Designing an Error-Free User Interface for Live Support

The assignment content revolves around user interface redesign and evaluation of a webpage, specifically focusing on Live Support. The process involves testing, selecting problems, developing concrete use cases, task lists, and then redesigning the interface to eliminate errors and improve usability. The evaluation process includes observations, predictions, questionnaires, talking, help, and support. The main points highlighted are: testing user interfaces, selecting problems, developing essential use cases, task list for evaluation, redesigning the interface, and evaluating the redesigned user interface. The assignment also provides references and appendices with detailed data on interview sessions, answers to questions, and observations during the evaluation session.

1. Introduction
The evaluation of redesigned user interface for a webpage is crucial task in nature and produces
complexities with the variety of users or group of users in context of real time evaluation. The
redesigned webpage of “Live Support” link with http://www.rxfastfind.com/ is a stepwise
process by which all the components usability and user interaction with user ease and
friendliness are determined during the evaluation process. In this evaluation report the exhaustive
user interface evaluation. The main purpose of this report of the user interface evaluation is to
evaluate the redesigned user interface of the “Live Support” referenced web page that is related
with user and web executive chat or others and user chat for the advice and getting the ordered
details ("Live Support", 2017). The User interface evaluation is executed with the common
environment for the general perspective of the usability with ease and finally the user interface
suitability with different components are defined. The selected group of users are taken to
evaluate the user interface of the given context. The user convenience, ease of use, user
friendliness, user choice and various other factors associated with the user and given redesigned
user interface of “Live Support” webpage is executed to evaluate the user interface. The
evaluation result is presented clearly under this report of the user interface evaluation.
2. Observing the Users
It is known the user interface of webpage “Live Support” is redesigned with user centered design
methodology. In this design method all the user aspects of usability of the interface components
of the webpage. The motive behind the usability evaluation is to determine the usability of the
webpage with respect to the user perspective. If a usability aspect of the webpage or website is
poor with respect to the user then user goes to another website webpage as there are so many
websites of same services already available in cyberspace. The problems and hurdles provides
negative aspects of the website webpage to the users and users always try to avoid by not using
such problematic and complex webpage of the website.
2.1 The evaluation strategy is methodological process used to evaluate the user interface of
redesigned webpage by providing the supporting data and information. The supported data
and information are used by the selected group of users to interact with the newly designed
user interface of the given webpage. The evaluation process includes the following
evaluating factors to be evaluated during the user interaction with the given redesigned
webpage of the http://www.rxfastfind.com/ website from medical informatics side.
Efficiency : The evaluator measures the facts behind the time and steps taken by the selected
group of users to complete the basic tasks associated with redesigned webpage (Stone, 2005).
The basic tasks are to open the “Live Support” webpage link by click the menu item and then
starting the new consultation session with web executive. Further, all the questions asked by

web executive to be answered by the users and then login to the system to get the detailed
advice and order details. In this tenure the user has to perform various functions such as
typing, posting by clicking, scrolling up and down to redisplay the past messages and
information etc. The time and steps that are taken by the users are measured by the tester or
evaluator of the user interface.
Accuracy: The accuracy of user interaction with user interface with chat window is another
evaluation factor that provides the information about the mistakes that user does. All the
mistakes which are taken by the user during the interaction with user interface for chatting
with web executives and others are recorded to further analyze about the recoverable and non
recoverable mistakes. If the mistakes are recoverable then evaluation result is used to
redesign the interface component to remove the flaws where the user often does the mistakes.
In case of non recoverable mistakes nothing will be done.
Recall: This is evaluation sub strategy where the non use period and user remembering
capability about the interface objects are taken.
Emotional Response: The user feelings after completing the task and user sentiments such as
stressed situation or confidence are observed during the evaluation of the user interface by
the users.
2.2 The evaluation plan includes the various methodologies to evaluate the user interface with
selected group of users. Followings the evaluation plan for evaluating the redesigned user
interface.
Observation: A constant observation is applied while the user is interacting with the
redesigned user interface of the webpage of “Live Support”.
Interviewing: The users are interviewed by selected questions as related with the user
interface after performed activities related with the webpage.
Talking: A talk session between the user and evaluator is defined to gather the user
satisfaction level with new redesigned interface of the webpage
Questionnaire: A bundle of questions are prepared to be asked after the interaction of users
with the webpage which is being redesigned.
Prediction: During the user interaction with the user interface of webpage to perform the
associated functional aspects the prediction of user activities and user performance and
confidence level are taken to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of the new
redesigned webpage.
Testing: The testing is lastly performed to rank the user interface after all the activities of
above planned interface evaluation.

 The user observation is close monitoring process by which the user interaction with
the interface components and user psychological, timing to perform the task,
confidence level and the problems that are faced by the selected group of users are
accounted. This provides the basic details about the user satisfaction level and
consistency level with the user interface. Different level of users ay have different
level of the result of observation. These different results conform the user interface
friendliness and usable with a certain level of users groups. The observation also
defines the overall usability and ease of accessibility of the system such as webpage
and its defined components with respect to the users of the system. Close observation
provides more accurate and detailed outcomes of the user interface evaluation of the
given redesigned webpage.
 The participants are taken from three main domains of the user characteristics. These
user characteristics domain are novice user, average user and expert user. These
domain of the users provide the different evaluation outcome for the given redesigned
user interface of the system. The novice user provides the more detail about the all
planned activities information as this user has little or very less knowledge about the
user interface either of this redesigned webpage or for any other website webpage.
The average user can do the tasks and observation. They would take less support and
does the tasks. The average user has little bit expertise to surf the Internet so that this
category of user performs the interaction with the webpage as per the given task ands
use case activity scenario. The third category of user is expert user. This expert user
has too much expertise to surf the various website on Internet daily. This expert user
domain is just taken to evaluate the webpage user interface for consistency. The
observation is required to observe the time and frequency of errors performed by this
expert user in the evaluation process to find out the user interface usability with
respect to the general regular users who are much known with the such type of
medical informatics field (Veal & Maj, 2010).
 The tasks are detailed in assignment 2. The same task is mentioned here pointwise to
clearly specify the tasks as per the defined concrete use case. The task list which have
to be done by these selected group of users are as follows.
o User has to open the website http://www.rxfastfind.com/
o User has to find out the “Live Support” and then click on the link of “Live
Support”.
o User has to wait till the “Live Support” linked page opened and another
window.
o User has to fill name.

o User has to fill email address
o User has to fill order ID
o User has to fill the product information at last.
o When new window opened with as chat window , user has to click on the link
of send the typed information.
o After clicking on send button chat session page the typed information of user
displayed at the top of the window with user name.
o Similarly, user can chat with typing and posting the information to the system
and representative replies all the questions asked by the users simultaneously.
 The location of the evaluation session is close room where three different computing
system with Internet connectivity having the windows operating system and Mozilla
Firefox web browser. The close room provides the cool and calm environment for the
user interface evaluation where there is no disturbance of any other additional factors
such as noise, etc.
 The running of the session and collecting of data are taken by the help of self
observation, questions, interview, and analysis of the user satisfactory level to check
the stressful or confident user situation.
2.3 The evaluation is carried out by employing the following activities by evaluator to get the
evaluation result of redesigned webpage.
o The evaluation goal is clearly defined and followed for the users and redesigned
webpage.
o Intention to act or activities are specified among all the users of the webpage.
o Sequence of actions are specified with the help of defined task list for all the users.
o Execution of the action sequence is detailed and observed during the session of
evaluation.
o The state of the art of evaluation is started to observe the user interaction with
webpage.
o The user perception is recorded and interpreted
o The interpretation data is evaluated by the evaluator
3. Presentation of data, Analysis and Interpretation and Recommendation
3.1 The short description of the data which are to be presented for the user group for the
evaluation of the redesigned webpage of “Live Support” link for making chat session
between the web executive and patient such as user defined as follows.
Interview : The data related with interview are pointed as a type of the interview of the users
by the evaluator (Wilson, 2014). The evaluator asks many question to the users to evaluate

the user perception about the given user interface of the webpage. The details of the
interview question answers that are stated by users given under appendix A.
Questions: The direct questions are asked by the evaluator to selected group of users to
evaluate the ease of use and also for the user friendliness of the webpage which is redesigned
(Wilson, 2014). The questions are open ended and extracts the users information after the
finish of user interactions with the redesigned webpage. These all answers raw information
are presented under appendix B.
Observation: Constant observation for time which is taken by user to perform different
activities with the user interface as required to make the chat with healthcare executive and
user is taken (Wilson, 2014). The evaluator observes the user moods, confidence level, stress
situation and also records the errors performed by the selected group of users with the given
user interface of the system. The observation information is presented under appendix C.
Prediction: The evaluator predicted the users psychological and sentimental behavior. These
predicted raw information is presented under Appendix D.
3.2 The analysis of selected data by quantitative and qualitative method is performed with
respect to the usability and accessibility of the user interface of the redesigned webpage. The
quantitative analysis is as follows.
Results of questions
Questions Value Frequency Percentage Scale
Is its easy to start a new
consultation session
0 0 0.0 0 – not
applicable
1 – not
comfortable
2 – Somewhat
Comfortable
4 – Very
Comfortable
1 1 0.0
2 2 5.0
3 4 10.0
Degree of comfort with
new user interface
0 0 0.0
1 3 8.0
2 5 25.0
3 9 45.0
Degree of comfort in
typing and posting
information
0 1 5.0
1 3 15.0
2 4 20.0
3 7 35.0

Degree of comfort to
reply the asked
information
0 2 10.0
1 3 15.0
2 7 35.0
3 9 45.0
Degree of comfort to
understand the
messages
0 1 5.0
1 4 20.0
2 7 35.0
3 9 45.0
Degree of comfort to
access the login panel
to consult with medical
specialist
0 4 20.0
1 6 30.0
2 8 40.0
3 9 45.0
Above quantitative analysis states the values of the comfort ability of the selected user group
of the users. Four values starting from 0 to 3 defines the user comfort to interact with
redesigned user interface of the webpage linked to “Live Support”.
Qualitative Analysis is performed for the efficiency, effectiveness and satisfaction analysis of
the selected group of users with the user interface. The qualitative analysis for the efficiency
of the users with user interface is analyzed as follows
Efficiency Factor Evaluation Rate Qualitative Measure
1. Scroll factors to type,
2. Typing and posting Factors
3. Take the steps as required
4. Interface Selection
Very efficient High
Efficient High
Average Good
Not done NA
The effectiveness of the user interface for the selected users are qualitatively analyzed with
the following matrix

Effectiveness Factor Evaluation Rate Qualitative Measure
1. Colors are user friendly
2. Buttons and links are proper
3. Information arrangement on web
page
4. Icons, pictures and hyperlinks
are accurate
Very effective
Effective
As Usual
Bad
Very Effective
As Usual
Effective
Very Effective
The satisfaction level of the users with user interface for the selected users are qualitatively
analyzed with the following matrix
Satisfaction Factor Evaluation Rate Qualitative Measure
1. User convenience and ease to
use
2. User Struggles to find
information
3. Too much steps are required
4. User does perfectly
Much satisfied
Satisfied
Average Satisfied
Not Satisfied
Satisfied
Not Satisfied
Average Satisfied
Much Satisfied
The above quantitative and qualitative analysis produce the user evaluation result in two
different methods.
3.3 There are analysis methods are used. These analysis such as quantitative and qualitative
analysis. The analysis result suggest that the user interface is quite a bit user friendly and all
the users of the group much satisfied with the redesigned user interface. The quantitative
analysis are based on four different analysis factors. These factors are values from 0 to 3. The
details parameters are discussed as follows.
0 – not applicable
1 – not comfortable
2 – Somewhat Comfortable
4 – Very Comfortable

Not applicable states that the derived data used with the users are not applicable to the stated
user interface of the system. Further not applicable is not relevant or associated with the user
interface.
Not Comfortable states that the user interface is not comfortable to user groups. Basically the
novice user observed with not comfortable with the user interface during the interaction.
Somewhat Comfortable states that the users are comfortable but user also faces the problem
with the redesigned user interface.
Very Comfortable states that the users are much comfortable with the user interface and like
such type of user interface.
The qualitative analysis extracts three different user interface evaluation factors such as
efficiency, effectiveness, and satisfaction. There are four different aspects of the analysis
with the collected data during the evaluation. The data are collected through the interview,
observation, questionnaire and prediction.
The qualitative analysis extracts the four different facts about the redesigned user interface.
For efficiency there are four different parameters of analysis are high, Low, Good and Not
allowed are taken to benchmark the user interface evaluation. High indicates that the
efficiency of the user interface is very high with respect to time and number of errors
generated by the user group. Low means the user interface is not so efficient with respect to
time taken and errors produced by users. Not applicable is that analysis factor where the
given analysis parameters are not applicable with the given user interface components or
whole webpage user interface for the selected group of users.
The effectiveness analysis includes the four different parameters of the analysis. These four
different parameters of the effectiveness analysis are very effective, effective, as usual and
bad.
Very effective analysis factor states that the user interface is very effective with respect to the
selected group of users. Effective means the user interface is effective and user does its
interaction well. As usual factor of the analysis extracts that user interface or components
used in design of the user interface of the webpage are as usual means user does without
being the curious to interact with the various components used to design the user interface.
The user satisfaction analysis with obtained information from evaluation session based on
four different factors. These factors of analysis are much satisfied, satisfied, average satisfied
and not satisfied. Much satisfied provides high score of accessibility and satisfied also
produces good score, Average satisfied produces lump sum score and not satisfied produces
bad user interaction with the redesigned user interface of the webpage.
4. Review of Experience

4.1 The user interface usability, effectiveness, efficiency, user satisfaction etc are evaluated
under the environment where the users are selected from three different profiles. The profiles
of the users are selected as expert, average and novice. The major problem arise during the
user interface evaluation with the differentiation of the observations taken with the different
profiles of the users. The expert user always performed the assigned tasks timely with less
errors, but the average user does many errors and also taken more time to performed the
activities of the assigned tasks. The novice users always taken the help and support during
the performing the assigned tasks.
Therefore, the problem came during the benchmarking of the various observations and
prediction data for determining the effectiveness, efficiency and user satisfactions. Further,
the given tasks are written steps that have to be performed by the selected group of users.
These tasks required to be explained clearly to user and also demonstration has been given.
This takes too much time for the evaluation of redesigned user interface of selected medical
informatics website webpage.
For further user observation the redesigned user interface is taken to be reevaluated by
employing with different user group selection with all as novice users. This will ensures the
similarity for the observation to cater more similar result of evaluation.
4.2 The heuristics evaluation is an optimized intelligence based user evaluation and often
provides the accurate and correct results. Neilson ten usability heuristics are stated as follows
with taken evaluation process to observe the users and occurrences ("10 Heuristics for User
Interface Design: Article by Jakob Nielsen", n.d.).
Visibility of system status – the system status visibility is constantly observed and remarked
with each even performed by the users.
Recognition rather than recall – the system status is recognized during the observation.
Recalling the system is status is not performed during the observation.
Flexibility and efficiency of the use – The flexibility is not observed but efficiency with
respect to time consumption and errors that occurred are observed during the evaluation.
Aesthetic and minimalist design – This factor of Neilson usability factor is not observed
during the evaluation process.
Help users recognize, diagnose and recover from errors – constant helps and recognition of
the errors are provided to the users during the evaluation process. The recovery from the
occurred errors are also provided whenever it is observed and required to be provided to the
users.
Consistency and Standard: The standard method of tasks performing activities are constantly
observed and the consistent method of observation is employed to evaluate the redesigned
user interface.

Error Prevention – In the evaluation process no error prevention method is deployed to
prevent the error if the user evoked certain function which causes errors.
User Control and Freedom – the user is under the controlled environment but complete
freedom is given to interact with the redesigned webpage.
Match between the system and the real world – the observation always taken under the
condition of match between the current system position and real world situation.
Help and documentation – The help and documentation are provided to the users in the form
of the task list document.
4.3 The main points during the redesign and evaluation of the user interface are pointed as
follows.
 Testing the user interface of webpage to find out the problem with user interface
 Selecting the problem with user interface
 Developing the essential and concrete use case for the redesign of the given
problematic user interface of the webpage or part of the website related with medical
informatics.
 Developing the task list for evaluation process by the different domains of the users.
 Redesigning the user interface by removing the existing problems found out during
the test by redesign of the webpage.
 Evaluating the redesigned user interface of the webpage.
 Follow all the 10 rules of usability of Neilson propose usability test during the
observation of the evaluation session.
5. Conclusion
User interface redesign and evaluation is performed by the experts in the field of user interface
design and development of website to make the user interface to be used easily, and usability
score is to be enhanced. The website webpage contains various components that are required to
be develop the user interface. These user interface components are visual to the users and
perceived during the interaction of users. The user interface must be usable and provides ease to
the user to be interacted by all categories of the user groups. The website user interface having
the good design and consistency always attracts the users to make this primary website to be
used. Users always like the website having consistent and effectiveness user interfaces with the
web pages. The redesign of the user interface further requires the evaluation process to assure
that the redesigned user interface is more efficient, effective and provide more satisfaction to
group of users. The evaluation process includes the observations, predictions, questionnaires,
talking, help and support during the evaluation session. A good user interface of the website web
pages are that which caters consistent flow of the user to interact and perform the relevant tasks
as required on time without producing too many errors.

References
Live Support. (2017). http://www.rxfastfind.com/. Retrieved 8 June 2017, from
http://www.rxfastfind.com/
Stone, D. (2005). User interface design and evaluation. Amsterdam [u.a.]: Elsevier [u.a.].
Veal, D., & Maj, S. (2010). A Graphical User Interface for the Visually Impaired – an
evaluation. Modern Applied Science, 4(12). http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/mas.v4n12p83
Wilson, C. (2014). User interface inspection methods. Waltham, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.
10 Heuristics for User Interface Design: Article by Jakob Nielsen. Nngroup.com. Retrieved 14
June 2017, from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/

Appendix A
The interview sessions and interview details data are presented with the following points with
defined sessions.
 Users states that the typing interface is very supportive
 Sending the typed information is easy
 Text boxes and two separate frames where typing interface is separate removes ambiguity
 User feels comfortable with most of the user interface components
 2 users feels ease to access the live support options
 1 user always gets problem while feeding the information
Appendix B
The answers of the different questions as asked to all users of the group of John Sabastein are
detailed as follows.
 Is the labels of text box illustrative? Ans: Expert and Average user – illustrative and ease
to understand. Novice user answer – ambiguous
 Is typing interface clearly indicative? 2 users – indicative and attractive. 1 user – little bit
indicative
 Is the website user interface is consistent? Users – consistent and flow of information are
also consistent
 What is satisfaction level when you interact with the redesigned user interface? Users
reply that satisfaction level is better than original user interface of Live Support option of
the website.
 Is the overall user interface is effective? Expert and Average user stated that the user
interface of redesigned user interface is effective. The novice user did not reply anything.
Appendix C
The details of the observation while running the evaluation sessions with all the users group are
as follows.

 Interaction of users except novice user is consistent
 Expert user does not produced any error while other users provided some errors during
the user interface evaluation.
 Users satisfied with the doing the activities and tasks.
 Users are confident during the interaction except the novice user
 Novice user sometimes frustrated
 First two expert and average users perform the task timely
 Serialized interactions are taken by expert user
Appendix D
The predicted details of user activities during the evaluation session of the user interface
evaluation of “Live Support” webpage are as follows.
 User learn when performed one similar category of task
 User needs the support
 User used the task list
 User sometimes consider what to do.
 User always moves mouse on interface object
 User uses keyboard to type to fill the information
 User see the question asked from executives.