COGNITIVE WALKTHROUGH essay

Web Usability 1

COGNITIVEWALKTHROUGH

&ltStudentName&gt

State

BournemouthUniversity Payment Gateway Usability Test

Thetypical users

Itmainly serves the Bournemouth university students. School staff andparents or guardians are also served by the system. The system ismeant to boost the interaction between administrators and the users.

Thetask scenarios

Tasksare such as Students coming into the university by registeringthrough the Online Registration Form. Payment for Sports Memberships.Replacement of certificates or transcripts, through the ReplacementDocument Ordering System. Students and staff who have automobiles usethe Parking Permit service. The CPD web site provides uninterruptedvocation growth. Ad Hoc Payments are used by parents to pay for theirchildren’s fees and the gateway that connects to many websites thatprovide fee amenities.

Taskgoals, relevant subtasks and sub-goals

Thekey task and goal are the handover of documents and funds. Sub-tasksand goals contain the delivery of an easy entrance and recovery tovital essentials such as getting a parking permit and the requestingof certificates and transcripts.

Thewalkthrough is based on answering these questions.

  1. “Will the user know what sub-goal they want to achieve?”

  2. “Will the user notice that is the correct action?”

  3. “Will the user understand that the action can achieve the sub-goal?”

  4. “Does the user get feedback from the action?”

HeuristicScoring system

    • (0)No usability problem at all

    • (1) Aesthetic problem: need not to be fixed unless extra time is available on project `

    • (2) Minor usability issue: fixing this should be given low priority

    • (3) Major usability problem: important to fix, so should be given high priority

    • (4) Usability catastrophe: imperative to fix this before product can be released

Reviewquestions of cognitive walkthrough method

  1. Will user know what sub-goal they want to achieve?

  2. Will user notice that the correct action?

  3. Will user understand that the sub-goal can be achieved by the action?

  4. Does the user get feedback from the action?

Heuristiccategory 1

Task:Home Page

1. Existingusers enter username and password

2. ClickLogin

3. Ifthe username is forgotten, click Forgot Your Username?

4. New users who want an account, click create a new account

6. Newusers who do not want an account, click on the proceed with noaccount button

7. ClickHelp for more information

RESPONSE:Review questions of cognitive walkthrough

1.Yes, there are two commands clearly represented.

2.Yes, the actions clearly stand out since they are highlighted with abright color (Lazar,2005).

3.Yes, the users will easily understand that the subgoal is achieved.

4.Yes, they get feedback they proceed to fill out personal details.

OverallHeuristic Score scale 0 to 4:(0) No usability problem at all

Heuristiccategory 2

Task:Personal Details

1. Populatefield requesting user’s desired username

2. Populatefield requesting user’s desired password

3. Confirmuser’s desired password

4. Selecttitle from drop-down menu

5. Populatefield requesting user’s first name(s)

6. Populatefield requesting user’s family name

7. Populatefield requesting user’s e-mail

8. Confirmuser’s e-mail

9. CompleteCAPTCHA security check

10. ClickContinue

RESPONSE:Review questions of cognitive walkthrough

1.Yes, the tables are separated neatly, a security check ensures highdata integrity.

2.Yes, text boxes are well-adjusted showing clear and discreteinstructions.

3.Yes, the continue button helps the user get to the next step oncethey have filled their data correctly.

4.Yes, when the system notices wrong input, a warning is issued withinstructions in red.

OverallHeuristic Score scale 0 to 4:(0) No usability problem at all

Heuristiccategory 3

Task:Billing Address Details.

1. Usersenter the Address section

2. ClickAdd a New Address

3. Populatefield requesting user’s first name(s)

4. Populatefield requesting user’s family name

5. Selectcountry of home addresses from drop-down menu

6. Populatefield requesting the first line of user’s address

7. Populatefield requesting the second line of user’s address

8. Populatefield requesting the user’s town/city

9. Populatefield requesting the user’s county

10. Populatefield requesting the user’s postal code

11. ClickSave when complete

12. ClickCancel to abort

13. Returnto Personal screen

14. Selectbilling address for the order

15. ClickContinue

RESPONSE:Review questions of cognitive walkthrough

1.Yes, clear and simple instructions are used.(Chadwick-Diaset al., 2003)

2.Yes, the next web page is accessed by the add a new address button.

3.Yes, it is easily read and one can understand what they are doing.

4.Yes, the add a new address button and continue button serve the samepurpose, one should not be there. (Nielsen,1994).

OverallHeuristic Score scale 0 to 4:(4) Usability catastrophe: imperative to fix this before product canbe released

Heuristiccategory 4

Task:Payment Card Details.

1. Usersenter the Card section

2. Populatefield requesting the cardholder’s name

3. Selectthe type of card from a drop-down menu

4. Populatefield requesting the card number

5. Selectthe end date from a drop-down menu

6. Populatefield requesting the CVN number

7. ClickContinue

8. Clickback to revert to Address

RESPONSE:Review questions of cognitive walkthrough

1.Yes, the icons, make the interface user friendly.

2.Yes, errors are reduced due to the drop down menu.

3.Yes, the drop menus, the icons and help dialog boxes help the user onwhat to do (Becker,2004).

4.Yes, the data entered can be reviewed

OverallHeuristic Score, scale 0 to 4:(0) No usability problem at all

Heuristiccategory 5

Task:Order Summary Details

1. Users review transaction details

2. Users click Process Payment to confirm

3. Users click Back to revert to the previous section

RESPONSE:Review questions of cognitive walkthrough

1.Yes, a summary of the order is provided for the user to verify.

2.Yes, the information is simple and well-placed.

3.Yes, any information entered can be edited further on suspicion oferrors.

4.They are several feedback messages per the type of data entered.

OverallHeuristic Score scale 0 to 4:(0) No usability problem at all

Heuristiccategory 6

Task:Authentication

1.Users click Submit to authenticate

RESPONSE:Reviewquestions of cognitive walkthrough

1.No. the process is complex and hard to understand

2.Yes, the user has little or no control in this stage.

3.No, they are only provided with one button and that’s what theypress.

4.No, the page should be relegated to the background since the user hasno control.

OverallHeuristic Score scale 0 to 4:(4) Usability catastrophe: imperative to fix this before product canbe released

Heuristiccategory 7

Task:Confirmation Details.

  1. Click Print this confirmation receipt

RESPONSE:Reviewquestions of cognitive walkthrough

1.Yes, all the data is summarized finally.

2.No, lack of navigation buttons may affect amateur users.

3.Yes, the user can understand everything on the screen.

4.Yes, the user can print all the information for future reference.

OverallHeuristic Score scale 0 to 4(1) Aesthetic problem: need not to be fixed unless extra time isavailable on project

Heuristiccategory 8

Task:The Second Option

1. Populate field requesting user’s first name(s)

2. Populatefield requesting user’s family name

3. Populatefield requesting user’s e-mail

4. Confirmuser’s e-mail

5. CompleteCAPTCHA security check

6. ClickContinue

RESPONSE:Reviewquestions of cognitive walkthrough

1.Yes, they enter their contact data without an active account.

2.Yes, a security check is the last step before they move forward.

3.Yes, they can access services even without an account.

4.Yes, once all the required fields are entered they can proceed.

OverallHeuristic Score scale 0 to 4:(0) No usability problem at all

ADDITIONALPROTOTYPE

Characteristicsto be examined

  1. Forms of Data entry

  2. Navigations and architecture of the information

  3. Website functionality and task orientation

  4. Credibility and trust development

  5. Quality of the writing content

  6. Search

  7. Help feedback and the error tolerance

  8. Technical design and accessibility

SCORINGSYSTEM

  • 0 points if it falls short of a metric

  • 1 point if it’s halfway there

  • 2 points if it does the job

Heuristiccategory 1

QuestionA: 0 – to – 9 scale

  • 0 points if it falls short of a metric

  • 3 point if it’s halfway there

  • 6 points if it does the job

  • 9 points if it’s out of this world awesome

QuestionB: 0 – to – 15 scale

  • 0 points if it falls short of a metric

  • 5 point if it’s halfway there

  • 10 points if it does the job

  • 15 points if it’s out of this world awesome

ReferencingList

Becker,S.A., 2004. A Study of Web Usability for Older Adults Seeking OnlineHealth Resources. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact 11, 387–406.doi:10.1145/1035575.1035578

Chadwick-Dias,A., McNulty, M., Tullis, T., 2003. Web Usability and Age: How DesignChanges Can Improve Performance, in: Proceedings of the 2003Conference on Universal Usability, CUU ’03. ACM, New York, NY, USA,pp. 30–37. doi:10.1145/957205.957212

Lazar,J., 2005. Web Usability: A User-Centered Design Approach.Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, USA.

Nielsen,J., 1994. Usability Inspection Methods, in: Conference Companion onHuman Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’94. ACM, New York, NY,USA, pp. 413–414. doi:10.1145/259963.260531