Brook Website Evaluation
Techniques Used
Triangulation Semi-Structured Interviews Thematic Analysis
Heuristic Evaluation Think Aloud
Brief
Brook.org.uk commissioned our team at University College London Interaction Center (UCLIC) to create a complete site redesign. Brook is UK’s leading provider of sexual health services and advice for young people under 25. I partnered with another UCLIC cohort for a more comprehensive evaluation.
This case study reports techniques & findings from our usability evaluation of “Find a Service” function on Brook’s desktop website.
Objectives
• Improve accessibility/self-service/accuracy of "Find a
Service" user journey and content
• Meet target audience (>25 years) needs and expectations
• Make website the primary source of information for young
person users and staff
Brook's Find a Service page
Why "Find a Service"?
• Second most visited webpage on Brook.org.uk, right after
the Home page
• Clear information on this webpage will lower webchat / text
/call inquiries that costs Brook £4.50 per contact with a
young person
Brook's Google Analytics
Method
1. Heuristic Evaluation
Nielsen’s Heuristic Principles were used to determine usability gaps for “Find a Service” function. Different internet browsers were tested. The findings were used to define use-cases and structure data collection.
2. Data Collection
This study with 8 participants (4 female, 4 male, average age 21.2) was triangulated using the following techniques:
1. Structured Interviews - to collect demographic and behavioral information
2. Think-Aloud - to gather user thought processes during study's pre-defined scenarios & tasks (based on Heuristic Evaluation)
3. Semi-Structured Interviews – to collect qualitative data about participants’ experience with the website
3. Analysis
Bottom-up Thematic Analysis was performed to find recurring patterns in data
Analysis Results
Limitations
1. The Search function is subpar
2. Important information is below ‘screen fold’ and require
necessary scroll to read
3. Crucial emergency information is not highlighted
4. Navigation is cumbersome and it's easy to become lost
5. Readability of the content is dense and can be easily overlooked
6. Not enough feedback to confirm user actions
Strengths
1. The "Find a Service" page covers majority of information a user
would need
2. Participants found "Miles Away" per location to be really useful
3. Region based search was favorable
4. Button animations were described as fun
5. Participants had an affective impression that Brook is here to help
Usability Issues
Functionality
3
4
1
2
Issue Severity Recommendations
1. Search function doesn't allow user to press 'enter' key
on keyboard to input location, users must click search
with mouse. This inability really surprised study
participants.
2. Users can't select suggested results from drop down
menu at all, neither by pressing 'enter' key nor clicking
with mouse.
3. System allows user to input location in both fields (Your
Postcode and Town Name) simultaneously, and
subsequently allows to search as well.
4. Service results are there by default, even before field
input.
High
High
Medium
Medium
Allow 'enter' key on keyboard to be an input method, similar to large database search engines.
Allow users to select from suggested results via 'enter' key and clicking with mouse!
Make search simpler by having one "Location" field, with "e.g. postcode or town" in grey.
Do not show Service Results tab until Search is completed and results ready.
Control and Freedom
3
2
1
Issue Severity Recommendations
1. Users expected to be able to search clinics by the
service they needed (i.e. contraception etc.).
2. Users with limited availabilities had to manually keep
note which locations offered the services they needed,
and were open during their availabilities.
3. Users wanted to navigate within the static, non-
interactive location map. They opened Google Maps
on another tab to search location instead.
High
High
Low
Allow users to search and/or filter based on opening hours, services, and distance.
Could incorporate a 'Compare' function for services and hours, and allow the user to save favorite locations.
Make Google Maps interactive with zoom-in and zoom-out
Consistency
1
Issue Severity Recommendations
“I’d travel farther to this location because it says this procedure is free.”
- P3
1. Services per location did not have consistent designs,
location service offers varied with checks (for yes) and
crosses (for no). All Brook services are free, but some
locations explicitly stated select services were free, and
some did not.
Medium
Text and design should be reviewed and made consistent.
Structure and Information Flow
1
2
3
Issue Severity Recommendations
1. Users weren't aware of the difference between "Find a Service" and "Visiting Brook", and accidentally navigated to "Visiting Brook" when they were trying to find a clinic.
2. Emergency helpline numbers were difficult to find.
3. The majority of users commented that the website had too much bulky text. When searching for an answer to their questions, they often navigated away from the page that had the answer.
High
Medium
Low
Change the title of "Visiting Brook" so it is suggestive of an answer bank, such as Visiting Brook FAQ. "Find a Service" could be renamed to "Find a Brook Clinic".
Utilize a side panel so that urgent info is always visible.
Segment information with visual cues.
“This website feels like it has too much information, but also not enough information because I can’t find what I want!”
- P5
“It looks like a book..."
- P8
Implemented Changes
Brook implemented feasible changes to their website. Some samples below:
One location field rather than two for "Postcode" and "Town name"
Location maps were made interactive.
Service information was made consistent across all locations.
Users can search by service they seek