Library Information Science Site Heuristic Evaluation Report
Artifact type: Heuristic Evaluation Report
Role: I was the sole evaluator of the site for this project focusing on the 10 usability heuristic concepts.
Artifact Description: Throughout the development of any user system whether a website, application, research system, etc., it is important to pay attention to the usability and experience it creates for the intended audience. One method of evaluating usability is by heuristic evaluations as developed by the Nielsen Group back in the 1980s, which focus on 10 key concepts of usability. Throughout this given evaluation the main objective was to evaluate the site for any and all potential usability issues. To complete this given evaluation, I first focused on a general walk through of the site getting a feel for the information, design, and intended information and target audience the site was designed for. After completing my evaluation, I came to focus on several of the Heuristics where I feel the university could improve on within the Library and Information Science (LIS) website including: Consistency and Standards, Recognition rather than recall, and Aesthetic and minimalist design.
Competency : Leadership & Social Responsibility
Reflection: This project allowed me to fully utilize my skills in evaluating a site based on the usability heuristic framework/guidelines founded by the Nielsen Group. It further allowed me to not only focus on finding key missing areas of heuristics, but also those that were evident. Any areas that were missing were then given suggestions for changes. This process is important to complete every so often so that the system can be evaluated to meet the needs of newly developed and evolving technology. As users are becoming more aware of an emerging technology it is crucial to keep not only websites, but also all aspects of the site, application, etc. in working condition to meet the needs of all our users no matter their skill level.
Strengths: I feel this report gives an overview of the site with a breadth of information in all areas of the site. In areas that were weaker, screenshots were added in the appendix as reference and evidence for the areas of error and need for improvements.
Weaknesses: Having never used the site prior to the evaluation, I had less experience navigating the site and understanding where items should be placed. This may have helped my evaluation, but I also feel it could’ve made it weaker as I was examining it for the first time.