Short Report of Usability and Accessibility

WRTG 3306 Syllabus

Claire Westlake
Professional Writing Department
University of Central Arkansas
Conway, Arkansas
aclairewestlake@gmail.com

I.

INTRODUCTION
This short report, including appropriate IEEE citations and
references crediting all research, acknowledges the usability
and accessibility of the WRTG 3306 syllabus and project
assignments. Usability testing was performed on the course
materials and determined the extent a layout facilitates a users
ability to complete tasks. Sessions were noted thoroughly to
identify potential areas for improvement of the document. This
report offers recommendations to suggest improvement of text,
page design, and ideas for improving the medium of the
documents presentation.
II.

TESTING RESULTS
Attributes of useful, learnable, effective, and efficient were
analyzed during testing [1]. Useful; does it fulfill the goal that
needs to be completed? Learnable; can people figure out how
to use it? Effective; does it get the job done? Efficient; does it
accomplish the task using a reasonable about of time and
effort? Users were asked to identify specific tasks around the
parameters of these attributes.
A. Usability
When identifying the location of some requirements that
should be prominently listed in the syllabus, users that were
tested described the documents usability as not being effective
or efficient. Users described the document as very unorganized
and not too the point (i.e. it took a while to locate what was
being looked for). Syllabus header, contact information, and
points within the professionalism section are repeated more
than once in the document. Users did not find these repeated
items effective or necessary.
B. Accessibility
Does the layout facilitate a users ability to use the
document? Users were asked a series of questions to identify
whether or not content within the text was distinguishable,
organized, readable, and predictable. There is one chart/visual
represented in the syllabus but it is not easily readable. The
document does not support short paragraphs or bulleted lists to
present important information. Key terms or unusual words are
not highlighted within the text. Sometimes the document does
not have clear and descriptive headings; Professionalism and
Other Required Courses are misleading.
III.

RECOMMENDATIONS
A collection of recommendations were noted from the notes
of testing on the WRTG 3306 syllabus. A user should be able to

!!
!

easily understand what this document is and how to use it

without expanding any effort thinking about it. These are the
keys to successful usability attributes of useful, learnable,
effective, and efficient [1].
Cut down content. The syllabus itself is 6 pages long,
and projects are introduced individually on 1-2 pages as
well. As discussed in testing results, there are a few
elements repeated frequently throughout the document.
If these elements are necessary for the student to grasp
or understand, consider revisiting other options for text
formatting (bold or larger font size) to emphasize the
importance of the information.
Add more visuals. The visual represented under the
heading coursework is useful, but not completely
effective or efficient. All projects, their short
descriptions, and tentative project deadlines are
squished into a tiny box. Most often, this content is
what users are looking for in the course syllabus.
University policies create unnecessary pages. This
recommendation is discussed more thoroughly in the
next section, document formatting.
Shorten paragraphs. Get rid of the words no one is
going to read. This will reduce the noise level of the
page, make useful content more prominent, make the
pages shorter, and allow users to see more of each page
at a glance without reading [1].
Remove the header. Course name, semester, CRN,
instructors name, and contact info are displayed
prominently on the first page. Users found it
unnecessary and distracting to have this information
also represented in a header on every page.
Create better headings. Headings tell you what
information is included and how to use the document. If
you choose to browse the document, you make your
way by using a hierarchy, using clear and descriptive
signs to guide [1]. Users found Professionalism and
Other Required Courses as misleading. Coursework and
Assessment also brought on confusion as users were
unable to easily locate grading policies and procedures.
Provide a full calendar. Project descriptions and their
schedule are currently separate from the syllabus. This
creates usability issues as well. There are too many
documents, too many pages. As a result, deadlines get
lost, forgotten, or missed. To achieve effective

participation in all coursework, consider providing the

user with a full schedule of all assignments (reading
notes, project deadlines, peer reviews) with effective
and efficient organization.
IV.

DOCUMENT FORMATTING
Not only are there suggestions for improvement of text and
page design, but there are also ideas for improving the medium
of presentation through print and digital experience.
A. Print
As discussed in recommendations, many of the suggestions
for text could be applied to the documents print formatting. Dr
Kyle Mattson, of WRTG 3306, prefers to have a document that
is printable, the syllabus being a representative and example of
a workplace document. To move forward with effective print
design, consider more elements of organization with headings,
tables, and lists.
B. Digital
Currently, WRTG 3306 uses Blackboard to upload and
share all course documents. This interface allows the professor
to send out email broadcasts and collectively share content. It
is an interface provided by the university.
A new medium of presentation, class website or blog,
would offer a professor more opportunities to customize the
appearance of the syllabus. This interface could include

individual tabs for projects, readings assignments, and

documents.
As stated in the University of Central Arkansas Course
Syllabus Requirements, there are requirements for all course
syllabi [2]. Material that must be present in all course syllabi
include university policies. The university policies add 2-3
pages to the course document, pages the users have described
as unnecessary. In digital format, these policies could be
presented through URLs or downloadable PDFs.
Visiting a medium outside of print formatting would
support the courses approach to rhetorical writing in digital
media. If students are creating effective digital texts, shouldnt
the course materials also reflect that expectation?
CONCLUSION
Through recommendations of suggested improvement in
text, page design, and medium of the documents presentation,
this short report acknowledged the usability and accessibility
of the WRTG 3306 syllabus and project assignments.
REFERENCES
1.
2.

Krug, Steve. Don't Make Me Think, Revisited: A Common Sense

Approach to Web Usability.
"Syllabus Requirements." Academic Affairs. University of Central
Arkansas, n.d. Web. 5 Oct. 2014. <http://uca.edu/academicaffairs/
academic-information/>.