advertisement

Website User Friendliness Q1 Online Shopping Report

33 %
67 %
advertisement
Information about Website User Friendliness Q1 Online Shopping Report
Business & Mgmt

Published on February 24, 2009

Author: JuxtConsult

Source: slideshare.net

Description

The Website User Friendliness Online Shopping Report studies, interprets, evaluates, measures and reports the ‘user-friendliness’ of a website taking into account both in its look factors as well as its usability factors. The study helps the online players measure, quantify and benchmark the ‘user friendliness’ and ‘usage satisfaction’ of their website vis-à-vis the key competing websites across six generic portals. The study is done among top five shopping websites .
advertisement

Website User Friendliness Study

Online Shopping Website User Friendliness Study Online Shopping Report Jan-Mar ‘08

Website User Friendliness Study © copyright JuxtConsult

Online Shopping

Website User Friendliness Study Table of content Introduction ................................................................... 1 Methodology .................................................................. 2 Category Websites Tested .................................................10 Findings: Website User Friendliness Aggregate Scores – Overall ................12 Website User Friendliness Sub Parameter Scores - Overall...........13 Website User Friendliness Perceptual Map – Overall ..................16 Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters - Overall..............17 Rating Dispersions by Individual Attributes .............................19 Relative Importance of the Individual Criteria .........................30 Website User Friendliness Aggregate Scores - Website Users Only..31 Website User Friendliness Sub Parameter Scores - Website Users Only ...........................................................................32 Website User Friendliness Perceptual Map – Website Users Only....35 Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters - Website Users Only .................................................................................35 Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters - Website Users Only .................................................................................36 Rating Dispersions by Individual Attributes .............................38 Relative Importance of the Individual Criteria .........................55 Website User Friendliness Aggregate Scores - Website Non Users Only ...........................................................................56 Website User Friendliness Sub Parameter Scores - Website Non Users Only ...........................................................................57 Website User Friendliness Perceptual Map – Website Non Users Only .................................................................................59 Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters - Website Non Users Only ...........................................................................60 Rating Dispersions by Individual Attributes .............................61 Relative Importance of the Individual Criteria .........................72 Respondent ProfileDemographic Profile .................................73 Demographic Profile ........................................................74 Socio Economic Profile .....................................................78 Economic Profile ............................................................80 Net Usage Dynamics ........................................................82 WUF Index Ranking of Websites by User Segments ....................83 Sample Sizes .................................................................90

Online Shopping

Website User Friendliness Study Introduction Internet users rarely bother to complain about the poor quality or experience of a website. They just ‘switch’ to an alternative website. Yet most websites do little to track their user’s experience and perceptions about their websites on various critical parameters - be it the appeal of their user interface, ease of navigation and task completion, or the satisfaction derived from the actual usage experience. To precisely fill this gap JuxtConsult has introduced its ‘Website User Friendliness’ syndicated study. The study helps the online players measure, quantify and benchmark the ‘user friendliness’ and ‘usage satisfaction’ of their website vis-à-vis the key competing websites. The study is unique in its methodology as it takes the concept of ‘usability testing’ of a website online – it makes the users use a website and give the feedback on its usage experience in ‘live’ online environment. The user feedback is real time and based on actual usage of the website. In order to define and measure what really makes a website ‘user- friendly’, we looked at a simple and interesting parallel of what makes a person seem ‘friendly’. In human interaction, we identify someone as ‘friendly’ only when that person firstly ‘looks’ friendly to us and then ‘behaves’ friendly towards us. When it comes to our interaction with websites, our expectations and behaviors are no different. We identify or treat a website as ‘friendly’ only when it both looks pleasant and acceptable to us and is easy and convenient to use. That is, A User friendly website Looks friendly + Behaves friendly To ‘look’ friendly, a website must be identifiable, appealing, relevant, and pleasant in its appearance. On the other hand, to ‘behave’ friendly a website must enable the task a user has come to perform on the website in a convenient, smooth, orderly and satisfactory manner. Accordingly, this study interprets, evaluates, measures and reports the ‘user-friendliness’ of a website taking into account both in its look factors as well as its usability factors. 1

Online Shopping Methodology The JuxtConsult ‘Website User Friendliness’ Model Any comprehensive measure of ‘user-friendliness’ of a website must cover all key aspects that determine its ‘user-interface’ (looking friendly) as well as its ‘usage experience’ (behaving friendly). At a broad level, we at JuxtConsult defined these key aspects as follows: User Interface (look friendly) Usage Experience (behave friendly) Visually appealing Easy to access Distinctly identifiable Easy to locate relevant information Organized interface Easy to comprehend information Relevant content Easy to navigate and conduct a task Better quality of content Offer relevant and adequate solutions Facilitate satisfactory completion of task Consistent in performance Highly interactive and responsive In order to identify the precise and measurable attributes under each of these aspects, we carefully mapped the typical flow of the ‘interaction’ a user usually has with a website. In doing so we identified 6 typical stages of interaction a user has with a website (and therefore, 6 critical aspects that need to be measured to arrive at any comprehensive evaluation of ‘user-friendliness’ of a website): The user accesses the website (Accessibility) Finds the website appealing (Likeability) Finds the content relevant (Relatability) Is able to smoothly navigate on the website (Navigability) Finds the website responsive when needs assistance/help (Interactivity) Is able to complete the task/purpose for which he/she visited the website in the first place (Task accomplishment) Digging a little deeper in these 6 critical areas we identified 19 individual ‘generic’ parameters that required to be measured to make the model a fairly comprehensive one. The parameters related to ‘e- commerce’ or ‘transactions’ were not included in the ‘generic model’ 2

Website User Friendliness Study per se (to retain its universality), but have been considered separately as the ‘seventh’ critical aspect of measuring user friendliness of the ‘e- commerce’ websites. The following graphics outline the precise ‘website user friendliness’ measuring and rating schema based on the 19 ‘generic’ parameters used in the JuxtConsult model and in bringing out these reports: © The Model The Website – User The User Friendliness Criteria The Measures Interaction Points Browser compatibility Accessibility Download time Is the website easy to access? Technical Distinctiveness (branding) Layout and interface Aesthetics (color, text, graphics) Likeability Does it look appealing? Identification with the website Design Ease of comprehension Relevance/Adequacy of content Relatability Is the content relevant and distinct? Content distinctiveness (quality) Content Ease of locating task info Ease of conducting the tasks Navigability Is it easy to use? Inter-page consistency in design Task Flow and flow Navigational cues and helps Error rate / error recovery Interactivity Is it able to assist the user when needed? Contacability (and responsiveness) Assistance Sense of security in using the site Level of task completion (success) Task Accomplishment Timeliness of task completion Is the user able to accomplish the task? Solution Adequacy of task compl. (satisfaction) 3

Online Shopping © User Friendliness Measuring Schema 3. Distinctive in identity (branding) 4. Presentation of content (layout) 10. Ease of locating task info 5. Aesthetics (color, text, graphics) 11. Ease of conducting the task 6. User identification with the site 12. Navigation flow between pages 16. Timeliness of task completion 7. Ease of comprehension 13. Navigational cues and helps 17. Quality of usage experience 1. Browser Compatibility 8. Relevance of content 14. Error recovery 18. Perceived sense of security in usage 2. Download Time 9. Relative quality of content 15. Customer responsiveness 19. Brand preference creation Site is likeable and relevant Site is easily accessible Site is easy to use with hassle-free navigation Site delivers task accomplishment Design Appeal Ease of Access Ease of Usage Usage Satisfaction Appeal Index Accessibility Index Navigability Index Satisfaction Index User Friendly Experience User Friendly Interface User Friendly Interface Index (UFEX) User Friendly Experience Index (UZEX) Website User Friendliness Category Level Website User Friendliness Index (WUF) 4

Website User Friendliness Study As shown in the schema, the 19 individual ‘generic’ parameters that determine the overall user friendliness of a website have been clustered together into 4 ‘sub index’ measuring the ‘accessibility’, ‘appeal’, ‘navigability’ and ‘usage satisfaction’ index of a website. Hereafter these are combined to arrive at two higher level ‘user interface’ and ‘user experience’ Index and eventually into the overall ‘website user friendliness’ (WUF) index of a website. The model thereby allows various websites in a category/vertical to be evaluated, compared, benchmarked and ranked on various aspects of their ‘user-friendliness’ in an objective manner (based on the index score derived from actual ‘ratings’ of these websites by their existing and potential users). Additional ‘Shopping Index’ for E-Commerce Category Websites For websites which come under the e-commerce categories, offering online transactions, an additional ‘seventh’ group of user friendliness parameters have been added to the model. This set of critical measure has been classified as ‘Shopping Friendliness Index’ of the e-commerce websites. The shopping friendliness of an e-commerce website has been measured as a cumulative effect of the usage experience it delivers while a user ‘transacts’ on the website, takes ‘delivery’ of the product/service bought online and the satisfaction with the ‘refund’ in case a cancellation is made and refund sought. The following graphics outline the additional ‘shopping user friendliness’ index measuring and rating schema used in the JuxtConsult model for the e-commerce category websites: 5

Online Shopping © Shopping Friendliness Measuring Schema 1. Successful transaction completion 2. Ease of transacting 9. Display/ease of locating refund policy 3. Comprehension of charges and prices 10. Comprehension of refund policy 4. Adequacy of payment options 7. Timeliness of product/service delivery 11. Timeliness of refunds 5. Sense of security while transacting 8. Appropriateness of delivery as per 12. Adequacy of refund amount 6. Promptness of transaction confirmation specification Transacting on the site is easy, Delivery of product/service is Refund process is well understood smooth and secure efficient and adequate and smooth Delivery Experience Transaction Experience Refund Experience Delivery Friendliness Index Transaction Friendliness Index Refund Friendliness Index Shopping Friendliness Index Category Level Shopping User Friendliness Index (SUF) As shown in the schema, the 12 individual parameters that determine the overall ‘shopping friendliness’ of an e-commerce website have been clustered together into 3 ‘sub index’ measuring the ‘transaction’, ‘delivery’ and ‘refund’ usage experience of a website. Hereafter, these three sub indices are combined to arrive at the overall ‘shopping user friendliness’ (SUF) index of an e-commerce website. In case of e-commerce websites, the overall ‘website user friendliness’ (WUF) index is calculated and reported after incorporating the ‘shopping user friendliness’ (SUF) index parameters as well. That is, the WUF index of the e-commerce websites is calculated based on 31 parameters and not just on 19 ‘generic’ parameters. 6

Website User Friendliness Study The online survey To test and get the e-commerce websites rated on these 19 generic parameters and the 12 additional e-commerce related parameters by their existing and potential users, an online survey methodology based on ‘live’ usage and rating of websites was used. The online survey was conducted using JuxtConsult’s own online user panel (www.getcounted.net) as well as using a ‘survey ad campaign’ on Google Ad Sense (contextual search ads). The online survey was conducted using an e-questionnaire segmented into three sections. The first section had a ‘screener questionnaire’ that was used to identify the ‘users’ of an online category, and of the various websites being tested within that category. Then the identified ‘users’ and ‘non-users’ (taken as potential users) of the various websites were taken to the respective websites for ‘live’ usage. This was done by providing the ‘URL links’ of these websites within the questionnaires. Half the respondents (of both existing and potential users of the website) were asked to surf the ‘homepage’ and the other half to ‘complete a simple assigned task’ on the website1. This split was done to keep the length of the ‘live’ usage sessions within reasonable time limit, so that including the feedback-giving time (questionnaire filling), the whole session does not become too long for the respondent. In this way we tried to minimize the impact of any possible ‘response fatigue’ in the survey to the extent it is possible to do so in such surveys. To ensure a statistically healthy representation and calculation of the ratings (and indices) for each website in the study, a minimum sample quota of 120 ‘reported response’ per website was fixed. This is the sample size on which the user friendliness index calculations are based. However, because of a break up of ‘live’ usage between the ‘only homepage surfing’ and ‘only an assigned task completion’, each respondent gave only ‘part’ rating of the website. This meant that in practice we would have to take 2 respondents (one of homepage and one of task) to compete one rating of a website as per the JuxtConsult Model. Accordingly, in sample collection, the quota per website was doubled to 240 respondents per website. The eventual break up of the samples as ‘set’ per website and between its existing users and non- users (potential users) was as follows: 1 The tasks that the respondents of the Shopping category were asked to perform were – 1) search for a mobile phone that you intend to buy in future, 2) search for a pearl neklace, and 3) search for apparel of your choice. 7

Online Shopping Table 1: Sample size by websites Sample Base Users Non-users Total Indiaplaza Home page 60 60 120 Task 60 60 120 Indiatimes Home page 60 60 120 Shopping Task 60 60 120 Rediff Shopping Home page 60 60 120 Task 60 60 120 Futurebazaar Home page 60 60 120 Task 60 60 120 Ebay Home page 60 60 120 Task 60 60 120 Total Category 600 600 1,200 Further to ensure that we report only those responses that are based on actual, and to an extent, sincere ‘live’ usage of the website, firstly the time taken to check/use the website was measured (from the time of clicking the URL link on the questionnaire to the time of answering the first feedback question). Thereafter, we decided to exclude from reporting those respondents who took less than 3 minutes to ‘surf the homepage’ and less than 5 minutes to ‘complete the assigned task’ on the website. For the 19 individual ‘generic’ parameters, except for browser compatibility, the ratings for the rest 18 parameters were taken directly from the respondents. For rating on browser compatibility, websites were tested internally at JuxtConsult by its own technical team on various popular internet browsers and then rated accordingly. The browsers on which the website opening was tested were – Internet Explorer, Firefox, Netscape and Opera. For the rest 18 ‘generic’ parameters where users’ gave the ratings directly, all ratings were taken on a ‘5 point qualitative scale’. For each parameter, respondents were asked to choose one of the five statements given as ‘options’. The five statements ranged from the most positive statement about that attribute on that website to the most negative statement about that attribute on that website. Of these 18 parameters, only one parameter’s response was taken from the respondents ‘past usage’ of the website (therefore asked only to the ‘users’). This parameter was customer responsiveness (measured as timeliness and appropriates of response to any query they may have made on the website in the past). On all the other 17 parameters the respondents were asked to give their ratings basis the ‘live’ usage experience and in real time. On the other hand, for all the 12 individual parameters on the ‘shopping friendliness’ index the feedback was taken from the respondents based on their ‘past usage’ of the website (therefore asked only to the ‘users’). This was done largely because it was completely impractical to ask the respondents to transact online ‘live’, nor was it possible to capture the ‘delivery’ and ‘refund’ feedback from them on 8

Website User Friendliness Study the ‘live’ basis. For these 12 ‘shopping related’ parameters again users’ gave the ratings directly, and all ratings were taken on a ‘5 point qualitative scale’. Eventually, all Index numbers (whether WUF or SUF) were calculated and derived from the individual parameter level rating, with each level index having its own calculated scale (depending on the number of individual parameters included under that index). The sample bases of various websites were equalized while calculating their website user friendliness and shopping friendliness index to ensure that there are no sample size biases in the reported findings. In the online questionnaires, a response format of ‘clicking’ a single or multiple options among the various given options was used for most questions. Wherever relevant, it was also possible for a respondent to answer ‘none’, ‘not applicable’ or ‘any other’. To enlist complete and sincere responses, an incentive of a significant cash prize was also announced to be given to one randomly selected respondent at the end of the survey. The questionnaire were pre-tested and timed to take approximately 15- 20 minutes for a respondent to complete depending on the speed of comprehension and answering of the questions. The questionnaire was structured and designed to reduce the level of ‘respondent fatigue’ to an extent that was practically possible. Over 1,382 unduplicated and clean responses were collected from the online survey for the 5 websites being tested under the Online Shopping category (in about 3 weeks of time for which the survey was ‘live’ online). After further cleaning of the data for the actual time spent on surfing the homepage/completing the task on the websites 1,208 responses were finally found to be valid and used in creating this report. The valid and usable data was then made representative of the entire online urban Indian population by using appropriate 'demographic multipliers’ using highly authentic Govt. of India population statistics. The weights used were derived from the JuxtConsult’s India Online 2007 study and are based on 3 highly relevant demographic parameters – SEC, town class and region. The end result is that the findings of this report possibly represent the ‘voice’ of over 24 million online urban Indians. Further, the findings represent and effectively cover internet users from all SEC groups, all age groups above 12 years, all income groups and all types of town classes (right down to 20,000 population size level towns)2 . 2 For more details on the demographic and socio-economic profile of the respondents see the ‘Respondent Profile’ section of this report. 9

Online Shopping Category Websites Tested Indiaplaza (www.indiaplaza.com) Indiatimes Shopping (www.shopping.indiatimes.com) Rediff Shopping (www.shopping.rediff.com) Futurebazaar (www.futurebazaar.com) eBay (www.ebay.co.in) 10

Website User Friendliness Study Findings 11

Online Shopping Website User Friendliness Aggregate Scores – Overall Table 2: Website user friendliness index (WUF) - overall Brands WUF Index Relative Index Ebay 10.9 100% Rediff Shopping 9.8 90% Indiatimes Shopping 9.0 83% Futurebazaar 8.3 76% Indiaplaza 8.3 76% Base: 1,208 Table 3: Friendly interface index (UFEX) - overall Brands UFEX Index Relative Index Ebay 5.1 100% Rediff Shopping 4.5 88% Indiatimes Shopping 4.2 82% Indiaplaza 3.9 77% Futurebazaar 3.9 76% Base: 1,208 Table 4: User friendly usage experience index (UZEX) - overall Brands UZEX Index Relative Index Ebay 3.7 100% Rediff Shopping 3.3 90% Indiatimes Shopping 3.2 86% Futurebazaar 3.1 83% Indiaplaza 2.9 78% Base: 1,208 12

Website User Friendliness Study Website User Friendliness Sub Parameter Scores - Overall Table 5: Accessibility index (overall) Brands Accessibility Index Relative Index Ebay 2.8 100% Rediff Shopping 2.4 88% Indiatimes Shopping 2.3 82% Indiaplaza 2.2 79% Futurebazaar 2.1 76% Base: 1,208 Table 6: Appeal index (overall) Brands Appeal Index Relative Index Ebay 2.3 100% Rediff Shopping 2.1 88% Indiatimes Shopping 1.9 81% Futurebazaar 1.8 77% Indiaplaza 1.8 76% Base: 1,208 Table 7: Navigability index (overall) Brands Navigability Index Relative Index Ebay 1.3 100% Futurebazaar 1.2 95% Rediff Shopping 1.2 92% Indiatimes Shopping 1.2 89% Indiaplaza 1.0 76% Base: 1,208 13

Online Shopping Table 8: Shopping friendliness index (overall) Brands SUF Index Relative Index Ebay 2.3 100% Indiaplaza 2.3 98% Rediff Shopping 2.1 90% Futurebazaar 1.7 72% Indiatimes Shopping 1.2 53% Base: 341 Table 9: Usage satisfaction index (overall) Brands Satisfaction Index Relative Index Ebay 2.4 100% Rediff Shopping 2.1 89% Indiatimes Shopping 2.0 84% Indiaplaza 1.9 80% Futurebazaar 1.8 76% Base: 1,208 Table 10: Transaction friendliness index (overall) Brands Transaction Index Relative Index Indiaplaza 0.8 100% Ebay 0.8 99% Rediff Shopping 0.7 93% Futurebazaar 0.6 72% Indiatimes Shopping 0.4 53% Base: 341 14

Website User Friendliness Study Table 11: Delivery experience index (overall) Brands Delivery Index Relative Index Ebay 0.8 100% Indiaplaza 0.8 95% Rediff Shopping 0.7 85% Futurebazaar 0.6 71% Indiatimes Shopping 0.4 52% Base: 341 Table 12: Refund experience index (overall) Brands Refund Index Relative Index Ebay 0.8 100% Indiaplaza 0.8 99% Rediff Shopping 0.7 92% Futurebazaar 0.6 72% Indiatimes Shopping 0.4 53% Base: 341 15

Online Shopping Website User Friendliness Perceptual Map – Overall Ease of Usage .3 Futurebazaar .2 .1 Transaction Experience Refund Experience Delivery Experience 0.0 Rediff Shopping Indiaplaza Design Appeal Easy of Access -.1 Attribute Usage Satisfaction Ebay Indiatimes Shopping -.2 -.6 -.4 -.2 -.0 .2 .4 .6 Brand 16

Website User Friendliness Study Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters - Overall Table 13: Summary table - overall Indiatimes Rediff Ratings (on a 5 point qualitative scale) Indiaplaza Shopping Shopping Futurebazaar Ebay Browser Compatibility 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Download Time 4.2 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.6 Accessibility Index 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.1 2.8 Distinctive in identity (branding) 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.5 Presentation layout of the home page 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.5 Presentation layout of the task page 3.9 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.3 Aesthetics of text on the homepage 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.8 Aesthetics of graphics on the homepage 4.3 3.8 4.1 4.4 4.3 User identification with the site 3.9 3.9 4.0 3.9 4.3 Ease of comprehension 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.5 Relevance of content 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.1 4.4 Relative quality of content 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Appeal Index 1.8 1.9 2.1 1.8 2.3 Ease of locating task info 4.1 4.6 4.4 4.3 4.3 Ease of conducting the task 3.9 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.2 Navigation flow between pages 3.9 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.2 Navigational cues and helps 2.8 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.4 Error recovery 4.6 4.6 4.3 4.7 4.6 Appropriateness of response to queries 4.7 4.4 4.7 4.6 4.7 Timeliness of response to queries 4.5 4.3 4.4 4.6 4.2 Satisfaction with query resolution 4.6 4.3 4.5 4.5 4.2 Navigability Index 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 Timeliness of task completion 3.7 4.0 4.2 4.1 3.9 Quality of the usage experience 3.7 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.2 Perceived sense of security during usage 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 Creation of brand preference 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.3 Satisfaction Index 1.9 2.0 2.1 1.8 2.4 Successful transaction completion 4.3 4.3 4.0 4.4 3.5 Ease of transacting 4.5 4.3 4.5 4.5 4.4 Comprehension of charges and prices 4.3 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.8 Adequacy of payment options 4.4 4.0 4.6 4.7 4.5 Sense pf security while transacting 4.3 4.3 4.1 4.3 4.4 Promptness of transaction confirmation 4.3 4.4 4.1 4.6 4.5 Transaction Experience 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.7 17

Online Shopping Indiatimes Rediff Ratings (on a 5 point qualitative scale) Indiaplaza Futurebazaar Ebay Shopping Shopping Timeliness of product/service delivery 3.9 4.1 4.0 4.2 4.3 Appropriateness of delivery as per 4.6 4.5 3.9 4.8 4.6 specification Delivery Experience 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.8 Display/ease of locating refund policy 3.8 4.3 3.8 4.5 4.4 Comprehension of refund policy 4.3 4.4 3.9 4.2 4.4 Timeliness of refunds 4.0 4.3 2.5 4.7 4.7 Adequacy of refund amount 4.1 4.3 2.3 4.6 4.7 Refund Friendliness Index 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.8 UFEX Index 3.9 4.2 4.5 3.9 5.1 UZEX Index 2.9 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.7 Shopping Index 2.3 1.2 2.1 1.7 2.3 WUF Index 8.3 9.0 9.8 8.3 10.9 Base: 1,208 18

Website User Friendliness Study Rating Dispersions by Individual Attributes Chart 1: Download time (overall) JFM '08 0% 1% 0% 1% 100% 4% Extremely slow 3% 0% 1% 3% 6% 1% 6% 7% 12% 7% 14% 14% 28% Fairly slow 75% 31% 56% Neither fast nor slow 50% 77% 75% 65% Reasonably fast 55% 25% 35% Adequately fast 0% Indiaplaza Indiatimes Rediff Futurebazaar Ebay Shopping Shopping Base: 601 Chart 2: Distinctive in identity (overall) JFM '08 1% 3% 3% Didn't notice the logo 100% 4% 6% 2% 4% at all'. 5% 2% 15% 8% 8% 15% 14% I had to search for the 75% 13% logo 24% 32% 42% 27% 17% I spotted it but only after a while 50% It was prominent and I spotted it easily 61% 52% 51% 51% 25% 43% . It was the first thing that I noticed on the page 0% Indiaplaza Indiatimes Rediff Futurebazaar Ebay Shopping Shopping Base: 601 19

Online Shopping Chart 3: Presentation of the home page (overall) JFM '08 0% 1% 0% 1% 100% 0% 0% Extremely haphazard 8% 1% 3% 8% and badly presented 9% 0% 24% 16% 17% 27% Fairly disorganized and 75% ill presented 34% 52% 39% 39% Just average in 50% organization and presentation 64% Fairly well organized 25% and presented 46% 38% 37% 37% Extremely well organized and neatly 0% presented Indiaplaza Indiatimes Rediff Futurebazaar Ebay Shopping Shopping Base: 601 Chart 4: Presentation of the task page (overall) JFM '08 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Extremely untidy and 4% 100% 0% 1% 2% cluttered 6% 9% 12% 6% 18% Fairly untidy 24% 31% 75% 32% 44% 27% Averagely presented 32% 50% Fairly well presented 59% 56% 53% 25% 49% 35% Very well presented 0% Indiaplaza Indiatimes Rediff Futurebazaar Ebay Shopping Shopping Base: 601 20

Website User Friendliness Study Chart 5: Aesthetics of text (overall) JFM '08 7% 100% 2% 4% 5% 8% 14% It has too little content 22% and looks empty 20% 21% 26% 75% It has too much text and looks cluttered 50% 85% 75% 74% 71% 68% 25% It has just the right amount of text and looks fine 0% Indiaplaza Indiatimes Rediff Futurebazaar Ebay Shopping Shopping Base: 601 Chart 6: Aesthetics of graphics (overall) JFM '08 100% 2% 6% 8% 1% 1 9% Neither engage me 25% 21% nor distract me 31% 75% 27% 33% Too many 50% 64% 58% 55% 41% 46% 25% Highly relevant and engaging 0% Indiaplaza Indiatimes Rediff Futurebazaar Ebay Shopping Shopping Base: 601 21

Online Shopping Chart 7: User identification with the site (overall) JFM '08 0% 0% 0% 100% 4% 5% Its just opposite of my 4% 6% 3% 14% 5% style and personality 12% 20% 19% 16% 16% I find it difficult to 75% relate to it 30% I can live with it 34% 41% 46% 50% 48% I can relate to it to some extent 53% 25% 36% 33% 29% It matches my style 26% and personality completely 0% Indiaplaza Indiatimes Rediff Futurebazaar Ebay Shopping Shopping Base: 601 Chart 8: Ease of comprehension (overall) JFM '08 0% 0% 1% 2% 100% 2% Extremely difficult 2% 8% 3% 7% 10% 8% 12% 1% 4% 8% 19% Quite difficult 75% 34% 38% 37% 49% Neither easy nor 50% difficult 70% Reasonably easy 54% 25% 48% 46% 40% Extremely easy 0% Indiaplaza Indiatimes Rediff Futurebazaar Ebay Shopping Shopping Base: 601 22

Website User Friendliness Study Chart 9: Relevance of content (overall) JFM '08 0% 0% 2% 3% 2% 100% 0% 1% 1% 1% 3% 5% Almost irrelevant 1% 1 16% 10% 14% 75% Low relevance 40% 31% 48% 45% 52% Averagely relevant 50% Fairly relevant 52% 52% 25% 40% 39% 33% Highly relevant 0% Indiaplaza Indiatimes Rediff Futurebazaar Ebay Shopping Shopping Base: 601 Chart 10: Relative quality of content (overall) JFM '08 0% 0% 1% 0% 3% Significantly inferior 100% 2% 2% 3% 4% 1% than the other 9% 14% 1% 1 websites 16% 23% Somewhat inferior 75% than the other websites 45% 43% 52% 57% Same as offered by 37% the other websites 50% Somewhat better than the other websites 25% 43% 38% 35% 33% 29% Significantly better than the other websites 0% Indiaplaza Indiatimes Rediff Futurebazaar Ebay Shopping Shopping Base: 601

Add a comment

Related presentations

Canvas Prints at Affordable Prices make you smile.Visit http://www.shopcanvasprint...

30 Días en Bici en Gijón organiza un recorrido por los comercios históricos de la ...

Con el fin de conocer mejor el rol que juega internet en el proceso de compra en E...

With three established projects across the country and seven more in the pipeline,...

Retailing is not a rocket science, neither it's walk-in-the-park. In this presenta...

What is research??

What is research??

April 2, 2014

Explanatory definitions of research in depth...

Related pages

Website User Friendliness Q1 Online Shopping Report Jan ...

Related Books: Website Books ; User Books ; Friendliness Books ; Online Books ; Shopping Books ; Report Books ; 8211 Books ; March Books
Read more

The San Francisco Oracle of the Spiritual Revolution ...

Website User Friendliness Q1 Generic Portal Report Jan - March 2008 made things easier to the human kind. Particularly in today's busy life the importance ...
Read more

11th Website Security Statistics -- Full Report (Q1 2011 ...

Website User Friendliness Q1 Online Shopping Report Website User Friendliness Q1 Job Portal Report Comments. RECOMMENDED. 11th Website Security Statistics ...
Read more

Friendliness | LinkedIn

... and User-Friendliness of TawiPay’s website ... Website User Friendliness Study - Online Shopping ... Website User Friendliness Q1 Travel Report. ...
Read more

Online Shopping Project Report - Documents

... of service we will design the online shopping website, ... User Friendliness Q1 Online Shopping Report ... Online Shopping Project Report.
Read more

Consumer Perception Towards Online Grocery Stores - Scribd

A FINAL PROJECT REPORT ON “CONSUMER PERCEPTION TOWARDS ONLINE GROCERY ... online shopping, more the website user ... Q1 2013 State of the Internet Report.
Read more

Suncor Energy To Sell Non-Core Wildcat Hills Assets In ...

Shopping online 602. ... Suncor Energy plans for Strategic Divestment - Deal Analysis From GlobalData, Buy ... Website User Friendliness Q1 Job Portal ...
Read more

Online Shopping Documentation SRS - Scribd

Online Shopping Documentation SRS. ... Project Report User Account Details BAL : ... Online Shopping Website. Online Shopping.
Read more