The Wiki will be unavailable from 7am until 9am on Tuesday, 28 November, 2017, due to server and database patching.
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

About the interviews

We interviewed 40 participants, these were prospective students visiting the university for the June 2017 Open Day. These interviews took place on campus over 2 days, the 15th and 16th of June 2017.

Interviewers include: Tegan Male and Justin Keevil, Hanna Loraine and Craig Thorpe, Dan Dineen and Sean Moran-Richards, and John Fox.

Observations

UsabilityHub vs guerilla style

In comparison to the user research undertaken on UsabilityHub (Origins, Lens) Lens performed even better with prospective students. The populous felt that the design was quite modern (4 on a scale of 5), quite sophisticated (4 on a scale of 5) and very professional (5 on a scale of 5), the Open Day results were less volatile than the UsabilityHub results. Overall, the students seemed to prefer the new design over the old design because it was easy to navigate and use, cleaner and less cluttered.

How the users navigated

Just over half the participants scrolled through the web page rather than using the in-page navigation, but those who did use the in-page navigation expected the typical entry requirements to be listed under the heading and spent some time reading the applicant profile before seeing that the requirements were lower down.

Typical entry requirements expectations

52% of the participants reported that the requirements were where they expected them to be, however 67% of participants reported where else they would expect to find the requirements - 47% of these participants said they were prefer the information higher up, or in the course overview at the top.

Old vs new

97.25% of participants said that the new design was better, the 2.75% that felt the old design was better said this was because the entry requirements were above the fold.

Uni-looking website

95% of participants said that the web page did look like a university website because of the content, layout and pathfinding.

5% of participants said it didn't because it looks quite corporate, but also because it "looked modern, other unis are older looking".

Trumpet blowing

Someone also said "Nicer than the Warwick pages" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Results

What subjects are you interested in studying?

This question was asked to tailor the course page to them, also they may have already seen the online prospectus whilst research the course, so would be able to compare them better. However, this question does not have any weighting on the analysis and is only included for transparency.

 

What is the typical entry requirement?

The users behaviour was recorded when looking for the typical entry requirements, as their placement and position on the page has been a contentious issue in the past.

The results in this pie chart have been extrapolated from raw results which are visible on the spreadsheet

Unknown = Results did not explicitly say

Was the typical entry requirement where you expected it to be?

A quantitive question to get some metrics.

Where would you want to find the typical entry requirements?

The results in this pie chart have been extrapolated from raw results which are visible on the spreadsheet

 

General questions

How modern does the page feel?

1 being not very and 5 being very

How sophisticated does the page feel?

1 being not very and 5 being very

How professional does the page feel?

1 being not very and 5 being very

 

Does this feel like a university website?

After getting an overall impression of the two designs, which one do you prefer?


 

Any other comments about the designs?

Raw results
I prefer the new page but the old one has the entry requirements higher up
Got all the info you'd expect
Old looks like advertising "can't see how to use it"
Described the new site as "simple but practical"
New site is clearer, professional, likes the layout codes
Old site to busy, everything tries to stand out
The new page goes into much more depth
Remembers the using the old one - tiny, links that are not links, looks like an ad. The new site is more sophisticated
It's quite modern, wouldn't expect a uni site to be.

Old site: "I hated this page"
- Clicking on random stuff
- thought it was 'so complicated'.

New site: (Her dad) too many facts, not enough qualitative information, they missed the video at the bottom. "Lacking a bit of humanity"
feels naturally digital
I much prefer the new look. I used the old page and struggled to find further information on it. It's all buried under links.
The layout and pathfinding are very similar to other university websites. The old page looks like a school or student website - it's a lot less serious and professional. The old page looks scrambled.
The new design looks quite corporate and business-y. Works for economics but not sure about other courses. The old site is too blocky - It looks like a flyer for a pizza company!
I like the navigation at the top of the new page.
The new page feels smarter and neater
In terms of depth (of information) I prefer the new design. The old page had the easy-to-find entry requirements but it's also very busy.
preferred the colours and layout of the new
Easy to navigate
Has got all the usual stuff you expect & info. Mentioned problems with the old one - having to click "apply" to get the key info
New site: very professional, detailed enough - no searching
Old site: Don't know what I'm looking at here
Looked modern, some unis are older looking
Clarity on new, old is cluttered
I like the older page as it summarises all the information on the side. However, I prefer the design of the new page.
Much easier
Likes the colours, contemporary, smart and genuine. Thinks the style does not feel like a university website
Quite engaging withe the student, written for students
Nicer than the Warwick pages. "Less cluttered". Old has key info on first page.
Clean design and easy to navigate
It's a lot easier to search for specific stuff on the new page. The old one had too much in a small space. The new page looks like other universities, especially the colours. They all have a few dark colours and one feature colour.
Old site is better - info on the old site is right at the top (entry requirements)
Clean and quite modern, old site - there is a lot of stuff going on.
  • No labels