Usability Evaluation Report: ITECH3001 Kidsafevic Website Analysis

This report presents a usability analysis of the Kidsafevic website, conducted as part of the ITECH3001 assignment. The analysis employed a think-aloud based survey with three participants to evaluate the website's ease of use, effectiveness, and overall user experience. The methodology included a qualitative testing process, focusing on identifying problems related to website navigation, content clarity, and user task completion. Key findings revealed issues with website discoverability, including difficulties in locating specific services, products, and information. The report highlights problems with the website's design, layout, and the absence of key features such as a search function. Recommendations include a clearer site description, prominent placement of key areas, integration of a search function, and improvements to the visual design. The report concludes with suggestions to enhance the website's user experience, making it more intuitive and user-friendly for parents, guardians, and service providers.

Website usability
Analysis
http://www.kidsafevic.com.au/

Introduction
• End-user Usability Parameters
• Ease of use
• Effectiveness of the system
• Less prone to user-based error
• Shorter learning curve
• Suitable for multiple target groups

Usability Analysis Methodologies
• Think-aloud based survey (remote or in-person)
• Heuristics based evaluation
• Controlled user group
• Expert based evaluation

Website description, objective and
audience
• Kids Safety based Organization
• Based in Victoria, Australia
• Serves Australia
• Non-profit social organization
• Sells products and services as well
• Target audience : a) Parents b) Guardians c) Service Providers
• Objective is to promote children safety and provide products and
services for the same

Usability Process
• Qualitative testing process
• Total of 3 different participants
• All participants had basic computing and browsing skills
• Participants conducted the test from their home
• Laptop and a mouse as the hardware used for usability evaluation

Usability Process contd.
• Moderator introduced himself
• Explained the requirements and expected outcome
• Specify it’s only the website that is being evaluded
• Mentioning the user to think-out-loud

Usability Method critiques
• Does not involve professional experts
• Does not account for the time users spent on each task.
• No mouse cursor movement tracked.
• No heat-map generated
• Does not take into account design principles by authors such as
Nielsen and Schneider.

Problems Discovered
• Unable to figure out what the website was all about.
• Took long time to find the ‘fitter’ service as well as the ‘shop’.
• Unable to locate the ‘Blog’
• Could not locate the login and account creation section
• Participants were unclear about the type of services and products
being sold.
• Participants were unable to locate ‘X’ product.
• No ‘search’ functionality found

Problems Discovered contd.
• The tasks were difficult to complete..
• Participants did not want to return to the site (except only for quality of
articles)
• sub-par quality graphics and images were of
• ‘Non-standard’ approach to the ‘shopping-cart’.
• Participants also did not appreciate the layout of the site.
• Participants did get lost in the site several timess

Recommendations
• Brief description of site in the header area
• Highlight the 4 core areas : Shop, Service, Resources and Donation /
Volunteering
• Login and Account creation to be placed on top-right hand side
• Search functionality to be added
• A side-bar for browsing of product categories to be added
• A standard and persistent shopping cart button

Recommendations contd.
• Search functionality should search both articles, products and services
• Quality of images and graphics should be improved
• Texts on coloured background elements should be avoided
• Showcase the total number of volunteers and the monthly donations
to increase conversions