“For variety of reasons, it was decided that the Ohio University Admissions web site needed an overhaul. One of the functions my office performs is client web design and redesign. It fell to us to take on this task….
There seemed to be ambiguity in what Admissions means and what information they may find on that site. In our Admissions site, we have information about four of the five areas the students identified as things they wanted to know about Ohio University (not athletics specifically). I assumed (mistake number three) that students would want to find the Admissions site to at least answer some basic questions. But to cover ourselves, we also carry much of this information on our Prospective Students page, and obviously, not enough of it on our Academics page.
Yet the students were consistently bypassing the Admissions links on our Academics page to get to the information they were seeking (information like entrance requirements). It was only after they had eliminated the other links on the Academics page that they followed the Admissions link. When the students eventually got to the Admissions site, they found everything they wanted–they even made comments like, “this is exactly what I was looking for,” and “it’s all right here.”
When we asked them what Admissions meant to them, they thought of “how to apply” or “requesting an application.” It did not occur to them initially that this would be a site where they would find all the basic information they wanted to know. One girl even commented to us that she didn’t go into the Admissions site because she was just looking for basic information, she wasn’t ready to apply….
Other Observations
I don’t know what this means in terms of design, it’s just an observance, but after the test when we asked the students what they thought of the “look” of our site, the students went back to the computer to take a look, and then made their comments. The student who had the most difficult time accomplishing his tasks made his comments without going back to the computer for a second look, and he remembered the most design inconsistencies.
In terms of photo use, the students collectively said that they like to see a mix of building shots (more interior than exterior), campus shots, and people shots. They were very interested in seeing what classrooms, labs, dorm rooms and dining halls looked like.
We noticed that links located on the left side of the page performed better than links located on any other part of the screen. I have read eye-tracking research that says, when looking at a web page, the eye goes first to the center of the screen, then to the left, and finally, if at all, to the right. Food for thought.
In terms of content layout, we noticed that bulleted information, information contained in tables, and information presented in short chunks with bold sub-heads grabbed this group’s attention. When the students hit a page that had paragraphs of information not broken up or bulleted, the students would move on to another page, even if the information contained the answer they were seeking.
When the students landed on a content page, the first thing they did was scroll to the bottom of the page, skimming text as they went. They went back to the top of the page to begin reading, and only after they had found the information they were seeking, did they look to the left side of the page at other available links.”