Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Executive Summary
Naji (2016) defines usability testing as “a research method for answering the question: Is this
product easy to learn and use?” Website usability testing therefore seeks to evaluate how
effective, efficient, relevant and appropriate was the website designed for the intended purpose
and target audience by the designer. The purpose of the website being evaluated is to provide a
showcase of course activities and assignments for peers and instructor to peruse. This usability
test will evaluate the impact and effectiveness in meeting the intended purpose of this e-portfolio
Background
Design student who has used the required Weebly platform to showcase course activities and
html webpage; graphic, video and audio activities; collaboration tools; assignments and a group
project.
Evaluation Objectives
The usability test will use a rubric (See Appendix A) adapted from Hill (2018) and the e-
portfolio to:
2. Evaluate the appropriate use of content, structure and web design principles
Method
Running Head: Usability Evaluation Report 3
Each criterion in the rubric (See Appendix A) was used to evaluate the website using an
observation checklist and rated according to the rubric scoring guide. The standards set by other
peers’ websites were also used to evaluate whether the e-portfolio met or was above the standard
requirements.
Procedure
First Review- The overall look and feel of the website was assessed. Did the website follow a
theme; were the colours, font and graphics appropriate and effective for the target audience?
Second Review- Each page was visited to assess navigation and functionality of links. The
content was identified and reviewed to determine if it unfolded using a logical sequence. Text
content was examined, photo content was observed, audio content was played and video content
was viewed. The appropriateness, relevance, execution of content design was assessed during
this review.
Third Review- Assessment of website accessibility was done during this review. Web pages
were viewed to check for audio options for those who are visually impaired, ALT tags on
images, magnifying capabilities, and links to external elements which can assist with viewing
content.
Final Review- The website was compared to the websites of other peers to determine whether
Results
Choices
visited links do not detract from the content, 3
and are consistent across pages.
Fonts The fonts are consistent, easy to read and
point size varies appropriately for headings 3
and text.
Graphics and Images Graphics are related to the theme/purpose of
the site, are of good quality and enhance
(accessibility) reader interest or understanding.
No images used for navigation have an ALT 2.5
tag that describes the image and where it
links to so people who are visually impaired
can use the Website well.
Copyright Borrowed materials are not properly
documented OR material was borrowed
without permission from a 1
site that requires permission.
Spelling and Grammar There are 1-3 errors in spelling, punctuation
or grammar in the final draft of the Web. 3
Total Score/32 21.5
Total Score/10 6.7
Adapted from Hill (2018). Assignment 3-Multimedia Project 2018
Running Head: Usability Evaluation Report 5
Recommendations
Generally this website met the requirements of the standards set by peers, purpose of website and
suitability for target audience. There are a few recommendations which are as follows:
3. Include more external links into the content for users to explore.
4. Include a comment form so that peers can comment and provide feedback.
References
Hill, L. (2018). Assignment 3 - Multimedia Project 2018 [Class Handout]. Retrieved from
http://2017.tle.courses.open.uwi.edu/mod/folder/view.php?id=73501
Appendix A
Running Head: Usability Evaluation Report 7