1 / 29

MI.GOV Site Design Evaluation

Analysis of customer satisfaction survey and usability review of Michigan.gov website. Recommendations for redesign to improve user experience.

dkimberly
Download Presentation

MI.GOV Site Design Evaluation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MI.GOV Site Design Evaluation October 2008

  2. MI.GOV Usability Review • MSU Usability and Accessibility Center (UAC) • Reviewed rankings by studies like Brookings, Center for Digital Government • Prepared Analysis of Customer Satisfaction Survey • Led 2 Focus Groups • Prepared Heuristic Review

  3. Diagnosis • Results of the study indicate that a redesign of the Michigan.gov site is necessary.

  4. Strengths • Quantity of Information • Some users are highly satisfied with the site • Drop down lists for easy access to some online services • Location of Search Box

  5. Weaknesses • Site is difficult for infrequent users • Overlapping content areas: Spotlight, What’s New, News… • Left and right image links look too much like advertising • Multiple navigation methods • Top most is overlooked due to dull coloration • Change of order in left navigation for selected item • Left nav items are arranged randomly resulting in difficulty scanning • Search: 33% report unsuccessful searches

  6. Opportunities • Abbreviate, group and eliminate content on the home page • Eliminate and control clutter • Rename sections for better description of content • Remove duplicate links on pages • Eliminate animation • Use tabs for navigation • Order left nav alphabetically

  7. Abbreviate, group and eliminate content on the home page • Too many sections contain similar type content • Quick Links and Featured Links are a mish mash of links • Too many text links in those 2 groups

  8. Remove redundant content links • The SoM Home page has 4 references to News or Newswire

  9. Remove redundant content links • The SoM Home page has 3 references for Jobs and 2 references for Lottery • 2 references to the Governor

  10. Rename Sections • Services should be renamed to Online services or eServices • Departments and Directories should be clustered together • Directories should be renamed to Contacts • Quick Links is a collection of unrelated items • Same for Featured Links

  11. Eliminate animation • Animation is distracting to the user • Image banners may be animated but should only run for a certain time span then quit animating

  12. Use tabs for navigation • Users liked the tabs on other sites • Make tabbed navigation more noticable using color • Make use of drop down menus to improve use of space

  13. Order Left Navigation Alphabetically • Improved scanning • Is a best practice • Eliminate active item moving to the top

  14. More Recommendations • Create tabbed content targeted to various audiences • Less clutter/more whitespace • Use descriptive Page Titles • Improved metadata= improved search results • Use widgets to display multiple content items in less space

  15. Next Steps • Create wire frame layouts devoid of detailed graphics • Wire frame should indicate groups, navigation, content • Examine “widgets” as content holders • Review taxonomy and look for economy in categories and navigation groups

  16. What is Heuristic? • Heuristic evaluation is a usability engineering method for finding the usability problems in a user interface design so that they can be attended to as part of an iterative design process. • Heuristic evaluation involves having a small set of evaluators examine the interface and judge its compliance with recognized usability principles.

  17. Two Focus Groups • Viewed and discussed other State home pages • Viewed Michigan.gov

  18. Michigan.gov - What They Liked • Liked the pull down lists in the middle of the page • Lots of great information • Link to the Lottery site • Different colors of text to help separate content • News articles • Lottery news and link on home page

  19. Michigan.gov - What They Disliked • Site is too text heavy • Unbalanced (“compressed to the left”) • Name: Official State of Michigan Portal seemed too tech-y • Unutilized space to the right • Insufficient space for the pull down lists • Hard to find things • Search problems • No picture in banner

  20. Goals for MI.GOV 2009 • Consistent layout and design • Adequate and appropriate white space • Clean layout • Color-coded design • Content separated in visible containers • Impactful, professional quality images • Clearly identified banner images • Clear and consistent navigational hierarchy

  21. Goals for MI.GOV 2009 • User group segmentation of navigation • Uses tabs for main or secondary navigation (where appropriate) • Breadcrumbs • Pages to inform users of redirects outside of the government site • Clear page identifiers • Clearer access to the Online Services section • Accessibility compliance with the Priority Level One standards recommended by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) • Web 2.0 Social networking implementation

  22. Goals for MI.GOV Agencies 2009 • Strongly consider using an evaluation like this if you plan to redesign your site • MSU Usability and Accessibility Center is available to conduct unbiased site evaluations for you on contract • Make your site customer-centric • Heed the rules and laws of good Web design • Use sorting and grouping techniques to set up information • Accessibility compliance is still important • Request assistance from eMichigan • eMichigan keeps up on all of the latest usability and accessibility standards

  23. MI.GOV Site Design Evaluation Questions?

More Related