Website App Evaluation Report

The assignment requires an evaluation of the website app 'visitsouthport.com'. It involves analyzing various aspects like website design, navigation, and user experience. The report should highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the website, suggesting potential improvements to enhance user satisfaction. Additionally, the document includes details about the study methodology, participant instructions, data analysis plan, and findings.

Running head: EVALUATION OF AN INTERACTIVE MOBILE APP "NIKE+ RUN CLUB"
Evaluation of an interactive Website
“Visitsouthport.com"
Name of the Author
Name of the university
Author Note
ABSTRACT:
Visitsouthport.com is a promotional website that
promotes the seaside town (Southport) in the
Merseyside, England. The paper reviewed the
interactive website using the assistance of the
cognitive walkthrough method, and the findings
reveal that the website is well designed and is
true to its objective. However, minor
shortcomings have been evaluated for which
appropriate recommendations has been made
before concluding the discussed report.
KEYWORDS:
Interactive website, visitsouthport.com, cognitive
walkthrough
Introduction:
Interaction is one of the keywords that
is associated with progress, and one of such
interaction is between the human and computer
(Dingli, and Cassar 2014). The developers are
now developing interactive computing systems
and technologies. One example of the discussed
development is an interactive website. The report
will evaluate one of such interactive website and
based on the evaluation appropriate
recommendations will be made. The subject for
evaluation is visitsouthport.com, and it will be
evaluated using cognitive walkthrough method.
The report has also taken proper ethical
consideration and has offered different forms and
sheets that have been used in the paper in the
appendices section.
Author’s view of Website:
The evaluated website on the first view
seems to be quite exciting as it offers an exciting
and beautiful view of the objective of the website.
The objective of the website is to promote
Southport, a seaside town of Merseyside, England
(Visitsouthport.com 2018). The images on the
website beautifully depict the offerings (natural
beauty, rich cultural background, sports
enthusiasm and others) of visiting the town (van
der Hoop 2014). Additionally, the maps and other
required details make the viewers interested in
visiting the town. The website’s design and
navigation are comforting for the visitor. The
developers have also kept in mind to make the
website a responsive and dynamic one to earn a
positive perception from the visitor. Hence, it can
be stated that in the first view the website seems
picture perfect and the viewer can revisit it.
Cognitive Walkthrough Method:
Cognitive walkthrough method (CWM)
is an evaluation method that takes account of the
perception that a visitor will have on visiting the
website for the first time (Plechawska-Wójcik
Luján-Mora and Wójcik 2013). In the discussed
evaluation method, the evaluator answers four
questions while playing the role of a first time
visitor. It enables the evaluator to evaluate the
interactive technology without worrying about
the ethical consideration and also putting less
effort in the process (Bligård and Osvalder
2013). The accuracy offered by the discussed
evaluation method is also very high. Another
notable benefit offered by the CWM is that it is
cost-effective and time-saving for the evaluator.

Ethical Issues:
As stated in the earlier section, adopting
CWM omits the chances of arousal of any ethical
issue though there are minor ethical
considerations which must be taken into account.
Hence, it will be ensured that the paper is
unbiased and free from any data manipulation
attempts (Williams and Williams 2016).
Additionally, as the evaluator is playing the role
of a participant so to ensure the reliability and
vitality consent forms, risk assessment,
instruction sheets and other research forms &
sheets has been added in the appendices section
following the report. To enhance, the reliability
of the stated facts, definitions and other factors
that assisted the author in pursuing the paper,
proper credit has been offered to the sources in
the bibliography section. It will also be kept in
consideration to avoid any ethical dilemma from
arousal as the author is the participant and the
evaluator. If such dilemmas are identified, then
they will be added to the limitations of the paper.
Evaluation:
The evaluation process will be pursued
in four steps (Fernandes, Flaster and Lehman
2013). They have been discussed as follows:
Clarity over the purpose of the subject: The
subject’s purpose is very clearly visible on
visiting the website. The purpose of the subject is
to attract tourism, and the images and guidance
offered to reach the destination define the
objective (Cyr 2013). Additionally, the detailing
about the places to visit and accommodation
options make the visitors more drawn towards
the fulfilling the purpose of the subject.
Visibility of options: The options are also readily
visible which is further simplified by adding a
search icon (where you can search the site).
Subsections of the website also offer a library
type view where the visitor can look for specific
knowledge in the specific section. The designing
of the website has also taken care of the tourist
who loves their pets as there is a section which
suggests that the pets will be taken appropriate
care (Plechawska-Wójcik, Luján-Mora and
Wójcik 2013). This approach of the website
developers cites their creativity to make the
visitors see what they desire for.
The link between the option and action: In the
discussed step the action in response to the
selected option has been discussed. The
evaluation reveals that there are multiple options
to select from and they very much serve their
purpose. The option that cites print page does
take the visitor to the print page; the calendar
does offer the event details that are proposed and
other options similarly serve their designated
purposes as well. However, the option that
enables the searching option of the website can
be improved as it will be difficult for the non-
frequent website visitors to choose from the
multiple options offered by the search section
(Yin and Guo 2013). It is visible from the picture
attached below that when selecting the
accommodation option; it offers a suitable
response.
Feedback accuracy: It is evident on an
evaluation that the website does offer appropriate
responses for the selected options. Additionally,
the detailing associated with the feedback is an
excellent perk for the visitors (Fernandes Flaster
and Lehman 2013). One of the examples of
detailing is the travel map which can be printed
to offer simplicity the visitors need. However,
the results can be confusing for some visitors,
and they might consider that the feedback
offered by the website is not appropriate.
Recommendations:

On evaluating the website, it is evident
that there is not much need for improvement.
However, the search section can be improved to
offer more concise and accurate result to the
visitors. The website should also support ‘lite’
version (basic HTML support mode) for the
visitors who live in a low connectivity area and
faces difficulty in visiting a high-resolution
website.
Conclusion:
The evaluated website is a well-
designed website and even offer a simplified
navigation option but most importantly fulfils the
purpose of its creation. Though minor errors
have been determined which can be easily
tackled and in-process broaden the visitors visit
logs. The author and hopefully the readers will
also earn an insight into evaluating interactive
systems and technologies. Finally, adopting the
cognitive walkthrough method limited the ethical
issues from development but though offered
certain limitations which has been stated in the
following section.
Limitations:
Not many limitations have been
identified while pursuing the evaluation process.
However, the limitation to the thinking capacity
can be considered as the only limitation of the
paper.
Bibliography:
Barry, D.J., Ferrara, J.S., Meissner, G.L. and
Reale, P., International Business Machines Corp,
2013. System and method for developing a
website. U.S. Patent 8,386,921.
Bligård, L.O. and Osvalder, A.L., 2013.
Enhanced cognitive walkthrough: development
of the cognitive walkthrough method to better
predict, identify, and present usability
problems. Advances in Human-Computer
Interaction, 2013, p.9.
Cyr, D., 2013. Website design, trust and culture:
An eight country investigation. Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications, 12(6),
pp.373-385.
Dingli, A. and Cassar, S., 2014. An intelligent
framework for website usability. Advances in
Human-Computer Interaction, 2014, p.5.
Drees, T.P., Zimmerman, S.V., Taylor, D.J. and
Rachitsky, L., Neustar Inc, 2013. System and
method for determining cost of website
performance. U.S. Patent 8,423,634.
Fernandes, N.C., Flaster, M. and Lehman, A.R.,
Google Inc, 2013. Evaluating website properties
by partitioning user feedback. U.S. Patent
8,615,514.
Grigoreanu, V. and Mohanna, M., 2013, April.
Informal cognitive walkthroughs (ICW): paring
down and pairing up for an agile world.
In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp.
3093-3096). ACM.
Plechawska-Wójcik, M., Luján-Mora, S. and
Wójcik, L., 2013, July. Assessment of User
Experience with Responsive Web Applications
using Expert Method and Cognitive
Walkthrough-A Case Study. In ICEIS (3) (pp.
111-118).
van der Hoop, W., Short Run Website
Evaluation: The Effect of Human Aspects in
Images.
Visitsouthport.com. (2018). Visit Southport -
Official Southport Tourist Information Site.
[online] Available at:
https://www.visitsouthport.com/ [Accessed 5
Apr. 2018].
Williams, S.E. and Williams, J.F., 2016. Method
and System for Digital Signing for Consent
Using a Video Consent Signature and Cognitive
Test. U.S. Patent Application 14/732,389.
Yin, P.Y. and Guo, Y.M., 2013. Optimization of
multi-criteria website structure based on
enhanced tabu search and web usage
mining. Applied Mathematics and
Computation, 219(24), pp.11082-11095.

Appendices:
Consent Form:
CONSENT FORM
Project Title:
Evaluator’s Name:
Please initial the boxes
1. I verify that I have read and understand the information and instruction sheet on [__/__/____]
for the paper. I was availed to resolve my queries regarding the doubt I had after reading the
sheets.
2. I agree that my participation is consensual and is not influenced by any external means. I also
have the independence to withdraw my participation at any moment without any explanation.
3. I do understand that my medical notes and data collected in the study have been stored and will
be evaluated by the [name of the student] of [name of the University]. I give my consent to the
individual for the same.
4. I agree to my GP of being informed about my participation in the test study.
5. I do agree with being part of the study.
Name of the participant Date Signature

Risk Assessment Sheet
Workplace location:
Name of coordinator
Date:
Spot the Hazard Assess the
Risk Fix the Problem Evaluate Results
Identity of
the task
Associated
risks
Risk
association
level
Measures to nullify the
risk (if associated)
By
whom?
By
when
?
Risk level on
revisal
Revised risk level

Data collection form
Review title or ID
Study ID
Report ID
Notes
General Information
Date form completed
(dd/mm/yyyy)
Name/ID of person extracting
data
Author contact details
Publication type
Notes:
Study eligibility
Study
Characteristics
Eligibility criteria Eligibility criteria met? Locatio
n
Yes No Unclear
Study Type Randomised Controlled Trial
Quasi-randomised Controlled Trial
Participants
Intervention
(Types)
Comparison
(Types)
Outcome
measures (Types)
INCLUDE EXCLUDE

Reason for
exclusion
Notes:

Characteristics of included studies
Methods
Descriptions Location
Study’s Aim
Design
Allocation unit
Start date
End date
Time of participation
Ethical approval
needed/ obtained for
study Yes No Unclear
Notes:

Participants
Description Location
Targeted Population
description
Setting
Criteria for inclusion
Criteria for exclusion
Recruitment method
Consent obtained
Yes No Unclear
Total Randomisation
number
Clusters
Baseline imbalances
Withdrawals
Age
Sex
Ethnicity
Illness severity
Co-morbidities
Sociodemographic
relevancy
Subgroups measures
Reported sub-groups
Notes:

Participant Instruction and Information Sheet(General)
Project Title: Evaluation of the website app “visitsouthport.com”
Project Objective: To evaluate an interactive website “visitsouthport.com”
The study will be conducted in 3 sessions over a period of a week.
The instruction that the participants should be aware of before participating in the study conducted by Mr. [name of
the student] of [name of the university].
 The participants are to be present at the informed time and location.
 Data manipulation of the considered website during the period of study will result at the end of participation.
 The devices offered to the participants during the participation period for accessing the website is the property of the
evaluator and hence should not be interfered.
 There is no dress code for the participant. The participants can wear the clothes they are comfortable in.

Data and analysis form:
Description stated in the paper Location
Comparison
Findings
Sub-group
Period
Post-intervention
Results Intervention Comparison
Participants missing
Reasons missing
Participants number
moved from another
group
Reasons moved
Analysis unit Individual
Requirement for
reanalysis? Yes No Unclear
Possibility of
reanalysis? Yes No Unclear
Reanalysis results
Notes:

Results:
The findings from evaluating the website suggests that the subject is well designed with beautiful images
along with appropriate sectioning and offer great navigation option to the visitors. The website has been designed
with great accuracy and creative means to take consideration of the visitor’s perception and what they wishes to see.
No significant error has been analysed in the evaluation process however, minor adjustments can be made to increase
the visitor’s satisfaction and enhance the visitors visit logs.