While looking between the University of Virginia (UV) Web Usability Team Heuristics and the Purdue University (PU) Web Site Support Team Heuristics, I ultimately ended up choosing to move forward with using the Purdue University version of Web Heuristics. One of the main reasons that I ended up moving forward with Purdue rather than University of Virginia is I like the conciseness that Purdue brings when describing the main heuristics. Nielsen’s original ten heuristics help bring a general summary of what to look out for, but I consider them to be so extremely broad that it can sometimes bring up more questions then answers, and I think when it comes to providing ways to give context and understanding of what to look for in each section, Purdue knocks it out of the park. University of Virginia attempts to clear up the broadness as well, but I find that their subtle definitions still a bit to contextually broad and I think can still leave a lot of questions on the table versus Purdue. The one thing though I will say that I wish Purdue would implement into their version of the ten heuristics is grouping them up like University of Virginia. Categorizing the heuristics was a very smart idea to gather which heuristics farm on similar ideas and can be used to make a cleaner report by being able to create small summaries within each section. However, the categories just were not enough to convince me to use the Virginia version, as the question and examples that Purdue provides for each heuristic outshines everything else.
A Heuristic Test Example
Introduction
For this section, we will be doing an evaluation of the website for the Dallas College Library. Throughout this evaluation, we will be looking at the overall usability of the website to make sure that it is easy to use for both library experts and patrons who are relatively new to the library website or even the internet as a whole. Since this is a library site and will be mainly used by people who will visit and use said library, we must ensure that the website itself has extremely well-done usability for people of all ages and expertise and provides a smooth experience. The end goal is to help point out things that are working well for everyone in its current state as well as being able to provide and show pain points within the site that should be improved on to provide a better web experience for all.
Heuristic One — Clarity of Communication
Positives & Negatives
The webpages provide a clear picture that the audience for people using the site are students, faculty, or staff members who need to utilize the Dallas college library system or is looking to get information on the library I have found the language used is incredibly familiar and there is not a lot of complex words that would confuse entry-level web readers. Information is presented in a somewhat natural order. Some items on the home page I think should be placed in different locations (either higher up or lower) such as the locales of each part of the libraries should be higher up on the page rather than near the very bottom.
The websites UI is efficient but can be a bit misleading. The entire top section will take you out of the library section of the website and next thing you know you’re in things related to the college but has nothing to do with the library. Besides that, the UI is still incredibly easy to remember and very user-friendly with a lot of easily readable and viewable buttons and link that would make it easy to get you in a direction that you’re looking for.
Severity
The problems based here are relatively mild in the long run of things, with very few things to adjust and work on but are not super high priority and will not take away from the experience if not fixed immediately.
Recommendations
Fix some of the subpage links, rearrange some of the home page titles, create more spacing between links that stay within library subspace and ones that go outside to the college links.
Heuristic Two — Accessibility
Positives & Negatives
I found that the website was easily accessible for all users. Text is resizable depending on magnification of website and information is accurate, complete, and understandable. One thing though that needs to be addressed is the details that show which author or administrator is for each page. Author or administrator is wildly varied based on what page you are on and some pages are incredibly out of date.
The library website I believe helps to accommodate several different goals that a user may want to attempt and is tailored to find ways to help get them to their answer quickly. Site is somewhat easy to learn, but it may take a few times to figure out how to get some of the deeper pages. Graphics are used sparingly and when needed, does not overload the page or the user.
Severity
The severity for this heuristic I would describe as mild to lightly moderate. There is not a lot that would cause a lot of issues unless you are really attempting to dig deeper in. Surface level for most basic users I think will be fine.
Recommendations
The main takeaway I would want to see improved is to have more availability to contact authors of pages or a general mailbox for all issues on the website for a team to contact said authors. Other than that, there should at least be a review of some of the deeper levels of the webpage to make sure it is easy to get to and understand.
Heuristic Three — Consistency
Positives & Negatives
When it comes to consistency, there is a bit of a problem. There are several pages that have a modern look, and some that have a very older (mid web 2.0) look. It can be a bit confusing at first and should be addressed. The ones that are either modern or older at least have a very similar design, style, etc. that makes it easy to understand where everything is no matter what page you are on.
However, when looking at either only the modern pages or only the older pages, they are visually consistent across the types of sites, layout and formatting is pretty much identical with each page. There are not many attention getting techniques used which I think is fine because it can lead to distractions.
Severity
I would rank this is as moderate due to how many pages have a difference in layout from modern to old school. The consistency I think would cause confusion for some, wondering if they’re still within the same area they need to be or if they’re on some outdated site.
Recommendations
To grow and gather consistency, I would update some of the older ones to a modern look or at least fit the style of one or the other.
Heuristic Four — Navigation
Positives & Negatives
I found the navigation on the website to be quite serviceable and usable. The website uses standard link colors and said links are usually embedded in the page are accurate and can tell where you are going. However, some links in headers can be a bit misleading as some lead to the Dallas college page itself and takes you out of the library section. Some of the logo icons do the same as well.
One thing for sure though is that the navigation should be reviewed on some of the subpages. Some have navigation maps for only a particular section, and some do not. The global header pertains to the entire Dallas college website and not the library section. It is at least easy to get back to the home page on most pages, but not all. The site is technically searchable, but I believe it’s for the entire website. The only searchable section in library is for the catalog.
Severity
I find this to be a bit higher than most (if not the highest) due to the navigation sometimes getting users completely lost and it can be a bit difficult to get back to the library home page if you’re not careful.
Recommendations
Review the deeper pages within the library section and ensure that all pages have some sort of way to get back to the library home page and make sure navigation is consistent to a degree to where users can get back to start if needed.
Heuristic Five — Flexibility and Minimalist Design
Positives & Negatives
I found the design of the website to be quite visually impressive but missing a few key things in flexibility. On the positive, links are tied together to bring related items together and everything feels cohesive and in its correct place. I did though notice a possible dead chat link or could’ve been due to looking after chat room hours.
Page length is mostly appropriate for content, though I think the home page though is a bit cluttered / long. Visually it is nice to look at it, not wordy to where its uncomfortable to read, and are visually uncluttered. There are no visible drop-down menus which I think they desperately need, especially up in the global navigation area.
Severity
Very Mild because the real only issue I think needs to be addressed is the drop down menu and the chat link.
Recommendations
Add drop down menus to the navigation headers that need it (esp. in the global header). I would also consider addressing the chat room window to make sure it is working and if it is, adjust some of the out of office / closed text to ensure that it can be understood it is because they are closed and not give the impression that it just may not be working.
Heuristic Six — Visual Presentation
Positives & Negatives
This to me is one of the strongest heuristics the website has going for it. Website utilizes a generous use of color and does not overwhelm the user in any way. There are no animations or anything that juxtaposes on the screen that would make it visually painful to look at or add loading times for slower connections. No flashing text of any kind and can be viewed on any browser in any window size (incredibly responsive).
It is very easy to tell what a link is and what is not, but it is worth noting that the site did not seem to have any sort of recognition on if you have clicked on a link before. Besides that, it is aesthetically great to look at.
Severity
Extremely mild because there is not much to improve on.
Recommendations
Add some small way to recognize if you’ve clicked on a link before (at least if the user has saved cookies from the website prior, not for any new users).
Heuristic Seven — Recognition Rather than Recall
Positives & Negatives
I found the spacing and ability to recognize where you are always on the website to be quite well. Text areas have breathing space and are not in any way cluttered to where you cannot read the text at any times. Headings are proper formatting are easy to see and distinguish.
There technically is not a lot of visual spacing that you can see in the form of lines, but there is enough spacing and div-like spacing to identify almost boxes or identifiers on how things are split.
Severity
Extremely mild because I personally do not believe there is much to be addressed here.
Recommendations
Nothing that I could really see or note that I think needs to be adjusted or fixed. I know some would say it needs more visual cues, but I personally find it more aesthetically pleasing and visually better having it just spaced out with white space.
Conclusion
In the end, the Dallas College library website does have a lot of good things going for it and there really is not much room for improvement. A lot of the website is visually appealing to both beginner and advanced users, easy to understand and navigate, and offers enough information for a plethora of user goals to be reached with minimal amounts of effort. That being said, it is not perfect and there are some things that for sure need to be addressed in some capacity to reach improvement. Adding things such as drop-down menu for certain navigation headers, creating more seamless and cohesive design across all webpages and just improving the navigation in general I think will go a long way in improving the website and making it better than ever before.