Usability Issues

It is an amazing scene to witness the growing efforts on lds.org. The usability of the website (especially the Gospel Library) is generally very good.

Here are two things that stand out at me where the site could use improvement.

1) It seems that we have the real estate scheme on the front page reversed. The "above-the-fold" space on the front page of LDS.org is a wonderful representation of the Chrystus... but I think it's a waste of space I think. Am I wrong here?

2) The fly-out menus have WAY TOO MANY links to make them viable. The human eye can only handle 7 before it gets confused.

Here's a quick usability test. Have a family member familiar with the site sit down and try to find the following items using the menus:

> The Music site
> The State and Ward websites
> Information on Temples
> Sunday School information.

Have them find these items with just the menus. The results might surprise you.

I've seen my wife try again and again (wasting minutes) trying to find the login to the Ward Websites... Why does she have a problem? the menus are difficult to navigate (even harder to learn by heart) and the link to the Ward websites is "Below-the-fold"

I agree about the use of real estate, and in fact submitted almost identical feedback some time ago lds.org is my home page, so I'm there constantly. I like the quote of the day and on the old site could read it quickly before navigating to my ultimate destination. But now that the top banner covers about half the page on my screen (with resolution at 1024x768), I can only see the top of the quote. I find that I usually don't take time to scroll down. I would rather have the entire main screen visible without scrolling.

As far as having more than 7 options on the flyout menus, I'm okay with that--I've learned where my favorites are and can get to the scriptures or the music site quickly. Personally, I'd rather have fewer main categories and more on the flyouts than vice versa.

FWIW,
Kathryn

So how would you improve the site, trying to make it look fancy too. Remember there are only a few techys (those that favor usability and effiency over prettiness) while everyone else wants a pretty website that is also usable. Any suggestions with new or old techs would be appriciated.

NOTE: I personally cannot do anything for the site but those that can do read and take your suggestions into consideration.

The question really isn't about techies - I can find my way around pretty easily. The challenge is regular users who appreciate pretty but are getting totally lost. I'd love to know how you go about usability testing.

There are numerous software program that make a science out of usability: tracking the eye movements of users, watching the exact path of the mouse, logging the amount of time on a single page, etc...

Do you bring in members to do testing? What tasks do you have them perform?

Thanks!

Back before the church sponsored ward websites, I would hear about our website and what needed to be added, changed or even deleted (though I usually just modified it) on Sunday. I got input on what needed to be added, what was too difficult to find, what was broken. The other information I used was what pages were visited the most and the least and how many people or using the website and when. (Both of these are not available in LUWS)

VirginiaLDS wrote:The question really isn't about techies - I can find my way around pretty easily. The challenge is regular users who appreciate pretty but are getting totally lost. I'd love to know how you go about usability testing.

There are numerous software program that make a science out of usability: tracking the eye movements of users, watching the exact path of the mouse, logging the amount of time on a single page, etc...

Do you bring in members to do testing? What tasks do you have them perform?

Thanks!

I'll try and get some of our interaction designers involved with this discussion. I wish that we had the kind of time and money it takes to do a complete usability set of test with cameras, studying eye movements, etc. but with the number of projects we have on our plate (many, many you do not see) we typically do not do as much research as maybe we should. However, I am not the expert in this area. I'll let the designers talk about the process. I will point out, however, that recently (within the last year) we have spent a lot more time in interaction design. You will notice the effects in the coming months and years.

Tom

At The Generations Network (formerly MyFamily.com, Inc.), we have brought in a handful of people of different age groups for usability testing. We just set up one room with a computer, a microphone, and with a webcam pointed at where the user sits. I'm not sure what program or utility they used, but you were able to watch and listen to the user's comments, while also seeing what they were doing with the mouse on the screen (kind of a picture-in-a-picture look). I'll see if I can find out what software it was. But my point was that it only took a few hours one day and was quite simple. It was also being broadcast to us employees in real time and being archived.

Hi everyone,

This is Gilbert Lee. I'm currently the Lead Interaction Designer for LDS.org. Tom alerted me about this thread. I need to frequent the forums more as this is one of many good discussions to be part of.

Ever since we launched the beta version of the new LDS.org over a year ago, there has been feedback from opposite sides of the spectrum...but generally the feedback has been very positive. I was surprised by the reaction to be honest - the good and the bad. The below-the-fold issue has been raised before by members of the Church. There were lots of design considerations and we looked at lots and lots of metrics. We also did usability studies with members of the Church (on different designs), with a researcher and us watching in the other room with a video.

I guess the reason I'm saying all of this is that we are always trying to consider the needs of the members of the Church. We are continually trying to understand changing needs. And we hope you continue to give your feedback.

I also want to say that the design will change over time as we get more and more feedback. The homepage, technically, is by far the easiest thing to change on LDS.org. But we want the changes to be more evolutionary. We just had a major change so we are trying to be more careful as we move forward.

Thanks again for the feedback. We want to hear it!

-Gilbert

VirginiaLDS wrote:I've seen my wife try again and again (wasting minutes) trying to find the login to the Ward Websites...

I always use www.lds.org/units

I also tend to use lds.org/units to get to the LUWS. I like the short urls such as:

lds.org/temples
lds.org/music
lds.org/newsroom
lds.org/handheld
lds.org/techtalks
lds.org/library

I find I can direct people to specific sections of lds.org easily using these urls.

However, these addresses are not consistent. For instance lds.org/magazines returns an error whereas http://magazines.lds.org redirects you to the pdf page for the church magazines. http://family.mormon.org works as well as mormon.org/family. The library.lds.org url redirects to the old gospel library, whereas http://lds.org/library redirects to the new gospel library.

I imagine the transition to the new site is still underway, but some consistency would help me find my way around. Also, I've discovered most of these short urls by accident or trial and error. If a list could be made available, that would help as well.

Thanks.

Add http://www.lds.org/institutes to the list.

Two links I've added to all of our unit pages is a direct link to our local temple and Institute.

I have problems finding things on the site, too, even though I would consider myself fairly familiar with it. My suggestion would be to add a detailed "site map" feature. The A-Z index is not all that useful because you have to know what something is listed as to find it. The menus are hard to navigate, (going up and down and then to a page you think is where the information would be, only to find out that it does not have what you are looking for anyway).

I suggest bringing back the site map, so we can see *at a glance* the structure of the site. The site map needs to be detailed enough, though (not just a couple levels deep) or it won't do much good.

Doug

If a site map is created, an AJAX-like interface would be nice to allow such a detailed map to not be too unwieldy to traverse or interact with.

kgthunder wrote:AJAX-like interface

What do you mean by an AJAX-like interface?
Are you meaning the page be Javascripted (I just made Javascript a verb now) so that you go down the topics expanding each one?
Or do you really mean AJAX in that you have a search or some type of input which posts back requests using the xmlhttprequest object and gets new content from the page?

And for either one how would you want the interface implemented?

I am no AJAX expert, I had in mind some combination of search capabilities but at a minimum a tree like interface perhaps to expand and collapse the tree as I imagine the list of sites available would be extensive.

In the previous incarnation, the Relief Society Visiting Teaching message link was in the right-hand column of the main page. Now it's buried and from month to month I can never remember where it is [actually Gospel Library/magazines/Visiting teaching]. I second the motion for a site map link on the main page.

Once I found the VT message, I learned that it lacks a feature to readily format for printing. For some reason a one page article is now needlessly longer than one page (not more writing, but more white space). Therefore, for my mail only visiting teachees, I copy & paste into a Word doc, then format it to print.

Ditto for my Primary lesson. Whatever was used to create a table put an extra blank line into every single row of the tables in the lesson. I type up any tables in Excel & replace the existing On the other hand, at least the info is there. That said, iIt's pretty easy to just change the font size & take out the extra space between the headings, etc.

kgthunder wrote:If a site map is created, an AJAX-like interface would be nice to allow such a detailed map to not be too unwieldy to traverse or interact with.

To me that seems like it would defeat the purpose... then the site map would just be like another set of menus that you have to traverse. I think the most useful site map would be comprehensive and all on one page (even if the page had to be pretty long to do it) without having to click on anything.

Doug

dougk wrote:To me that seems like it would defeat the purpose... then the site map would just be like another set of menus that you have to traverse. I think the most useful site map would be comprehensive and all on one page (even if the page had to be pretty long to do it) without having to click on anything.

Doug

Agreed. The only reason I thought of a menu was an easy way to traverse the amount of detail. But if put in one long list, this could be managed by a summarized topic list at the top and "Back to top" links throughout... it could either be a hierarchical list or an alphabetized A-Z list.

dougk wrote:To me that seems like it would defeat the purpose... then the site map would just be like another set of menus that you have to traverse. I think the most useful site map would be comprehensive and all on one page (even if the page had to be pretty long to do it) without having to click on anything.

Doug

A general rule of thumb is that a website should be no more than three levels deep and it seems to hold true of menus and site maps as well. Here I think it would make sense to create a site map that is three level's deep and anything deeper than that should not be included on the site map (i.e., articles, etc).

Edward Lalone wrote:A general rule of thumb is that a website should be no more than three levels deep and it seems to hold true of menus and site maps as well. Here I think it would make sense to create a site map that is three level's deep and anything deeper than that should not be included on the site map (i.e., articles, etc).

I think I agree with dougk from a advanced web browsing perspective. Most of us here could handle a comprehensive page like that, utilizing the Find functionality of our web browsers, etc.

Obviously a novice web surfer would want to steer clear from something like that. Therefore, they can use they default browsing provided them on the home pages. Meanwhile, the advanced surfers could click the Site Map link and utilize that page instead.

This way, the main entrance into the site follows the "general rule of thumb" for average web surfers, but allows an advanced navigation of the site as well for the rest of us.

Though you don't want to get it so large that your browser takes forever to load it and with the church's site linking in EVERY document I can imagine a 10 MB text file

I know this thread is old... but I wanted to voice some comments about the home page of the lds.org site.

I just wanted to say that I agree with the comments about the javascript menu at the top. It is overly complex and there is too much content below the enormous header at the top. The logo is in a strange position and seems out of place with the larger "WELCOME" text at the top.

Also, can someone make the anti-aliasing on the border around the top of the white center section a little crisper? It looks kind of blurry and doesn't have a clean edge as one would expect (the same goes for the separation between the blue and the brownish color on the right and left columns).

I see some improvement has been made since the initial launch of the site. The links on the right-hand navigation are better than what was there when the new design was first launched. The links on the left-hand navigation are kind of messy with the pictures being different widths.

Now that Cameron Moll works there, you guys should take a second look at his designs:

http://www.cameronmoll.com/projects/lds/

They are a lot cleaner than the current home page. It makes more sense and is easier to navigate. The large photo that looks like it would come from the First Presidency's message in the Ensign is a nice focal point. Overall, it seems to be easier to find things and navigation wouldn't be burried in a complicated menu system.

Also, I am curious about what the thought process was behind the collapsible navigation in most of the sub pages. To me, it is counter intuitive (some pages have it collapsed by default and others don't?) and I cannot think of many sites that would use such a technique.

Sorry to be so harsh. It is not bad by any means.... it just COULD be better. Layoff a little on the javascript and focus a little more on the overall design.

I would like to interject a new perspective here.

I am the father of a disabled child. The current design of many sites (including church sites) are not disability friendly. I am hoping that as the dependency on technology grows in our society perhaps the American Disabilities Act (ADA) gets ammended to include internet accessibility compliant as well.

In addition to the current menus being overly complex they are useless to people with motor skill impairments. My daughter likes to look up her primary lessons the week before so she can prepare for the lesson in advance. This is because her disability does not allow her to keep up with the lessons in class.

People with disabilities strive for independence. Imagine her frustration when she tries to use the menus. The current menu design is so hypersenstive that they have made the content inaccessible to her.

This is also an issue for the elderly users.

Can someone elevate this oversight to the interface team?

We have people looking at many things to help the disabled. We have budgets and resource conflicts that prevent us from making instant changes so it will take time. However I remind you that our technology offerings are not the only source of material for individuals. Please help us by being patient.

Tom

Tom,

I'm guessing that you mean purchasing a copy of her primary manual and having her use it.

People with motor skill impairments can't brush their teeth, or comb their hair. So taking books off the shelf and turning pages are not really an option.

The computer is not a luxury.....it's assistive technology which enables the disabled to not be left entirely behind.

No one is asking that lds.org be entirely redone. But it is very reasonable to ask that any new improvements be made accessible to everyone.

I'm simply stating that the Church continues to move in this direction with ALL of their resources, not technology. It is a slow move...admittedly...but we are moving that direction.

Tom

enriquer wrote:
The computer is not a luxury.....it's assistive technology which enables the disabled to not be left entirely behind.

No one is asking that lds.org be entirely redone. But it is very reasonable to ask that any new improvements be made accessible to everyone.

I would be very interested in discussing this with yu further. My job at the Church has been and continues to be primarily concerned with resolving such issues.

I would appreciate it if you could email me at cannonaw (at) ldschurch (dot) org so we could continue this discussion in greater detail.

Either way, thank you for your input. It is greatly appreciated. We have focused so far primarily on accessibility for persons with visual and hearing impairments, but we realize that those groups are by no means the only ones confronted with access issues.

Thanks again, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Aaron Cannon

Aaron,

Thanks for the info. I have sent you an email and look forward to chatting with you.