Archive for the ‘Reports & Articles’ Category

New Feature: Extra Participant Filtering

Thursday, August 19th, 2010

Last month we added participant filtering to reporting which specifically allowed you to include (or exclude) participants who had not fully completed your user tests.  Today we’ve added to the filtering options to allow you to exclude participants who don’t meet certain quality thresholds.

You can now create thresholds based on the number of seconds they spend and/or the number of clicks they take to complete individual tasks.

Many of you have noted that when you go through your reports there are often numerous participants who do not even leave the home page when attempting a task, but still claim to have ‘completed’ it.

Now, it’s easy to exclude from your reporting these participants who don’t make a proper attempt at completing your user tests.

Similarly, participants who go off to make a cup of tea in the middle of your evaluation can be excluded just as easily so you don’t end up with skewed results.

These filtering options will now give your results much greater accuracy and reliability.

Stay tuned…and happy testing!

Don’t forget to become a Loop11 fan on Facebook and Twitter

Usability Testing On The iPad

Tuesday, August 10th, 2010

There has been a lot of negative commentary on the usability of the iPad since it launched, including Jakob Nielsen’s critique of its usability failings. However, what’s even more important than the usability of the iPad is the usability of YOUR website or app ON the iPad.

There are 5 Million iPad users worldwide…and counting. Many of these people browse the internet using their iPads as well as use apps. It’s also worth mentioning that there are another 50 million iPhone users around the world. So the questions is: How usable is your website or app on the iPad?

You can test the usability of any website on the iPad because Loop11 works beautifully with the iPad. It always has actually. Loop11 can be used on an iPad the same way it works on a computer. Since there is no software for participants to download and no javascript code for you to insert a usability project can be created for the iPad in just a few minutes. We even made a video to prove it!

…and just so you know, you can do it all on an iPhone, as well.

Want to be part of a world first usability study? Here’s your chance.

We created a usability study to see whether there are any differences in behaviour when using the internet on an iPad versus a normal computer. We’d love you to take part. We’ll be publishing the results on our blog soon.

If you have an iPad and would like to be a part of the evaluation, use this link:

iPad users only

If you don’t have an iPad but would like to prove that using a normal computer is waaaay better for surfing the internet than an iPad, go here:

Computer Users Only

Happy testing!

Project Profile: BECU (Boeing Employees’) Credit Union

Friday, July 23rd, 2010

We often sneak a quick look at the projects our members are running and we came across this beauty by the clever guys at the interactive agency ZAAZ, who did some re-design work on the BECU (Boeing Employee’s Credit Union) website (www.becu.org).

Their project was designed to give them the answer to just one question, “What do we call the place where our website visitors go to do their…you know…thingamybob banking that you do when you don’t do it at one of the BECU Neighborhood Financial Centers?”

A very simple project was constructed to get them precisely that one answer. Here’s what they did…

Five different hi-fidelity wireframe designs of the BECU homepage were created and hosted on a staging server. Three designs were identical except for the label to this unnamed section of the website. One placed the link in the primary navigation, rather than the utility navigation at the top, and the final design placed the link in the footer.

The alternative labels for the section were:

  • Remote Account
  • Access Mobile & Online Banking
  • Remote Banking, and
  • Online Banking (for the one in the footer)

Five separate projects were set up so there was no task order bias and the task was worded the same way for each project:

“Use the site to find how to view your banking information using your internet-enabled cell phone.”

During the evalution, when participants selected a link that did not direct them to the ‘correct’ location they were presented with the screen below, which is particularly handy as navigating through a wireframed website where only the home page had any functional purpose could have been disasterously confusing for participants.

Four follow-up questions were asked, again always the same for each project.  They were:

  1. How difficult was it to complete this task?
  2. How certain did you feel that the “[Name of the section]” link would take you to the information you were looking for?
  3. What specific information would you expect to see when you click on ” Name of the section”?
  4. What, if anything, would be a better name or label for this information?

All in all a quick, simple and inexpensive way of getting a precise link label to a section of their website growing in importance.

As for the results of the testing…well, go to www.becu.org to find out which option provided the best experience.

New Feature: Participant Filtering

Friday, July 2nd, 2010

Today we’re unveiling an exciting new feature to help add more value to your project reporting – participant filtering.

When we first launched Loop11 we made the decision to only show the results of participants who fully completed user tests in the reporting. We had a strong belief (and still do) that participants who do not fully complete user tests are not giving your tasks and questions their best efforts. So we excluded them from reporting altogether.

Since launching we’ve had many, many, many requests from our members to make the results of partially completed user tests available. We listened, and so that’s what we’ve done.

Here’s a bit of a tutorial of how it works:

  •   When you log into your account you will now find in your list of Launched Projects a column titled ‘Participants  Start/Finish’ (as shown below). This indicates the total number of participants who commenced your user test  followed by the total number who completed it.

  •   By default, your reporting will only show you the results of participants who fully complete your user tests. But if you want to change that so you can see the results off all participants up until they drop out of your user test you can now go to Settings, tick the box under ‘Include participants in the reporting that have partially completed  the user test’, then click Save Settings.

  •   In your reporting you’ll now see an indication of the total number of participants who completed each task. The early tasks will always have more as participants drop out of your project.
  •   On the right hand side, we’ve included a Settings Indicator that will always tell you whether you are looking at all participants or completed participants so you don’t have to remember.
  •   NOTE: If you set a quota of 100 participants, for example, your project will still only close after 100 FULLY COMPLETED user tests have been collected.

  •   When you’re analysing participants individually, you’ll also be told which participants were guilty of not fully completing your user test.

In the next couple of weeks we’ll be adding a few more useful features to Settings so you can clean up your data by excluding the results of participants who fall outside certain time-based and click-based thresholds that you can customise.

Stay tuned…and happy testing!

Loop11 Updates: Track participants, Re-categorise multiple URLs, Pop-up invitation control, Improved reporting and more

Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010

It’s been a while since we posted an update about Loop11, but we’ve just launched some new features, and we wanted to let you know about them.

Apart from the many minor (oh, alright…and a couple of major) bug fixes we made recently, we’ve also improved the performance of our servers so page load speeds should be faster.

The other key changes include:

Track participants using unique IDs

If you want to track participants so you know who to provide incentives to you can customise the end of the URL with a unique ID for each participant. You can find this new feature in Step 3 – User Test Options and full details of the process here.

Re-Categorise multiple URLs at a time

Instead of re-categorising one URL at a time you can now re-categorise multiple URLs at the same time. You can find this new feature in the reporting of any task.

Pop-up invitation controls

If you are recruiting your participants by intercepting them via your website, you now have a feature allowing you to control the percentage of visitors that you ‘invite’. You can find this new feature in Step 4 – Invite Participants: Create a pop-up invitation for your own website.

Individual participant path analysis in exports

The full path analysis of individual participants was never made available in the exported reports. Don’t ask why. But it is there now.

Individual responses for Rating Scale Matrix questions

The results for rating scale matrix questions, while always available at an aggregated level were never available so you could see the individual participant responses. These can now be found in your reporting under Participants.

Most of these changes have come about from customer feedback. Just give us your opinion and we will happily take it on board!

Happy Testing!

PS: The guys at UserFirst have elaborated on these features on their blog. The post is located here: http://www.userfirst.com/our-blog/2010/06/28/unmoderated-usability-study/

Loop11 in UX magazine

Friday, April 16th, 2010

Juliette Melton from UX Magazine has written a great review about Loop11. It’s an in depth comparison of Loop11 and other usability testing tools. She hits the spot when she says “it’s potentially very powerful”. She also goes on to describe some of Loop11’s features as something she hasn’t seen before. For anyone wanting to know the differences between Loop11 and other tools, this is a must read. To read the full review, go to the UX magazine article here:

http://uxmagazine.com/technology/usabilla-and-loop11

72 Questions and Answers for Measuring Usability

Thursday, March 4th, 2010

Jeff Sauro from  Measuring Usability recently wrote an in-depth report about quantitative usability testing. We think it’s a great guide for people wanting to conduct their own usability studies (however  the report does cost USD $72 to purchase). In the report, Jeff clearly identifies the benefits of quantitative usability testing as well as explaining the best way to conduct a quantitative usability study.

What are the advantages of a Quantitative Usability Test?

Jeff explains that if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it. Quantifying usability means making better decisions about usability data. By quantifying the reduction in problems and the increases in efficiency, decision makers will make better decisions regarding their website.

What are common usability metrics?

Although there is an international standard for measuring usability (ISO 9241), the standard leaves open the question of how to measure effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction. The following metrics are the most common ways of measuring usability.

-          Usability Problems

-          Time on Task

-          Completion And Failure Rates

-          Errors

-          Satisfaction Ratings

-          Clicks / Pageviews / Navigation Path

What are the basic steps for conducting a quantitative usability test?

  1. Recruit participants
  2. Set-up and create a test
  3. Launch the test
  4. Analyse results

To purchase the report “72 questions and answers for measuring usability” go here: http://www.measuringusability.com/products/quantitativeReport

So what are you waiting for? Now you know why and how to conduct a quantitative usability study and with Loop11 your first project is free! Or for more information visit our F.A.Q.

Happy Testing!

Get your wireframes usability tested for free!

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

Current website or new wireframes – Which Works Best?

-   Do you have new wireframes for a current website?

-   Do you want to compare your new wireframes with your current website?

We’re putting a case study together to compare a current website with new wireframes. We are looking for people who have developed clickable wireframes that they would like to have usability tested and compared with the current website. The results will be published on our blog.

Using Loop11, we will ask 500 people to complete a few representative tasks on both the current website and the new wireframes.  Every movement and click will be tracked and analysed.  We will then write up a report comparing a range of usability metrics for both the wireframes and the current website.

This is a great opportunity for anyone who has new wireframes for an existing website that they would like usability tested for free!

If that’s you, send us the URL of the existing website and an example of the wireframes, or even better, let us have access to the wireframes.

Simply send your details to: communication@Loop11.com

Online Usability Testing – Who’s more reliable?

Friday, February 12th, 2010

We are often asked if using different types of participants will affect the quality of data from online usability studies.  For example, does a lab-based participant perform tasks the same way a participant from an online study does? Can we really trust data coming from online usability studies where participants might be getting involved just for the money?

These are all interesting points which were recently explored in a usability case study. The case study compared usability data from premium lab-based participants with cheaper online participants. The results were quite interesting. One might presume that the higher paid lab-based user would provide better quality data than their cheaper, online counterparts.  However this was not the case.  The results showed that satisfaction scores and completion rates obtained from the professional users were nearly identical and statistically indistinguishable to the lab-based users.

To read the full case study with analysis go here: www.measuringusability.com

Airline Website Usability: British Airways Soars Ahead!

Thursday, January 28th, 2010

In our first case study for 2010, we thought we would have a look at how user friendly 10 of the world’s leading airline websites are. On a recent overseas trip, I was astonished to see how many people continue to take dangerous or banned items, such as scissors and cigarette lighters through the check-in gates at airports. Since security has become radically tougher in recent years we thought we’d explore how easy (or difficult!) it is to find information about the items you’re not supposed to have in your luggage. So…we put the following 10 websites through the loop:

10 Of The World's Leading Airline Websites.

The following task was asked of 1,000 participants (100 per website):

“You are taking an overseas holiday next month.  Before you go you want to check whether certain items are considered by the airline to be dangerous or banned.  Using the website how can you do this?”

Our participants were sourced from a number of resources, including our Twitter and Facebook accounts, but the vast majority came from Mechanical Turk where we paid the nominal sum of $30 for the bulk of the participants.  Thanks to all those who got involved.

Task Completion Rates:

In general, each website had one page dedicated to banned or restricted items, such as these pages from American Airlines and British Airways.

American Airlines Restricted Items Page.

British Airways Banned Items Page

If the participants found the appropriate page they were deemed to have completed the task successfully, otherwise they were considered to have failed it, or they abandoned the task if it all became too hard.

The results indicate that finding information on dangerous and banned items is rather difficult.  This perhaps provides some clues as to why so many people on my recent trip were still packing them in their luggage.

Chart showing the task completion rates

The British Airways website was the standout performer with 71% of participants completing the task successfully.  Of most concern were Virgin Atlantic and Malaysia Airlines where less than half of participants were able to locate the information.  In the case of Malaysia Airlines, just 31% of participants were able to complete the task.

Additionally, a total of 39% of participants abandoned the task on the Malaysia Airlines website even though more than half went directly from the home page to the Baggage Information landing page where they should have easily found the information.  It would seem the call to action to “Download now” is not sufficient to indicate the PDF document on the Baggage Information landing page is the place to go for this information.

Malaysia Airlines Webpage.

Average Time to Complete Task:

The average time taken to complete the task on each of the ten websites again shows that the British Airways website was the standout performer, with participants completing the task in an average time of 87 seconds.  Malaysia Airlines and Virgin Atlantic once again performed poorly, with the average time for Virgin Atlantic (199 seconds) being more than twice the time taken for those using the British Airways website.

Chart showing the average time to complete the task.

The study also revealed that only Virgin Atlantic and Lufthansa did not have fly-out menus in their main navigation.  Fly-out menus, such as those shown on the American Airlines website below; often result in faster navigation since users are able to see at least the second level navigation links without having to make a click.

American Airlines Webpage With Fly-out Menu.

A deeper look at the path analysis for Virgin Atlantic shows that a quarter (24%) of participants went to the correct section of the website, the Passenger Information landing page in the first instance.  This is a substantially lower result than British Airways and even Malaysia Airlines where more than half navigated to the correct section first.

Ease of Use Rating:

One of the follow-up questions for participants after completing the task was to rate on a 5-point scale how easy it was to use the website.  There was much less variation in these results, which we don’t find surprising.  In face-to-face, lab-based user testing we frequently encounter participants who have a terrible time navigating a website but still comment on how easy the website was to use!  We always felt this was the moderator effect, but perhaps this extends to unmoderated user testing too!

Chart showing the ease of use rating

Overall Usability Score:

To directly compare the usability of one website to another we decided to follow the ISO definition of usability.  ISO 9241-11 defines usability as the “Extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specified context of use.“  This gives us three areas to focus on: effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction.

Combining the scores for the task completion rate (effectiveness), the average time taken to complete the task (efficiency) and the ease of use rating (satisfaction) we can establish an overall score for each of the ten airline websites, which are shown below.

Chart showing the overal usability score.

Not surprisingly, British Airways was heads and shoulders above the rest while Malaysia Airlines and Virgin Atlantic were well behind.  There was little difference between the remaining seven websites.  But clearly there’s a lot more work to be done by airline websites to help people avoid packing those banned and dangerous items.

Tested with Loop11

This report was generated entirely from results obtained through running a usability study with Loop11.  Loop11 allows you to conduct usability studies on any website without the need to insert code.  The real-time reporting provides the following quantitative usability metrics:

  • Task completion rate
  • Time per task
  • Most common success page
  • Most common fail page
  • Most common first click
  • Most common navigation path
  • Detailed participant path analysis
  • Number of page views to complete tasks

Sign up and you’ll get your first project for free.

What’s Next?

If you’ve got an idea for a case study you’d like to see us do, send the details about it to administration@Loop11.com and we’ll consider it for up-coming case studies.