You are on page 1of 7

Running Head: Usability Evaluation Report 1

Usability Evaluation Report

Sharon Persad (3200004806)

University of the West Indies (Open Campus)

EDID 6508: Developing Instructional Materials

Course Coordinator: Dr. Leroy Hill

Running Head: Usability Evaluation Report 2

Executive Summary

Naji (2016) defines usability testing as “a research method for answering the question: Is this

product easy to learn and use?” Website usability testing therefore seeks to evaluate how

effective, efficient, relevant and appropriate was the website designed for the intended purpose

and target audience by the designer. The purpose of the website being evaluated is to provide a

showcase of course activities and assignments for peers and instructor to peruse. This usability

test will evaluate the impact and effectiveness in meeting the intended purpose of this e-portfolio

for the target audience.


The website which was evaluated is owned by Renaldo Grayson. He is an Instructional

Design student who has used the required Weebly platform to showcase course activities and

assignments for EDID6508: Developing Instructional Materials. This e-portfolio contains an

html webpage; graphic, video and audio activities; collaboration tools; assignments and a group


Evaluation Objectives

The usability test will use a rubric (See Appendix A) adapted from Hill (2018) and the e-

portfolio to:

1. Assess the function and navigation of website

2. Evaluate the appropriate use of content, structure and web design principles

3. Assess accessibility and usability of website

Running Head: Usability Evaluation Report 3

Each criterion in the rubric (See Appendix A) was used to evaluate the website using an

observation checklist and rated according to the rubric scoring guide. The standards set by other

peers’ websites were also used to evaluate whether the e-portfolio met or was above the standard



First Review- The overall look and feel of the website was assessed. Did the website follow a

theme; were the colours, font and graphics appropriate and effective for the target audience?

Second Review- Each page was visited to assess navigation and functionality of links. The

content was identified and reviewed to determine if it unfolded using a logical sequence. Text

content was examined, photo content was observed, audio content was played and video content

was viewed. The appropriateness, relevance, execution of content design was assessed during

this review.

Third Review- Assessment of website accessibility was done during this review. Web pages

were viewed to check for audio options for those who are visually impaired, ALT tags on

images, magnifying capabilities, and links to external elements which can assist with viewing


Final Review- The website was compared to the websites of other peers to determine whether

the e-portfolio met course requirements or was above required standards.

Running Head: Usability Evaluation Report 4


Criteria Rating Points

Content and Layout The site has a clearly stated purpose and
theme, but may have one or two elements
that do not seem to be related to it. The Web 3
pages have an attractive and usable layout.
It is easy to locate all important information.
Navigation Links for navigation are clearly labeled,
consistently placed, allow the reader to
easily move from a page to related pages 4
(forward and back), and take the reader
where she or he expects to go.
Links (Content) Most links point to high quality, up-to date,
credible sites. 2
Background and Colour Colors of background, fonts, unvisited and

visited links do not detract from the content, 3
and are consistent across pages.
Fonts The fonts are consistent, easy to read and
point size varies appropriately for headings 3
and text.
Graphics and Images Graphics are related to the theme/purpose of
the site, are of good quality and enhance
(accessibility) reader interest or understanding.
No images used for navigation have an ALT 2.5
tag that describes the image and where it
links to so people who are visually impaired
can use the Website well.
Copyright Borrowed materials are not properly
documented OR material was borrowed
without permission from a 1
site that requires permission.
Spelling and Grammar There are 1-3 errors in spelling, punctuation
or grammar in the final draft of the Web. 3
Total Score/32 21.5
Total Score/10 6.7
Adapted from Hill (2018). Assignment 3-Multimedia Project 2018
Running Head: Usability Evaluation Report 5


Generally this website met the requirements of the standards set by peers, purpose of website and

suitability for target audience. There are a few recommendations which are as follows:

1. Include all relevant copyright information from all borrowed sources.

2. Insert ALT Tags into images to improve accessibility.

3. Include more external links into the content for users to explore.

4. Include a comment form so that peers can comment and provide feedback.


Hill, L. (2018). Assignment 3 - Multimedia Project 2018 [Class Handout]. Retrieved from

Naji, C. (2016). Enterprise Software: How to Improve Usability. Retrieved from
Running Head: Usability Evaluation Report 6

Appendix A
Running Head: Usability Evaluation Report 7