User Experience- UnionStation.org

Page-1Tim NingUsability AnalysisIntro to Web Publishing10/22/15

Usability Test for Unionstation.org

Test Preparation

To prepare myself in administering these usability tests, I started first by going on to

unionstation.org and running through the tasks myself as precisely as possible. I wanted to make

sure that I understood exactly what was desired of each task and I could develop a thought

process of how the task is completed so that I can properly identify any points of struggle with

the testers when I administer the test to them. I noticed when I first visited the site that the fonts

were very readable which is a big test for me because my eyesight isn’t the greatest, so the need

to change the resolution. However, if a user is feeling implored, the site is responsive, an

important feature to have on modern websites.

The first task was rather straight forward. The task asks describes the scenario for

planning a trip to Union Station with your grandma who needs a wheelchair, so the upfront

option would be the “Plan Your Visit” button in the top navigation toolbar. All information was

laid out in sub-sections on the next page with detailed descriptions beneath them, so while some

users could potentially be puzzled by the word “amenities”, they just need to read the description

below to understand that the section deals with accommodations for guests listing “wheelchairs”

as one of the options. From there, selecting the “Guest Amenities” link would take you to the

corresponding page where you can find information on wheelchair availability.

Task two started a larger scenario (linked to task three) which involves finding an

Extreme Screen movie playing on a certain date and securing tickets in advanced. Reverting

back to the navigation toolbar at the top, I went to the “events calendar” link which took me to

Page-2Tim NingUsability AnalysisIntro to Web Publishing10/22/15the events page which lists events for each day of the month. There is also a calendar on the right

side of the page that was easily navigable to search for the desired date. The one thing that I was

suggest from my experience here would be to find a way to group the types of events occurring

that day rather than listing all of the events in a big cluster. Another suggestion would be to also

bold the event type font which would give that part a little “pop” so it is easier to notice when

people are doing a quick page scan.

Task three involves the user securing the two tickets for the user and the grandmother.

The user is instructed to look closely for whether or not users can secure their seats and if

wheelchair compatible seating can be attained. This process was slightly strange to me for starts

because it has the user going through multiple windows to purchase tickets, which I think a lot of

this process could be compressed into one window which users can work with a lot more options

before having to load the next page, which should most likely be your final checkout page. The

Page-3Tim NingUsability AnalysisIntro to Web Publishing10/22/15first page contains only information about the movie, the price and type of ticket you are

securing, and then the “add to basket” link at the bottom. It would be very helpful if users were

able to select the number of tickets they desired on that same page instead of the next page over.

The next page is where you can secure how many tickets you want and where you would most

likely secure special seating (which was not available). The user then selects the “add to basket”

button again which finally takes you to the checkout page. It would probably be better for the

admins to change the first link from “add to basket” to a title like “proceed”. It would keep the

user from getting confused and thinking that they are adding more stuff than they are wanting.

Task four required the user to find out whether all areas in Union station are wheelchair-

friendly. This requires the user to send an email with this question to the appropriate contact. The

first issue I had was that I had to use my “back” button on the browser to get back to a page that

had the navigation toolbar which meant two things: the site does not implore a consistent

navigation toolbar or a “home” button option. Both would provide users with a way out of the

pages they are on so they are not constantly having to rely on their browser to provide for them.

Once I reached a page with a navigation toolbar on it, I was immediately drawn to the “Contact”

button on the toolbar. This page brought up a list of executive job titles and their corresponding

emails. Keeping my task in mind and narrowing down the options, I felt that the Visitor

Relations employee was the person I was looking for. The one thing that I think would help here

would be to have a brief description of what each job title works in or with. It would save the

user ample time in searching up and down the list and having to narrow down options and make

decisions with uncertainty.


Another method that I ended up trying was issuing a mock test to someone that I know.

This was originally done to help myself get comfortable with the script and knowing what I can

and cannot say during the entire experiment. A big challenge was that I was issuing this test over

Skype, which while it does not necessarily represent the same conditions of a field test, it forced

me to be very reliant on getting the user to talk aloud to what she was thinking so that I could

focus on the user’s facial expressions and what her thought process was through the entire

experiment. She did very well in talking out loud through the process. She made a note about the

navigation toolbar and how the tab links could be bold for better visibility. This method helped

me to not only confirm the problems that I had initially with my own test, but to point out some

other problems I may not have necessarily encountered myself so I can keep a lookout for my

actual subjects running into the same errors. My user noticed that the site does not contain a

navigation toolbar that is consistent from page to page and does not scroll with the window as

users scroll down as well as, the absence of a footer on each page. The user also noted the issues

that I mentioned above that were more task-specific.

Choosing Participants

Tester 1: Kevin Mott

I chose Kevin for practical reasons primarily relating to the effectiveness of this

experiment. Kevin is a 21 year-old male student majoring in Computer Science with an emphasis

in Interactive Digital Media at Northwest Missouri State University, so he is very familiar with

web design layout and is extremely critical in user experience and how sites work and function.

Kevin spends about 16-18 hours a day around technology in some sort of fashion adding up to

Page-5Tim NingUsability AnalysisIntro to Web Publishing10/22/15about 112 to 126 hours of use per week. He spends about 35% of it on social media with the

remainder of that percentage in browsing. His favorite websites consist of stackoverflow.com

and w3schools.com; both websites are major online coding outlets. He also enjoys using

YouTube on his spare time as well. Kevin is classified as my high-experienced user in this

experiment.

Environment for Tester 1

Location of test: Kevin tends to spend most of his time on the internet in his

room at Tower Suites West. I chose this setting to administer the usability test

because I wanted to use a setting that Kevin was most comfortable in to

maximize my results, so we issued the test in Kevin’s room.

Physical Environment: The room has very low volume or distraction in it the

majority of the time. However, his brother Kenny was watching a movie on

his TV in the room, but had headphones on with the TV output going to the

headphones to keep general distractions low. Lower room lighting was also

used in this setting since it was evening time and normally he would view the

internet in complete darkness if he wanted to, but in order for me to record

observations, we used a low room lighting.

Technical Environments: The computer type used in this experiment was an

HP laptop computer. Kevin uses this computer as well as, another computer so

he was fine taking the test on either device. He was very comfortable using

the trackpad on the laptop so no external mouse was used. To scroll, he would

use the trackpad to initiate scrolling and would consistently use it to maneuver


his way quickly through each page when searching for things. The room has

its own internet connection so we were ensured the strongest connection

possible for the conditions. We also used the Google Chrome browser which

only had an Ad Blocker add-on with it.

Tester 2: Sherry Jones

Sherry is 56 years old and works at Hallmark Cards full-time in their mail services

department as a shipping attendant. Her job is to pull and fill orders, mailing and shipping

packages, and to service their field service group. She is also taking online classes from Maple

Woods Community College part-time working towards her associate’s degree. She spends an

average of three to four hours a day amounting to about 21- 28 hours a week on the internet. She

spends about 60% of that time on social media websites. Some of her favorite websites consist of

Amazon, Facebook, Yahoo News, and many traveling and animal websites. She considers

herself to be a high-experienced internet user, but uses the internet mainly for recreational

purposes. She is able to navigate through websites to find what she needs and is an avid user of

social media, but does not do much with computers or the internet besides filling the basic social

needs. She is considered my low-experienced user.

Environment for Tester 2

Location of Test: I administered Sherry’s usability test in the dining of

her home. Sherry does the majority of her homework and desktop

browsing at the kitchen table while doing the majority of her social media

browsing from her smartphone.


Physical Environment: The physical conditions for this test were vastly

different from the first test. The room had a lot of natural lighting and was

a very open area compared to the dorm room. The volume level of the

room was also louder as there was music in the background as well as, the

sound of dogs and other individuals in the house. T1here were some points

when dogs barking averted attention away from the test, but that seemed

to be the extent of the physical distraction.

Technical Environment: Sherry took the usability test on her own

personal HP laptop computer with a screen resolution at 100%. She

preferred to use a mouse separate from her computer and used Firefox as

her internet browser. Her computer was hooked to a Wi-Fi internet

connection inside her home.

Test Results

Initial Site Thoughts

Tester 1 Report: Kevin immediately first began scrolling up and down

on the page and immediately commented on how he disliked the top

staying stationary in the site window when you scroll.



Especially in a responsive sense, when you increase the resolution of the

screen, the content adjusts to fit the resolution, but the navigation banner

size does not change in response, it just keeps zooming into the screen. He

commented about how the navigation banner restricts the view of content

on the page and automatically offered a suggestion for a banner that

minimizes when the user scrolls down. This issue directly relates to the

Nielson heuristic of aesthetic and minimalist design. He did like the use of

colors on the homepage commenting about how the white background,

was more of a cream color that makes it easier on the eyes. He also noted

how the more important information like links and notes were highlighted

in red to signify greater importance from the rest of the information on the

page.

Tester 2 Report: Sherry immediately commented on the good use

of content on the homepage. She liked the use of sites colors which

was easy on her eyes. She was visually stimulated by the pictures

which drew her into the site. She also commented about how the

navigation toolbar makes it easy for her to search for the topics

that she may be trying to find.

Task 1: Scenario: You are bringing your grandmother to Union Station for a

Saturday afternoon outing. She can’t walk more than 50 steps at a time. Determine

whether or not there will be a wheelchair available for her to use during the visit.


Tester 1: Kevin gravitated towards the “Plan Your Visit” link on the navigation

bar because of the nature of the scenario. Inside the visit planning page, he immediately

began scanning each item scrolling down the page. He was caught by the section labeled

“transportation” because of the possibility that it had to do with transportation inside

Union Station as well. He then scrolled down to the footer of the website and found the

link labeled “Guest Amenities”. He clicked into the link and scanned the page to find

wheelchair accessibility at the bottom of the list.

--Answer: You can find information on wheelchair availability in the

section labeled “Guest Amenities” found at the footer of the website under

“about us”.

--Completed: Yes

Tester 2: When giving the initial task, Sherry also went straight to the “Plan Your Visit”

link on the navigation toolbar for the exact same reason as the first tester. However, she took

more time scrolling down the page and being vocal about what each section of the page covered.

She found the section labeled “Guest Amenities” and read the description below the link. She

then found her confirmation at the bottom of the page.

--Answer: You can find information on wheelchair availability by

clicking the “Plan Your Visit” link on the navigation toolbar and then clicking the “Guest

Amenities” link near the bottom of the page.

--Completed: Yes


With the specific scenario presented, both testers initially went to the “Plan Your Visit”

link on the navigation tab, which matches to the task they are trying to complete. However, I had

found that it was a matter of word choice that determined the differences in both testers.

I had found with the first tester that he was immediately drawn to the word “transportation”

because of the need for wheelchairs, he first assumed that transportation may have implied

indoor transportation as well as outdoor. What I noticed with the first tester is his willingness to

move quicker through each page to search for what he was looking for. This means he quickly

skimmed through each item in which he was drawn to the “transportation” link over the “guest

amenities” link even though they were right listed next to each other. This could potentially be

fixed in a few ways with the objective in mind to catch the attention of the quicker-moving users.

The first solution I would move towards would be to find a way to emphasize the content in the

description of the “guest amenities” portion. This could be altered by creating a small bulleted

list of the five amenities offered for guests and bolding those five items so it catches the users’

eyes in the quick scrolling for items.


Another solution would be to capture the users’ attention by adding a symbol to the “Amenities

and Transportation” heading. I would first suggest a recognizable symbol by general users such

as a handicapped symbol next to the word “amenities” so the user is automatically alarmed that

the word “amenities” is associated with guests’ specific needs. It would also be a way to capture

the quick-scrolling users who may not take the time to read each portion of the description so

users can still be efficient in that aspect. A final solution that directly relates to Nielson’s

heuristic “Flexibility and Efficiency of Use”. The absence of a search bar as a part of the

navigational toolbar causes users to have to take extra steps to getting to their goal. Being able to

search the word “wheelchairs” or “wheelchair accessibility” could lead users right to the

information they are searching for in half the time. This could be used as a blanket fix for tasks

one and two.

Page-13Tim NingUsability AnalysisIntro to Web Publishing10/22/15Task 2: Scenario: You want to plan to see an Extreme Screen movie during your visit, so

you want to secure tickets in advance. Determine what is playing on Wednesday, November

25th.

Tester 1: When hearing the task, Kevin scrolled back up and clicked the link named

“Events Calendar”. Once on the page, he searched the calendar for the November 25th date

bringing up the events for that specific day in a list form. He began scrolling down the list

finding the two extreme screen movies as the first two list items, however, he continued down

the events list not realizing at first that the event he was about to name was not an extreme screen

movie.

--Answer: Found the movies playing through the “Events Calendar” link then

finding the corresponding date and searching the events list.

--Completed: Yes

Tester 2: Sherry had a similar experience with the scenario in taking the same path to get

to the events page. She used the same calendar method to pull up events for the corresponding

date and was also slightly thrown off by the list of items. She came to the same conclusion as

Kevin for the listing of shows in that specific area.

--Answer: Found the movies playing through the “Events Calendar” link then

finding the corresponding date and searching the events list.

--Completed: Yes


This task involves finding certain events happening on a certain date. The main issue

seen here is that both users were thrown off by the formatting of the events list. This ties into the

Nielson Heuristic of “Error Prevention” and how we can reduce the ways for users to make

errors in this certain stage.

The first thing noticeable in both tests is the inability to recognize which event corresponds to

which stage of Union Station. One issue seen above, is that the stage heading above the event

title is shadowed by the event title itself, which should be the other way around. Users need to be

certain about the events they are looking for and not searching in hope to find what they are

looking for. A solution to this issue could be in a different listing format. Instead of listing events

in a combined list. It would help to list the Stage names in the largest fonts, then listing the

corresponding events in their respective subsections. This way, users know exactly what events

belong to which subsection instead of having to guess because all events and subsection layouts

look exactly the same. Another way to eliminate this issue ties into the flexibility and efficiency

heuristic. It would be most helpful to create an advanced filter option to narrow down the search

from not just the calendar date, but to filter stage as well, so that the user finds the exact event

that they are looking for without the worry of inflicting a search error.

Page-15Tim NingUsability AnalysisIntro to Web Publishing10/22/15Task 3: Go through the steps of buying two tickets for an extreme screen movie on that

day. Determine whether or not you can choose the actual seats so that you and your

grandmother will have wheelchair-compatible seating.

Tester 1: Kevin clicked on the movie “Robots”. Once on the next page, he found the

drop-down option to select the date specified in the task. He then hesitated for a second waiting

for an option to select seating or number of tickets that was not present. He then went and

clicked the “add to basket” link at the bottom. The next page gave him the option to select his

number of tickets but still no option to select specific seating. The following page displayed the

tickets he had previously selected as well as, options to assign owners, select seats or remove

items. He then clicked the “Select Seats” link which took him back to the previous page he was

at to select the number of tickets. With no explanation, he clicked the “add to basket” link which

took him back to the same page. He then tried the “Assign Owners” link which took him to the

account page. He concluded that you can purchase tickets but not select specific seating for the

event.

--Answer: You can purchase tickets for the event, but you cannot select specific

seating or handicapped seating.

--Completed: Yes

Tester 2: Sherry took the same route as Kevin did up to the page that gave options to

assign owners, select seats, and remove items. She realized that the seat selection at the previous

page was set to “General Admission” and did not have any way to be changed, so she assumed

Page-16Tim NingUsability AnalysisIntro to Web Publishing10/22/15that was the only option available. She immediately clicked the “Proceed to Checkout” link that

brought her to the account page.

--Answer: You can purchase tickets for the event, but you cannot select specific

seating or handicapped seating.

--Completed: Yes

A few issues arose in this third task that were more apparent for the first tester than the

second. Kevin noticed the amount of times he had switch pages to complete the purchase of his

desired order of tickets. He also noticed that the system did not give him notice that there was

not specific seating available when he searched the “select seats” option. Instead, the link took

him back to the ticket number selection without giving him any sort of explanation leaving him

to explore other options without any other leads. Addressing the first issue. It would be best to

try and reduce the number of pages and clicks that users must endure to complete the process of

purchasing tickets.


This screen would be the perfect opportunity to create a table, to calculate which date you want

to view the event, how many tickets you want, and the specific seats you desire to select, all

while calculating your final price at the bottom. This would eliminate at least three pages worth

of traveling and present an upfront view of the user’s progress giving them a combined view of

exactly what they are getting. Another issue worth noting is located in the following screen:

Page-18Tim NingUsability AnalysisIntro to Web Publishing10/22/15Here, the user is given the option to select seats as a part of the given task. However, clicking the

option takes the user back to the previous page to select number of tickets and gives the user no

explanation for the setback. This involves the Nielson heuristic of error prevention and possibly

even imploring a minimal design heuristic as well. An easy approach to this problem would be

letting the user know on the very first page listing the event that the event is general admission

only and listing it in bold so the user is less likely to miss the statement. It would also be

beneficial to take away the options for users to select seats for an event that only offers one

particular option. This is especially apparent in the ticket confirmation page where the link to

select seats still exists even though there is no other option. It would be easiest to alter the use of

the link pending on the ability to select seats for the event so users would not be deceived by the

option.

Task 4: Scenario: You’d like to spend time walking around Union Station during your

visit, but you want to be sure enough areas of the station will be wheelchair-friendly. Go

through the steps to send an email to the appropriate person/ department to inquire about

wheelchair access throughout all areas of Union Station.

Tester 1: Kevin first started this task by cancelling his ticket order. He searched the

following page trying to find his way back to the unionstation.org home page:


He was unable to find a “home” button or anything that could potentially take him back to the

official home page. He ended up using the address line to enter the website address taking him

back to the sites homepage. From there he clicked the “Contact” link in the navigation toolbar

taking him to a page with a list of departments and contact emails. He took some time to scroll

up and down viewing the possible departments and then decided on the “Visitor Relations”

department.

--Answer: Send an email to the Visitor Relations department

--Completed: Yes

Tester 2: Sherry also started this task by cancelling her ticket order. When she reached

the box office homepage, she scrolled up and down searching for anything signifying a “home”

button or a way out to the Union Station home page. She resorted to using the browser’s back

button, which simply reloaded the page. She began examining each of the links clicking on some

of them and finding no significant answers and constantly resorting to the browser’s back button.

Page-20Tim NingUsability AnalysisIntro to Web Publishing10/22/15Even after repetitive clicks on the back button, she found that she was stuck on that page.

Eventually the internet connection timed out and the test ended at that point.

--Answer: N/A

--Completed: No

The biggest issue on this portion of the site is inability for users to relocate to Union

Station’s homepage. This could be more explained by Nielson’s heuristic of Consistency and

Standards. Once users enter onto the box office website, not only is the navigation toolbar users

depended on suddenly absent, but the centered Union Station logo is no longer a homepage link

as previously implored in other parts of the site. The absences of these important tools leaves

users stranded on this portion of the website leaving users no other option but to resort to

browser tools or even relocating manually via the address bar. Nielson notes the importance of

consistency to prevent users from having to guess or to question the situation. A consistent

navigation toolbar always leaves users an open option to return to other pages as well as, the

homepage so users never have the feeling of being trapped on a given page. At the same time a

simple “return home” or “back to main page” button next to the “add to basket” or “checkout”

buttons would also be a good help to give users that way out.

Testing Conclusions

Completion Rate: Compared to the typical 78% task completion rate,

tester 1 completed all of the tasks given for a 100% completion rate, while

tester 2 completed three of the four tasks given for a 75% completion rate.


Similarities and Differences: The testers shared some similarities in their

testing and results. Both users took relatively the same paths when trying

to complete the same tasks. Both testers would have the tendency to make

the same comments about issues within the tasks which make them

relatively easy to spot and document. Testers were very participative and

adamant in being open through the testing process which maximized my

findings in the long run of things.

There were quite a few differences between my testers in the

process. My first tester would tend to move at a quicker pace to complete

tasks, which I noticed in the first task, he found his answer in the footer of

the page, rather than the “Plan Your Visit” page which both he and the

second tester both landed on at first. He would skim topics rather than

thoroughly read them which would cause him to bounce around the page a

bit before he officially finds the answer he is looking for. The second

tester tended to take a little more time when scanning a page and would

take less time to complete tasks in the long run. I think these differences

can be accounted for by the nature of their approach to efficiency. Tester 1

would take less time trying to complete the task which would end up

tripping him up in different parts of the task. The trip would not change

the result of the task, but the difference was noticeable enough between

both testers’ processes. Tester 2 took the appropriate time to be through

and would therefore complete tasks at a more-steady pace. I also noticed


that my first tester would be able to identify issues with the website as he

was completing tasks. This quality would ultimately serve useful in tasks

three and four. He was able to recognize that the box office site for Union

Station was separate from the actual site and when it came to moving back

to the main site, he knew quickly because of the site structure, that he

would ultimately have to resort to browser tools to get back to the main

page. My second tester was more involved in completing the initial tasks

given and less indulged in plucking the shortcomings of the site. However,

because she was the less-experienced of the two testers in web design and

user-experience as a whole, she walked into issues like the beginning of

the fourth task and was completely stuck. The second tester also

experienced the largest external difference in the connection timeout

which kept her from being able to continue through the rest of her testing.

Heuristics Done Well:

First, the website does a decent job at the heuristic of flexibility and efficiency of use.

While I have already made suggestions about making this heuristic better, the site does a great

job with having a solid navigation covering its major topics as well as, including a footer where a

lot of the sub-topics are covered. I found that this gave users alternative options to reach their

goal in task one rather than taking a specific path to reach that objective. The logo remains

centralized and active in the local portions of the website and leads users back to the homepage

when clicked.


The site did well with the recognition and recall heuristic. During the second task, users

were asked to find a certain event on a specific date. Once they entered the events calendar page,

the site used a calendar on the page which users automatically recognized and were able to use

flawlessly. This was a good reference to the recognition rather than recall because of users’

abilities to not have to think about what to do next.


The ticket portion of the test was also a good example of the heuristic. Even though the ticket

purchase could be minimalized into less windows, it was a very fundamental setup which both

testers were familiar with going through the checkout process. Another major quality that the

website has is its load speeds for all pages. This can be most attributed to the fact that the website

does not use an over-abundance of heavy-weighted content on its pages. Even the Science City

page takes about three seconds to load. On a scale where 10 seconds is the major danger zone to

losing web visitors, three second maximum load pages is very efficient for visitors trying to find

information and move through a website at a quicker pace.

Documents

User Experience- UnionStation.org