Dey Alexander [HREF1], Usability Specialist, Information Technology Services [HREF2] , Building 3A, Monash University [HREF3], Victoria, 3800. Dey.Alexander@its.monash.edu.au
This paper presents a case study in user-centred design as applied to the redesign of the Monash University web site. It begins with an overview of user-centred design which is then contrasted with traditional development processes. The case study provides some background information about the Monash web site redesign project and the choice of methodology, an outline of the user-centred design methods used, and the nature of the multi-disciplinary team responsible for the project.
User-centred design (UCD) is a development process often defined as having three core principles (Gould & Lewis, 1985: 300-11). The first is the focus on users and their tasks. UCD involves a structured approach to the collection of data from and about users and their tasks. The involvement of users begins early in the development lifecycle and continues throughout it.
The second core principle is the empirical measurement of usage of the system. The typical approach is to measure aspects of ease of use on even the earliest system concepts and prototypes, and to continue this measurement throughout development.
The third basic principle of UCD is iterative design. The development process involves repeated cycles of design, test, redesign and retest until the system meets its usability goals and is ready for release.
The goal of user-centred design is to make a system more usable. Usability is defined in ISO 9241 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" (cited in Jones, Bevan & Thomas, 1999).
The UCD process differs from traditional design approaches in several ways, as the table below illustrates (adapted from Vredenburg et al 2002: 2).
| User-centred approach to design | Traditional approach to design |
|---|---|
| User driven | Technology driven |
| User focus | Component focus |
| Externals/design emphasis | Internals/architecture emphasis |
| Multidisciplinary team approach | Limited multidisciplinary interaction |
| Specialisation in user experience | No specialisation in user experience |
| User validation prior to development | Development prior to user validation |
| User view of quality | Product defect view of quality |
| Focus on user measurement | Focus on technical benchmarking |
UCD is user-driven rather than technology-driven (Pearrow 2000: 31-4). The focus of the design is to ensure the best possible user experience. In contrast, traditional design approaches emphasise technology with the development of the system architecture as the focal point.
UCD is concerned with the user's perspective of the system. The user interface is the key element discussed in user-centred design meetings. The emphasis is on solutions for end users and ensuring that development is aimed at helping users accomplish their tasks. Traditional approaches are oriented more towards the development and integration of code components that comprise system functionality, and users are of only secondary concern (Vredenburg et al 2002: 3).
In traditional system development, specialists may work in isolation, with their efforts being brought together towards the end of the project. In a user-centred design project, ongoing interactions between a range of specialists--engineers, trainers, user interface designers, marketing personnel, human-computer interaction specialists and so on--are the norm (Rubin 1994: 13). Software architects and engineers are usually considered to be the key personnel in traditional development projects, but in UCD approaches, user experience specialists may lead development efforts (Vredenburg et al 2002: 3).
Where traditional development methods are employed, user validation of systems often does not occur until the product is released into the marketplace. When UCD processes are used, end users are involved in testing very early in product development. Paper prototypes are commonly used and little coding is done prior to end user validation (Vredenburg et al 2002: 4-5).
Quality in traditional development is associated with the development of code that has few defects. In UCD terms, quality is considered from a user's perspective. User task success and satisfaction are key measures of quality, compared to the traditional focus on benchmarking and throughput (Vredenburg et al 2002: 5; Pearrow 2000; Rubin 1994; Dumas & Redish 1999).
The Monash University web site comprises over 500,000 pages accessible from the primary domains www.monash.edu and www.monash.edu.au, as well as a number of sub-domains. The site is comprised of a complex collection of small, medium and large sub-sites maintained by faculties and business units. The corporate site acts as an umbrella, channelling audience groups into the content located within the sub-sites. The main server at www.monash.edu.au serves over a million pages per week.
Like many other universities, a significant proportion of Monash's recruitment, teaching, research and administrative functions are now occurring online. As a result, many of our target audience groups have an ongoing relationship with Monash that is largely mediated through the University's online presence. To maintain the integrity of the Monash brand, the University recognised that it was essential that interactions with the Monash web site consistently deliver high-value experiences.
When a decision was taken to redesign the Monash University web site, a UCD methodology was suggested. It seemed the obvious approach given the increasing importance of the web site. Additional factors that influenced the choice of methodology included poor user acceptance of the previous redesign launched early in 2000, a perception of poor usability (later confirmed through usability testing), and evidence that many key business units had been slow to accept and adopt the design changes.
The goal of the User-centred Design Project is to ensure a consistent, positive user experience of the Monash University web site by improving the user interface, navigation and information architecture of the top levels of the site, based on an analysis of business and user needs.
The project has employed a range of user-centred design methods across two major project phases: research and design (Lazar 2001; Brinck et al 2002). A post-implementation review is also planned after the new design is launched in the second semester of 2003.
The initial research phase of the project was based on three sets of activities. First, we sought information from and about our primary audience groups. We were interested in understanding how the site was being used, which information and resources users were looking for, and how successful they were in finding things. We were also concerned to understand the user experience. What did users like or dislike about the site? What did they think was done well or poorly? What issues did users believe we should focus on in the redesign?
A number of user-centred design methods were employed to assist with the task of understanding our users' needs. These included:
Next, we undertook an evaluation of our competitors' web sites. We were particularly interested in identifying the primary resources they provided, understanding how navigation was implemented and noting the kind of terminology that was used on these sites. We also wanted to benchmark the performance of our existing site against our competitors to ensure that any redesign efforts focused on maximising our competitive advantage. Tasks in this phase included:
Finally, we sought to understand and articulate the business objectives and strategies for the site and the areas of importance for the redesign. A series of meetings with business units--academic, commercial and administrative--were held. A briefing paper focussed discussion on several topics relevant to the redesign. These included:
As a result of this research, some changes that were relatively quick to implement were made in what has been referred to as an "interim redesign". Feedback from users in relation to the interim redesign has been overwhelmingly positive. Usability testing conducted after the interim redesign identified some improvements, but more significant changes are required. These are now being considered in the design phase of the project.
A design strategy, based on the information collected from the research phase of the project, was prepared. The strategy consisted of three distinct but related activities: user interface and navigation design, content and information architecture review, and visual design. In each activity, broad participation within the Monash community has been sought.
The user-centred activities relevant to the user interface and navigation design phase included:
In reviewing content and information architecture, a series of meetings with content stakeholders was held and additional feedback was solicited via email. Briefing documents identified usability problems and other concerns raised by both business units and end users. Potential solutions were also canvassed and developed iteratively as a series of wireframes.
A detailed visual design brief has been prepared. It highlights the business and usability goals for the redesign, and presents a set of refined wireframes on which designs will be based. At the time of writing, we are less than a month away from distributing the design brief. Members of the Monash community, including web design groups within business units and multimedia design students, will be invited to submit design concepts. A series of evaluation measures are then proposed. These will include:
After the new design is launched, feedback from users will be carefully monitored and changes made as required. In addition, summative usability testing will be undertaken to quantify improvements in usability and identify the return on investment in the UCD method.
The UCD process used in the redesign of the Monash web site have been supported by a multi-disciplinary team:
Brinck, T, Gergle, D & Wood, SD (2002) Usability For The Web, Morgan Kaufmann: San Francisco.
Cooper, A (1999) The Inmates Are Running The Asylum, SAMS: Indianapolis, IN.
Gaffney, G (2002) "What is a participatory design workshop?" [HREF4]
Goodwin, K (2001) "Perfecting Your Personas" [HREF5]
Gould, JD & Lewis, C (1985) "Designing for Usability: Key Principles and What Designers Think", Communications of the ACM, 2 (3), March, pp. 300-11.
Daly-Jones, O, Bevan, N & Thomas, C (1999) "Handbook of User-Centred Design" [HREF6]
Dumas, JS & Redish JC (1999) A Practical Guide to Usability Testing, revised edition, Intellect: Exeter.
Lazar, J (2001) User-Centered Web Development, Jones and Bartlett Publishers: Sudbury, MA.
Nielsen, J (1993) Usability Engineering, Morgan Kaufmann: San Diego, CA.
Nielsen, J (1998) "Testing Greeked Templates" [HREF7]
Neilsen, J (2002) "Heuristic Evaluation" [HREF8]
Pearrow, M (2000) Web Site Usability Handbook, Charles River Media Inc.: Rockland, MA.
Rosenfeld, L & Morville, P (2002) Information Architecture for the World Wide Web, 2nd edition, O'Reilly: Sebastopol, CA.
Tullis, TS (1998) "A method for evaluating Web page design concepts.", in ACM Conference on Computer-Human Interaction, CHI 98 Summary, 18-23 April, pp. 323-4.
Vredenburg, K, Isensee, S & Righi, C (2002) User-Centred Design: An Integrated Approach, Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Wodtke, C (2003) Information Architecture: Blueprints for the Web, New Riders Publishing: Indianapolis, IN.