[NIFL-HEALTH:3603] FW: (NIFL-HEALTH:3573) Re: Readability on the Internet

From: Baur, Cynthia (CBaur@osophs.dhhs.gov)
Date: Wed Mar 06 2002 - 14:37:44 EST


Return-Path: <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g26Jbiu23459; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:37:44 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:37:44 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <E1BF501B4C3AD511954D00508BB8E35F01984F5A@ophs1.ophs.gov>
Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov
Reply-To: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov
Originator: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov
Sender: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: "Baur, Cynthia" <CBaur@osophs.dhhs.gov>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3603] FW: (NIFL-HEALTH:3573) Re: Readability on the Internet
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Type: text/plain;
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Status: O
Content-Length: 4984
Lines: 118

I asked Sanjay Koyani who works with Usability.gov, which is a technology
center and usability lab sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, for his
group's experience with readability on the Internet in the context of
usability research. Here is his reply. His contact information is at the
bottom of his response. 

Cynthia Baur, Ph.D.
Health Communication and e-Health Advisor
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Ave, S.W. Rm 738G
Washington, D.C. 20201
202-205-2311 (t)
202-205-0463 (f)
cbaur@osophs.dhhs.gov


-----Original Message-----
From: Koyani, Sanjay (NCI) [mailto:koyanis@occ.nci.nih.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 1:55 PM
To: Baur, Cynthia
Subject: RE: (NIFL-HEALTH:3573) Re: Readability on the Internet

Sorry for the delay; took me a little bit of time to research the issue.
Here's my answer:

>From my perspective and experience with user testing (usability testing),
providing redundancy on the Web can make a site more usable and useful if
done correctly.  Here are examples:

LONG PAGES
Redundant navigation can be very useful by improving efficiency on long
scrolling pages - for example placing the "Home button/link" at the top and
bottom of the page - because it allows users to make a selection down the
page without scrolling back to the top.  Additionally, the user may scan and
scroll the page so quick that he/she may not bother scrolling back up the
page; therefore, repeating core links at the bottom might improve user
selection. Caveat:  Don't change the name or look of the repeated link, as
this may confuse users into expecting a new link and destination.

REDUNDANT FORMATS
To ensure accessibility, designers may repeat certain functions/features on
a site - such as providing a document in both HTML format and PDF to ensure
that both users with and without adequate software/plugins (such as Adobe
Acrobat (plugin required to view PDF)) can view all site documents.  This is
a form of redundancy that improves accessibility and usability.

CROSS LINKING
Repeated text links may be placed under several categories on a Web page or
in several sections of a site to accommodate the various places different
users may look for a topic.  We've noticed in testing that users will look
under different sections of a site based on their frame of reference.  To
ensure all users find the information, links will be repeated to match users
varied expectations.   

Because Web users vary and what works on one Web site might not match the
needs of another, we strongly encourage usability testing of early Web
prototypes with actual users.  By asking users to search and navigate your
site for key information, you will get a sense of how well your redundant
navigation is working, where more or less is needed, and what other
usability issues your audiences are facing.  

To learn more about usability engineering and testing, please visit the
National Cancer Insitute's Usability.gov Web site at http://usability.gov.  

To view a few articles that cover the issue of redundancy and how it can
improve usability, please go to:
http://www.weblaurels.com/textonly/textnews/navigation.htm,
http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/41/Link_position.htm, and
http://www.megweb.uct.ac.za/www/307F/usabilit.htm. 

Hope this helps.

Sanjay Koyani
Communication Technologies Branch
Office of Communications
National Cancer Institute
koyanis@mail.nih.gov


-----Original Message-----
From: Dwyoho@aol.com [mailto:Dwyoho@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 11:29 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3573] Re: Readability on the Internet


I notice that the websites that seem the easiest to use build in what I
would
call "redundancy"--several buttons to click on located in more than one
place
that take you to the same place.  "Home", for example, is often at the top,
side
and bottom .  Any comments from anyone about the usefulness of this
"redundancy"?  I have a notion that each person's eye travels across a web
page
in different ways--some people are predisposed to be methodical and start at
the
top, then move down like you're reading a book; others skim with a
preconcived
expectation of how the page should be organized (almost a mental
"template"),
some are bothered by popups and moving stimulation, others appreciate it.  I
hypothesize that if the page is layed out radically different from the
viewer's
mental "template" (which develops from previous experience), the site will
appear confusing, boring o! r otherwise not attractive enough to hold the
wiewer
more than a few seconds.  I'm wondering if these ideas have any basis or are
just notions from a cranky Internet user like me?  Debbie

Deborah W. Yoho
Executive Director, Greater Columbia Literacy Council
Co-Moderator, NIFL-Health Discussion Group
921 Woodrow Street
Columbia, SC  29205
803-765-2555  Fax:  803-799-8417  dwyoho@aol.com
Agency email:  litcola@mail.com



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 14:41:29 EST