 3 – FEEDBACK QUESTIONNAIRE 10DATA AND FINDINGS 11PERFORMANCE DATA 11SATISFACTION DATA 12USABILITY FINDINGS 13GOOD FINDINGS 14CRITICAL FINDINGS 14MAJOR FINDINGS 14MODERATE FINDINGS 15MINOR FINDINGS 16NEXT STEPS 16CONTACT INFORMATION 16BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES 17APPENDICES 18USABILITY EVALUATION INSTRUCTIONS 19CONSENT FORM 20PARTICIPANT BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE 21USABILITY EVALUATION TASKS 22TASK 1: FIRST IMPRESSIONS 22USABILITY EVALUATION TASKS 23TASK 2: TASKS SCENARIO: STUDENT 23USABILITY EVALUATION TASKS 24TASK 2: TASKS SCENARIO: FACULTY 24USABILITY EVALUATION TASKS 25Task 3: Site Feedback 25Executive SummaryCarrie Newsom and Natacha Poggio conducted a usability test for the University of Texas at Austin, Department of Art & Art History web site. Newsom and Poggio designed an end-user usability test, wherein individual representative users were tested, one at a time. Tests were carried out in the Design Studio of Poggio (which acted as a usability lab) the week of April 4, 2005. Participants were given representative tasks to perform on the site, and were observed as they carried out these tasks. These observations, along with satisfaction data obtained via questionnaires, form the basis of the results.Four representative users from the College of Fine Arts at the University of Texas at Austin were selected for the study. Three were students and one was a design professor. All participants were very experienced in using the Internet (between eight and ten years of experience), and indicated they access it daily. Three of the participants have previously accessed the tested web site - but none had visited the site in the last three months.Overall, participants were pleased with the web site interface and mentioned they would consider applying to the school because of the feeling of belonging and the impression they perceived of the department being part of a larger institution. However, all participants agreed the interface was not as “visually impressive” as they would expect for an art and design department.There were two problems identified as critical (i.e. the identified issues is so sever that critical data may be lost or the user cannot complete the task). First, the search function of the calendar and news pages does not work. Two participants attempted to use these functions to find the date of a lecture only to be told there were no results. The only way participants could find the event was by clicking on the exact date of the lecture on the calendar graphic. Second, the link to further details about the program (labeled “handbook”) is worded in such a way that no users connected the idea of a handbook with that of further details (or catalog). See section 5.3 for detailed descriptions of these critical problems and descriptions of the other problems identified.Who is going to design schools anyway?The AIGA (American Institute of Graphic Arts) lists 240 four-year college programs in graphic design and 1,300 to 2,500 two-year programs in graphic design. According to Ed Gold in his book “The Business of Graphic Design,” these schools graduate an average of 50,000 graphic design students each year (Gold, 1995).IntroductionSTUDY PURPOSEThe purpose of this study was to test the usability of the UT Art & Art History web site, using representative users. STUDY METHODS AND CONTEXTThis study evaluated the UT Art & Art History web site’s usability by employing an “end-user test” method, wherein individual representative users were tested, one at a time. Test participants came to Poggio's Design Studio (which acted as a usability lab), were given some representative tasks to perform, and were observed as they carried out these tasks. Data was collected through the use of a “think aloud” protocol and post-test questionnaires. STUDY SUMMARYFour representative users were tested one at a time on the Department of Art & Art History web site. We wished to collect satisfaction data (via a questionnaire), and, most importantly, particular areas of poor usability. Performance data (error rates) was not measured since it was not relevant to the tasks requested.Three aspects were considered when testing the web site:· Information: