-4.gif)
With the assistance of my four-person team, I established the following research objectives:
1. Evaluate website movement and navigation capabilities.
2. Assess the clarity of the information architecture for users.
3. Determine the legibility of labels.
4. Verify whether the website facilitates the completion of the predefined usability testing tasks.
5. Conduct an overall assessment of the website’s user experience.
To ensure the success of the research, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of our knowledge, uncertainties, and gaps in understanding. Subsequently, we selected the aspects that would be examined during the research session.
We identified potential challenges that could hinder the study’s progress and devised strategies to mitigate or prevent them.
To recruit participants for the study, we utilised a previously prepared and executed selection questionnaire. For usability testing, we selected a sample of five individuals (two women and three men) who either currently own or have owned a pet and are familiar with using websites that sell pet products.
Sample Characteristics:
• Four out of five participants currently own a pet.
• One participant recently experienced the loss of a pet.
• Four out of five participants engage in online shopping multiple times per month.
• Four out of five participants are between the ages of 18 and 26.
• One participant is between the ages of 27 and 35.
The screening process allowed us to exclude individuals who are directly involved in the UX/research industry, have recently participated in a similar study, or do not own, have owned, or intend to own a pet.
We employed task-based usability testing, wherein users interacted with the interface according to a predetermined task scenario.
In each of our studies, three participants were involved: a moderator who supervised and conducted the entire study, an observer who documented users’ reactions and behaviours on the website, and the respondent.
Due to the ongoing pandemic, research sessions were conducted virtually via Zoom and Messenger. Participants were requested to share their screens, visit the website naszezoo.pl, and think aloud while performing tasks (commenting and explaining their actions).
The study’s scope involved five respondents testing the naszezoo.pl website by completing the tasks previously prepared.
1. Initial questions to build a friendly and safe atmosphere and gain insights into respondents’ behaviours and preferences regarding pet product purchases.
2. A zero task aimed at initial website familiarity and obtaining a first impression of the naszezoo.pl website, followed by three tasks, each subdivided into sub-points, placed in relevant contexts:
a. Locating specific pet products.
b. Identifying specific categories and initially answering the user’s expectations, followed by verifying their assumptions.
c. Seeking information on the website related to additional services offered by the naszezoo.pl store.
3. Summarising questions to elicit opinions on the website overall experience and preferences for similar pet-related websites.
4. Additionally, when a topic held significant importance for respondents or opportunities for expansion were evident, supplementary questions were posed (e.g. product pages or advantages/disadvantages of comparable websites with pet products).
The collected data was analysed in a spreadsheet using a categorisation key to distinguish between positive, negative, goal-oriented, similar products used by respondents (websites, applications), and relevant quotes.
Furthermore, we identified and categorised design errors along with their severity, and proposed remedial actions.
Additionally, we presented other general comments regarding the website derived from the research.
We decided to present the results in response to the goals set at the beginning, going through individual stages of the study (initial questions, tasks and summary questions) in the form of quotes.
"Why is there so much of this?"
"The 90s-like interface makes me not trust the website as much as any other modern one."
"It'll probably be at the bottom. Oh, but it's not."
"At least there are pictures of horses, so I know I'm in the right place."
To sum up, although there were a few bad moments, most respondents found that they were able to navigate the website and search for information quite efficiently. Most of the tasks have been completed. The colours of the website are friendly, but some aspects disturb its intuitiveness, friendliness, and readability.
We used a three-level scale, including a critical error (preventing the user from reaching a specific place on the page and contributing to their frustration. It requires a priori change), a major error (not preventing the user from reaching a specific place on the page, but causing frustration. It requires a change as a second in line), and a small error (a situation when the user is not fully satisfied with some element on the page. To be changed last.).
Eventually, we identified one critical error, three large errors, and three small ones.
• It is worth making sure that everything works before starting the usability tests to eliminate all possible technical problems.
• It's good to have additional 'emergency' people willing to participate in research.
• Being an observer is more demanding than I thought - sometimes the desire to give suggestions is difficult to manage.
• Being careful so as not to confirm that someone did a task well.
• It is not easy to find a golden mean between speaking casually and reading from a piece of paper during the introduction so as not to bore respondents.
-5.gif)
