The experiment used five versions of a web site created for this study.
Participants
The participants were 51 experienced Web users recruited by Sun (average level of Web experience was 2 years). Participants ranged in age from 22-69 (average age was 41). So as to focus on “normal users,” we excluded the professions that are following the analysis: webmasters, Web designers, graphic designers, graphical user interface professionals, writers, editors, computer scientists, and computer programmers.
We checked for outcomes of age and Web experience regarding the dependent variables mentioned in the first five hypotheses, but we found only negligible differences-none significant. Had the sites inside our study been more challenging to navigate or had our tasks necessitated use of search engines or any other Web infrastructure, we might have expected significant ramifications of both age and Web experience.
The experiment employed a 5-condition (promotional control, scannable, concise, objective, or combined) between-subjects design. Conditions were balanced for employment and gender status.
Experimental Materials
Called “Travel Nebraska,” your website contained information on Nebraska. We used a travel site because 1) within our earlier qualitative studies, many Web users said travel is one of their interests, and 2) travel content lent itself to the different writing styles we wanted to study. We chose Nebraska to attenuate the result of prior knowledge on our measures (in recruiting participants, we screened out people who had ever lived in, and even near, Nebraska).
Each type of the Travel Nebraska site consisted of seven pages, and all versions used the same hypertext structure. In order that participants would concentrate on text and not be distracted, buy essay we used modest hypertext (without any links beyond your site) and included only three photos plus one illustration. There was no animation. Topics included in the site were Nebraska’s history, geography, population, tourist attractions, and economy. The Appendix to this paper shows areas of an example page from each condition.
The control type of the site had a style that is promotional of (i.e., “marketese,”), which contained exaggeration, subjective claims, and boasting, instead of just simple facts. Today this style is characteristic of many pages on the Web.
The concise version had a writing that is promotional, but its text was much shorter. Certain less-important information was cut, bringing the phrase count for each page to about 50 % that of the corresponding page when you look at the control version. A number of the writing in this version was at the inverted style that is pyramid. However, all information users needed to perform the required tasks was presented into the same order in all versions of this site.
The scannable version also contained marketese, but it was written to encourage scanning, or skimming, regarding the text for information of great interest. This version used bulleted lists, boldface text to highlight keywords, photo captions, shorter sections of text, and more headings.
The version that is objective stripped of marketese. It presented information without exaggeration, subjective claims, or boasting.
The combined version had shorter word count, was marked up for scannability, and was stripped of marketese.
Upon arrival during the usability lab, the participant signed a videotape consent form, then was told he or she would visit a website, perform tasks, and answer several questions.
After making sure the participant knew just how to use the browser, the experimenter explained which he would observe from the room across the street to the lab through the one-way mirror. Through the study, the participant received both printed instructions from a paper packet and verbal instructions through the experimenter.
The participant began during the web site’s homepage. The very first two tasks were to look for specific facts (situated on separate pages in the site), without using a search tool or perhaps the “Find” command. The participant then answered Part 1 of a brief questionnaire. Next was a judgment task (suggested by Spool et al. 1997) when the participant first needed to find relevant information, then make a judgment about it. This task was followed by Part 2 of the questionnaire.
Next, the participant was instructed to spend 10 minutes learning whenever possible through the pages in the website, in preparation for a short exam. Finally, the participant was asked to draw written down the dwelling for the website, to your best of his or her recollection.
After completing the study, each participant was told details about the analysis and received something special.
Task time was the quantity of seconds it took users to get answers for the two search tasks and something judgment task.
The two search tasks were to resolve: “On what date did Nebraska become a state?” and “Which Nebraska city may be the 7th largest, with regards to population?” The questions when it comes to judgment task were: “In your opinion, which tourist attraction is the best one to visit? How come you believe so?”
Task errors was a portion score in line with the amount of incorrect answers users gave in the two search tasks.
Memory comprised two measures from the exam: recall and recognition. Recognition memory was a percentage score on the basis of the wide range of correct answers without the wide range of incorrect answers to 5 questions that are multiple-choice. As one example, one of the questions read: “Which is Nebraska’s largest ethnic group? a) English b) Swedes c) Germans d) Irish.”
Recall memory was a portion score based on the number of tourist attractions correctly recalled minus the number incorrectly recalled. The question was: “Do you remember any names of tourist attractions mentioned in the website? Please use the space below to list all the ones you remember.”
Time to recall site structure was the quantity of seconds it took users to attract a sitemap.
A related measure, sitemap accuracy, was a portion score based on the quantity of pages (maximum 7) and connections between pages (maximum 9) correctly identified, without the amount of pages and connections incorrectly identified.
Subjective satisfaction was determined from participants’ answers to a paper-and-pencil questionnaire. Some questions inquired about specific areas of using the services of the website, as well as other questions asked for an assessment of how good certain adjectives described the website (anchored by “Describes your website very poorly” to “Describes the website very well”). All questions used 10-point Likert scales.