Principles of Good Interface and Screen Design 231 Web User Interaction Styles

Step 3: Principles of Good Interface and Screen Design 231 Web User Interaction Styles

In recent years the specific activities of Web users have come under closer scrutiny. Sellen et al. (2002), in a task analysis of knowledge users, found three different Web inter- action approaches were demonstrated: browsing, information finding, and information gathering. Each approach had a different flow and activity behavior characteristics.

Browsing is non-specific surfing. People move through a Web site at their own pace and according to their own interests. Browsing is analogous to shopping. A person walks into a store (Web site), looks around (the page), gets a feel for the place (presen- tation style, layout, and so on), looks for clues or signs of interest (headings, sum- maries, and so on), wanders at whim (follows a link), and then decides to stay and linger for a while, or leave. The person may leave empty-handed, or have picked up various products (or scattered bits and pieces of information) during these wander- ings. Upon leaving, the person’s destination may be another store (Web site) in the mall from which he or she may soon return after doing some “comparison shopping.” In the shopping bag may now be other products (or scattered bits and pieces of infor- mation) that have been picked up. This sort of “interlaced” browsing behavior must be supported in Web site design.

Information finding involves seeking specific answers to specific questions or needs. Nielsen (2006b) provides evidence that no single Web site incorporates the total user experience. In one study (finding information for a specific product) Nielsen reports that one user, over about 45 minutes, visited fifteen sites and viewed ninety-three pages, an average of 29 seconds per page. He concludes that studies have validated that the Web site user experience involves: 1) flittering between sites gathering snip- pets of information from multiple competing sites to build a thorough understanding of a specific problem; and 2) interleaving visits to different site genres, alternating between vendors, retailers, and reviews using search engines as a hub.

Information gathering involves doing reconnaissance for future activities to be per- formed, or information to be looked for at a later time.

Table 3.3: Reported User Web Activities

BROWSING ACTIVITIES (BYRNE ET AL., 1999) APPROXIMATE PERCENTAGES

Using information, including reading, printing,

and downloading Visually searching for information on pages

Providing requested information

Waiting or scrolling

PRIMARY REASONS FOR IMPORTANT USES OF THE WEB (MORRISON ET AL., 2001)

Evaluate multiple products or answers to

make a decision (Comparing or choosing) Get a fact or document, find out something,

or download something (Finding) Gain understanding of some topic,

232 Part 2: The User Interface Design Process

Table 3.3 (continued)

METHODS USED TO ARRIVE AT INFORMATION FOR IMPORTANT WEB USES (MORRISON ET AL., 2001)

Searching for multiple pieces of information,

not looking for one Particular answer (Collecting) Searching for something specific (Finding)

Looking around or browsing without a particular

goal (Exploring) Visiting the same Web site looking for updated

information (Monitoring)

Byrne et al. (1999) looked at what people do when browsing, and Morrison et al., (2001) analyzed the methods people reported they used to arrive at information they needed for important tasks, and their reasons for the use of the Web. The results are summarized in Table 3.3.

In the Byrne et al. study, a significant amount of time was spent waiting and scrolling. This percentage was actually greater than reported above because waiting time between successive page presentations was not reported. In the Morrison et al. study, 96 percent of the activities were goal-driven; that is, users were addressing a specific need. It is also interesting to note that more than two-thirds of the time people were looking for multiple pieces of information, not single pieces.

Cothey (2002) found that experience modifies a Web user’s behavior. More experi- enced users

Access the Web less often and more sporadically.

Access fewer sites.

Tend to browse to sites (either directly or via other trusted Web sites) rather than getting there via search.

Fogg et al. (2002) found that users who do not have in-depth knowledge of the con- tent domain evaluate a site’s credibility based upon its design look as well as informa- tion design, structure, and focus.