The experiment used five versions of an online site made for this research.

Participants

The participants were 51 experienced Web users recruited by Sun (average number of Web experience was two years). Participants ranged in age from 22-69 (average age was 41). So that they can give attention to “normal users,” we excluded the following professions from the research: webmasters, web-site designers, graphic designers, user interface professionals, writers, editors, computer scientists, and computer programmers.

We checked for results of age and Web experience regarding the dependent variables mentioned in the 1st five hypotheses, but we found only differences-none significant that is negligible. Had web sites in our study been more challenging to navigate or had our tasks necessitated use of search engines or any other Web infrastructure, we might have expected significant outcomes of both age and Web experience.

The experiment employed a 5-condition (promotional control, scannable, concise, objective, or combined) between-subjects design. Conditions were balanced for employment and gender status.

Experimental Materials

Called “Travel Nebraska,” the website contained information on Nebraska. We used a travel site because 1) in our earlier qualitative studies, many internet users said travel is regarded as their interests, and 2) travel content lent itself into the different writing styles we wanted to study. We chose Nebraska to minimize the result of prior knowledge on our measures (in recruiting participants, we screened out people who had ever lived in, and even near, Nebraska).

Each version of the Travel Nebraska site consisted of seven pages, and all versions used the same hypertext structure. So that participants would focus on text rather than be distracted, we used modest hypertext (with no links outside of the site) and included only three photos and one illustration. There clearly was no animation. Topics within the site were Nebraska’s history, geography, population, places of interest, and economy. The Appendix for this paper shows parts of a sample page from each condition.

The control form of your website had a promotional type of writing (in other words., “marketese,”), which contained exaggeration, subjective claims, and boasting, instead of just simple facts. Today this style is characteristic of many pages on the Web.

The concise version had a promotional writing style, but its text was much shorter. Certain less-important information was cut, bringing your message count for every page to about 50 % compared to the corresponding page in the control version. A few of the writing in this version was at the inverted style that is pyramid. However, all information users necessary to perform the mandatory tasks was presented in the order that is same all versions associated with the site.

The scannable version also contained marketese, but it was written to encourage scanning, or skimming, for the text for information of interest. This version used lists that are bulleted boldface text to highlight keywords, photo captions, shorter sections of text, and much more headings.

The version that is objective stripped of marketese. It presented information without exaggeration, subjective claims, or boasting.

The combined version had shorter word count, was marked up for scannability, and was stripped of marketese.

The participant signed a videotape consent form, then was told he or she would visit a website, perform tasks, and answer several questions upon arrival at the usability lab.

The experimenter explained that he would observe from the room next door to the lab through the one-way mirror after making sure the participant knew how to use the browser. Through the study, the participant received both printed instructions from a paper packet and verbal instructions from the experimenter.

The participant began buy essay online in the site’s homepage. The very first two tasks were to look for specific facts (located on separate pages when you look at the site), without the need for a search tool or perhaps the “Find” command. The participant then answered Part 1 of a brief questionnaire. Next was a judgment task (suggested by Spool et al. 1997) where the participant first needed to find information that is relevant then make a judgment about this. This task was followed by Part 2 of the questionnaire.

Next, the participant was instructed to pay ten full minutes learning whenever possible through the pages into the website, when preparing for a short exam. Finally, the participant was asked to attract written down the structure associated with the website, to the best of his / her recollection.

After completing the research, each participant was told information about the analysis and received a present.

Task time was the true number of seconds it took users to find answers for the two search tasks and one judgment task.

The two search tasks were to answer: “about what date did Nebraska become a continuing state?” and “Which Nebraska city may be the 7th largest, when it comes to population?” The questions when it comes to judgment task were: “In your opinion, which tourist attraction is the right one to consult with? Why do you imagine so?”

Task errors was a share score based on the amount of incorrect answers users gave into the two search tasks.

Memory comprised two measures through the exam: recall and recognition. Recognition memory was a portion score on the basis of the quantity of correct answers minus the number of incorrect answers to 5 questions that are multiple-choice. For example, one of many questions read: “Which is Nebraska’s largest ethnic group? a) English b) Swedes c) Germans d) Irish.”

Recall memory was a share score based on the wide range of places of interest correctly recalled minus the number incorrectly recalled. The question was: “Do you remember any true names of places of interest mentioned in the website? Please use the space below to list most of the ones you remember.”

Time to recall site structure was the true number of seconds it took users to attract a sitemap.

A measure that is related sitemap accuracy, was a portion score in line with the amount of pages (maximum 7) and connections between pages (maximum 9) correctly identified, minus the quantity of pages and connections incorrectly identified.

Subjective satisfaction was determined from participants’ answers to a paper-and-pencil questionnaire. Some questions asked about specific facets of dealing with your website, along with other questions asked for an assessment of how good certain adjectives described the website (anchored by “Describes the site very poorly” to “Describes your website very well”). All questions used 10-point Likert scales.