We had to user test our chosen website for Project 2. Mine was Boots<\/a>, a health and beauty retailer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tasks for the second and third weeks:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to some technical issues some of the tests were not up to the brief required standards, but they were kept for additional data. Most of the tests were remote. Users were informed about the testing process and were asked to self-record their shopping journey by prior being shown how to use xbox game bar. Users were given various different tasks which aimed to test specific elements of the website like the home page and the filter options.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Above are conclusions drawn from the user testing. Most users have claimed that the product details were unhelpful. Users said they’d prefer highlighted keywords and bullet points instead of long paragraphs, which were most of the times advertisement copy but not informative details, as well as unknown-scientific-named ingredients lists. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Most users achieved their given task by using the navigation bar and the fly-out menu. Almost all users started by scrolling through the home page and accessing quick redirecting links, but found themselves returning back to the homepage as they did not find those links helpful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Though most users made use of filters either voluntarily or by being suggested to, they found some of the filters a bit weird or uncomfortable. One of the users mentioned the different types of price filters that were available. There was a list of given price range options and another user input price filter. There’s also a scroll bar price filter on some pages. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Some users had the issue of too limited filtering. One of the users after selecting men’s toiletries was shown products that had the keyword man\/men in the product name. A similar case was for another user after selecting the cruelty free option, when they were shown only one brand shower gels where the selected option was part of the product name and advertisement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After discussing with other people in the studio and during the group tutorial on 19th of October, more issues were remarked. The biggest issue with the Boots website is UI inconsistency. One of my colleagues commented that it seems the company started rebranding but stopped mid-way. (see Boots Website Analysis<\/a> for UI iterations)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Fonts usage seems to be mixed up, especially for the body-text which in some places has the Boots Sharp font and in other places has Arial. Buttons tend to have different stylisations. Pages have different paginations or not at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n UX wise, a number of people agreed that the access to the pharmacy and health services should be quicker and more obvious. Multiple users, though finding the fly-out menu easy to use and helpful, have claimed that it has too many options which makes it a bit overwhelming and harder to navigate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another issue that was agreed upon was the too long and complex filters. During the testing, users have indeed made use of some of the filter options, but most users have not bothered to scroll all the way down through all of them. The used options were more or less the same ones each time; the most used being gender, brand, product type, and rating. Moreover, the filter options and UI tend to vary on different department pages and searched product pages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
USER TESTING NOTES AND CONCLUSIONS<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.nua-ux.design\/maggie-duca\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/user.notes_.blog_-1024x840.jpg\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.nua-ux.design\/maggie-duca\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/user.testing.conclusions.blog_-1024x757.jpg\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\nADDITIONAL NOTED ISSUES<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.nua-ux.design\/maggie-duca\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/additionalissues.blog_-813x1024.jpg\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n