IXDS 6813 Special Topics Instructor: David E. Meyers Lindsey Wilson College May 13, 2016
22
Lindsey Wilson College Website Redesign Final Project by Anthony Moore and Venus Popplewell 22
Table of Contents Solution Objectives and Thesis Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Rationale and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-3 Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-21 Current Site Review and User Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-7 Surveys and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-13 Current Site Usability Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Competitive Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15-17 Visual Inspiration and Mood Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Personas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19-20 Current Site Outcomes and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
Design and Usability Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22-40 Design: Low-Fidelity Wireframes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22-25 Solution Objectives and Site Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Concept Sketches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Iteration I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24-25 Usability Testing: Low-Fidelity Prototype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26-30 Research Goals and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Defined Task List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Outcomes and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28-30 Design: Low/Medium-Fidelity Wireframes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Usability Testing: Low/Medium Fidelity Prototype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Iteration II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Research Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 Outcomes and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Design: High-Fidelity Wireframes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34-40 Iteration III, Mobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34-35 Iteration III, Desktop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36-38 Usability Testing: High-Fidelity Prototype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 Research Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 Outcomes and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 Next Steps and Going Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44-45
Solution Objectives
Lindsey Wilson College needs a website that better represents
their mission and business model. A redesign of the website for
Lindsey Wilson College (www.lindsey.edu) was proposed by executive
administration two years ago.
Thesis Statement
It is vital for its success, that the
website for Lindsey Wilson College be redesigned to make it more effective as a marketing tool,
allowing for easier navigation, for visitors to quickly locate answers to their questions and improved aesthetics.
1
Introduction Rationale
Digital content has transformed the college search process into a dynamic journey. No longer do
prospective students and parents rely on printed collegiate brochures and postcards to form an
opinion of an institution. Before a human connection is made – students are gathering information
online and comparing one school to another. Often institutions are dismissed that poorly communicate the answers to questions that may help a person to make a choice about college.
Background
The current website was designed in 2008 by
Paskill, Stapleton and Lord – a higher education marketing consulting firm. Continuous revisions
as well as additions to the information architecture has resulted in a website with too much content and complicated interactions that do not clearly
provide solutions. The site is non-responsive and creates a frustrating experience when veiwed
on a mobile device. The outdated visual design does not invite users to learn more about the College and its values-centered mission.
2
While there are many ways for students to become acquainted with Lindsey Wilson College, for some prospective students the website will be the first
Introduction
interaction they have with the institution’s brand and it is here that they will form their first impression of the college.
Data Source: Google Analytics indicates so far this year nearly 100,000 new visitors [1] have visited Lindsey.edu. This indicator underscores the role that our web presence plays in welcoming people to Lindsey Wilson College. The data further
indicates that on average these new visitors spend just two minutes navigating our site. It is our duty to make their visit pleasant and productive.
A survey conducted by Noel-Levitz (2009) found that 88 percent of college-bound prospective students would be disap-
pointed or possibly eliminate a school from consideration if the institution’s website did not meet their expectations. [2]
For college-bound students, information gaps and poor navigation are among the common criticisms of college websites
that make the selection process for prospective students confusing and unproductive. [3]
In addition, prospective students are often unclear on the language used on websites. In a 2012 article from the Journal of
College Admissions it is noted that websites should use “terminology that is familiar to high school students.” [4] To be effective, college websites must be easily navigable, easy to read and provide accurate content.
33
Research Strategic Goals
Current Site Review and User Testing Competitive Analysis
Mood Board and Color Pallet Personas
4
Research Stakeholders and Strategic Goals
The strategic goals of the web redesign project were
established in discussions with stakeholders within the
College community. Stakeholders were chosen based on knowledge of a specific area or department.
The goals of the web redesign project were determined through these interviews and they are as follows: Goal 1:
Develop a responsive site with intuitive solutions
Goal 2:
Improve information architecture so that the most
Goal 3:
Goal 4:
retrievable on any mobile device.
engaged content according to Google Analytics is provided in an obvious format.
Align with the brand and message of Lindsey
Wilson College by improving visual design using evolving technologies and current trends.
Design a site that represents the mission of the enrollment driven College which can be
incorporated into a media plan along with the Goal 5:
prospective student recruitment strategy.
Provide content that is exclusive for current
students, faculty and staff on an internal hub –
currently called “Blue Raider Portal.” By doing so, this will allow the current site to be a dedicated
Goal 6:
tool for the admissions process.
Centralize content publishing – better managing
time-sensitive information and outdated content. 5
Research Current Site Review and User Testing
Based on the information from our surveys and other
www.lindsey.edu. For some, the institution’s web pres-
impact a visitor’s confidence in the institution are:
Every two minutes of every day a new visitor comes to ence will be their first encounter with the college and the
moment when their opinion of Lindsey Wilson will emerge. Due to this, importance should be placed on ensuring that
• Poor navigation
• Bad or out-dated content
visitors are presented with a pleasant user experience
Further, the data indicates that our visitors are tech savvy
information that brought them to the website in the first
devices to view content on the Internet. Sites that are not
and that they are able to locate the accurate and relevant place.
The purpose of this research is to properly understand the current state of the institution’s web presence
and to make recommendations based on this information.
and an increasingly high number of individuals use mobile optimized for mobile technology are simply destined to
fail. Having a mobile-friendly web presence will further the user experience and position the institution toward meeting these demands.
To educate ourselves on the effectiveness of our web
As a result of information contained in this report
veyed. Out of the six audiences we were only able to ac-
• Improve navigation on our website
presence six target audiences were identified and surquire meaningful data from four of them: • Alumni
• Current Students • Faculty and Staff
• Prospective Students† No data was received from: • Community
• Parents of Prospective Students
6
studies the most cited issues with college websites that
the following recommendations are being made: • Develop better content
• Develop a responsive framework for Lindsey.edu and Blue Raider Portal
• Establish a single devoted resource for publishing web content
Research In regard to Lindsey Wilson’s website it is often noted that our content is outdated and contains too much ver-
biage. Information can be difficult to find leading to a frustrating user experience. These conditions do not present themselves for making a good first impression upon prospective students.
LWC Pageviews Per Day
Additionally, when the current website was developed in 2008, consider-
ation was not given to the changing landscape of technology, particularly mobile technology. The term “responsive web design” wasn’t even used until 2010 when it was coined by Ethan Marcotte. [5] As mobile technology usage increases it becomes progressively critical that our web site be able to adapt to mobile technologies.
According to the Noel-Levitz’s 2014 E-Expectations Report which ana-
lyzed online preferences of college-bound high school seniors and their
parents, more than 70% of students and nearly half of the parents looked at college websites on mobile devices. [6] The report further recom-
mends that institutions develop web pages that adapt to the viewport of the device that the visitor is using to view the content.
7
Research Surveys
To properly understand comments made regarding the institution’s website and to provide a context for making recommendations, surveys were de-
ployed to disclose any issues. Is there a real problem or is it a matter of per-
ception? Also, as an institution it is necessary that we appreciate and educate ourselves regarding the needs of those that choose to visit our website. The surveys were developed to speak to each group of visitors that visit our website. These target audiences consisted of • Alumni
• Current Students • Community
• Faculty and Staff
• Parents of Prospective Students • Prospective Students
There were similar questions on each of the surveys and yet each survey contained question(s) specific to that audience. What we hoped to learn:
• General complaints about our website.
• How engaged with technology are our visitors?
• Reading tendencies of visitors when locating web content.
• What information our visitors use or expect to find when they visit our site? Further, it was important that we profile visitors from each of our target audi-
ences. This will later provide valuable insight when content for a particular target audience is developed. As such, certain questions were added to the surveys in order to assist us.
8
“
”
The LWC website is not user friendly. It frustrates me when I need information, but can't find it. Faculty and Staff Survey Respondent
Analysis
Technology used to Surf the Web
As expected, the use of mobile technology to view content on the web rated high among our target audiences. These results include mobile phones and tablets.
While technology used to view web content is trending towards mobile, the survey results show that the desktop is still relevant among prospective students. While over three-fourths indicated the use of mobile technology, the data shows that over half of those surveyed additionally use a desktop to view web content. Uses Mobile Technology
Research The Value of Content on a College Website
When making a decision about which college to attend, how valuable is the information on a college's web site?
Consistent with the data realized outside of Lindsey Wilson, our target audiences place a high value on the content of college websites when making a decision about which college to attend.
The Value of Content
9
Research Effectively Written Content Each respondent was presented with two sections of similar content and were asked which section read better. One section was pulled from our current website; the other was rewritten with the same message but simplified with the intent of making the content easier to read.
The purpose for this question was to understand comments that had been made about our web content being difficult to read or that it was too wordy. Also, studies indicate that when individuals review content on the web they do not actually read but rather scan the material. In her book Letting Go of the Words: Writing Web Content that Works author Janice Redish states that Most site visitors are very busy people who want to read only as much as they need to satisfy the goal that brought them to your web site. Nielsen and Loranger, Prioritizing Web Usability, 2006: On average, people in their study left the home page within 30 seconds.
We hurry from the home page through pathway (landing, gallery, navigation) pages, reading as little as possible. We jump at the first item in a search results page. Even on an information page, we often skim and scan first to find just what we came for. [7]
“
”
In my opinion it’s somewhat overdone, or there’s a lot of info that is unnecessary to me. Current Student Survey Respondent
Data from Google Analytics for this year tells us that the average time our visitors spend on the Offices
and Services page (the third most visited page on our site) is 29 seconds. Given its purpose to provide
quick access to contact information, this is entirely too long for a visitor to be on this page. From this we can infer that the content and navigation on this page are counterproductive and do not satisfy our visitor’s goals in a timely manner.
10
Research Preferred Method of Obtaining Services As a guide to understand how engaged our visitors are with technology, respondents were asked to identify their preferred method for obtaining services.While most preferred electronic means it is noteworthy to mention that 70% of Prospective Students preferred personal contact (by phone or in person.) This unexpectedly high number may be influenced by the fact that the respondents taking this survey were visiting our campus and having their questions addressed in person by staff. Also, the transition from high school can be an unusually stressful time for college-bound students [11] who may need that personal feedback to reduce anxiety which often is not experienced as quickly when communicating electronically.
Given the rise of social media and texting among teens [12] this data seems counterintuitive and may be subject to further research to understand properly.
11
Research Information Services Used
For current students and faculty and staff it is evident that the website is utilitarian. When asked about Lindsey’s website, these two target audiences listed Blue Raider Portal (BRP) and services accessible through BRP as their most used information or services. Both groups frequent the directory listing, course offerings and the dining center menu.
For alumni and prospective students the needs were decisively different than current students, faculty and staff. Alumni expected to be able to make connections with either instructors or classmates. Campus and athletic events were of importance too.
Current Students Check Grades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24.8% Blackboard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24.8% Portal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23.8% Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12.7% Course Offerings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8.6% Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.9% Directory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.3% Cranmer Dining Center Menu . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.0%
Alumni Alumni and Instructor Connections . . . . . . . . .25.0% Events Calendar and Info . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23.1% Athletic Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19.2% School News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11.5% Alumni News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9.6% Bookstore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.9%
Faculty and Staff Portal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50.5% Starfish/Blackboard/Banner Self Service . . . .24.3% Offices and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20.4% Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13.6% Course Offerings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.7% Cranmer Dining Center Menu . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.9%
Prospective Students Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58.5% Majors and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41.7% Scholarships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33.3% Campus Life and Organizations . . . . . . . . . . .25.0% Classes Offered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8.3%
Over half of prospective students cited cost as the most important information for college websites to provide. This
was followed by relevant information
about the majors/programs offered by the institution. 12
Research Frustrations with LWC’s Website
Almost half of current students stated that they had no frustrations with Lindsey Wilson’s website. This may be due to the utilitarian nature of the website for them and they have “conditioned” themselves to locate the content they need most often.
Current Students Nothing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49.5% Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15.3% Blackboard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.8% Outdated Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.7% Faculty and Staff Nothing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32.7% Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29.7% Outdated Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12.9% Search Feature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.9% Calendar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.0%
When asking prospective students about their frustrations, the question was framed around college websites in general. While their overall frustrations are not specific to Lindsey Wilson we can learn what types of frustrations to avoid. Alumni Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25.7% Outdated Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14.3% Nothing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14.3% Too Wordy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11.4% Bookstore to Purchase Sportswear . . . . . . . . .9.6% Prospective Students Nothing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33.3% Confusing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22.2% Needs to be more Personal . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22.2% Bad Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11.1%
All target audiences cite poor navigation and out-
dated or bad content as a frustration which, as indicated earlier, impacts the decision making process for prospective students.
13
Research Current Site – Usability Testing
In order to determine a baseline for usability, user
testing was conducted on our current website. The
idea here is a typical AB test against our prototype. If usability does not increase with the prototype then
we will know if we need to respond with another iteration for the site.
Participants We selected four users for our usability testing. Our goal was to find individuals that were familiar with the college selection process. Alison Job: Part-time employee and stay-at-home mom. Alison has a child interested in beginning college in the fall. She and her family are currently going through the college selection process and have certain expectations for college websites.
Maggie Job: College counselor and stay-at-home mom. Maggie spends time helping prospective students decide where to attend college and is familiar with information contained on college websites. Eric Job: Chiropractor Eric just recently with through the college selection process for his daughter and is well acquainted with what college websites have to offer.
Byram Job: Counselor and currently enrolled in Doctoral program. Byram is an alum of Lindsey Wilson College and as such brings a different perspective to our usability testing. Byram is acclimated to the college selection process.
14
Methodology
The survey questionnaire usability test was conducted online via Skype. The sessions were recorded (we experi-
enced technical difficulty on one session and was unable to complete the video) to provide playback opportunities and to make analysis easier.
Outcomes
There is too much verbiage on the home page which
makes it difficult to immediately see what the options are: • •
While it was a bit confusing to locate tuition costs
all of the users were able to locate it.
Each user that was asked to locate information
about scholarships failed. The navigation, while
difficult they eventually found the link; however the
pages for scholarships were blank which offered no •
useful information about our scholarships.
Locating a degree, each user clicked on the
Academics link. From there the navigation was confusing and took them too long to locate the proper link. Eventually they all found the
•
Undergraduate Degrees link.
Search feature should provide useful results.
Some of the users discussed their habits of
searching for information as opposed to navigating.
Research Competitive Analysis Competitor Identification
Based on responses to the question asked by
Simpson and Scarborough in the Brand Positioning Study for Lindsey Wilson College
“Which colleges are prospects considering?" These competitors were identified: •
University of Kentucky
•
University of Louisville
• • • • • • •
Western Kentucky University Eastern Kentucky University Morehead State University
Northern Kentucky University Murray State University
Somerset Community College/KCTCS Kentucky Wesleyan
Key Dimensions for Comparison
Based on the responses obtained from the surveys and the usability tests completed by users (prospective students, parents of prospective students, alumni) for the current Lindsey Wilson site (www.lindsey.edu) key dimensions for comparison were developed. The key dimensions were then compared to the websites of the competition identified in the Brand Positioning Study conducted by Simpson and Scarborough. Services like Lindsey Wilson’s Blue Raider Portal, Blackboard, grades, accounts payable and other solutions available to internal audiences could not be compared as a login to the site as a member of the campus community would be required to determine usability. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.
Is the website responsive? Are majors and programs easily discovered from the homepage? Is the cost of tuition easy to determine without personal contact or requested information? Are scholarships and financial aid easily discovered from the homepage? Within a specified major (Business Management) are program requirements easily discovered? Are admission’s requirements easily discovered? Are Campus Life and Student Involvement content easily discovered? Is there an action button for applying in an easily discovered location? Is there a calendar of events? If so, can it be found intuitively from the homepage? If applicable, are athletic events provided on the master calendar? Are news events about the school and alumni relations easily discovered from the homepage? Are branded gear and sportswear purchases provided intuitively? Is a search bar available? Is live chat available? Overall, does the website communicate in a language that is easy to understand? Overall, was the experience intuitive and could enrollment questions be answered based on website content and navigation? 15
Research
Comparison Chart
16
Research
Outcomes of the Competitive Analysis
Competitors are largely enrollment driven colleges like Lindsey Wilson
College. Survey results and the competitive analysis show that visitors
to a college site are looking for meaningful information to help them understand the admissions process and what the college in question will offer academically. They want to be informed before a meeting takes
place with an admissions counselor. Information like tuition costs, scholarships, financial aid, academic offerings need to be front and center. Full disclosure is important to all audiences. It will not eliminate the
need for a face-to-face meeting or campus visit but it may make the visit more productive for the visitor.
All of our competitors offer a responsive web design. Seventy percent of students and nearly half of parents look at websites on mobile devices.
A redesign begins with a comprehensive mobile strategy designed with the College mission in mind.
Language of the site needs to be easy to understand. We must be
aware the language of academia is not always translatable to the target audience.
17
Research Visual Inspiration and Mood Board
The mood board and visual elements are inspired by the current colors and brand of Lindsey Wilson College. As an en-
rollment driven institution, images selected should tell a story about campus life, strength of academic programs and spiritual growth. The mission of LWC is an important part of content development across all digital and traditional media
platforms. The tagline “Every Student, Every Day” is derived from the College mission statement and has been in use for over 15 years. The minimalist UI design genre of flat design will develop an interface with clear solutions to the most desired content. Athletics and “Blue Raider” pride is incorporated into the overall message. The Lindsey Wilson residential campus currently houses more than 1,100 students and approximately 650 of these residents are student-athletes.
18
Research Personas
The Brand Positioning Study conducted by Simpson and Scarborough for Lindsey Wilson in 2012 identified seven target audience groups regularly interacting with Lindsey Wilson College. There are internal and external groups who visit
www.lindsey.edu on a daily basis. Personas were developed which aided designers in anticipating the questions of each user segment.
The audience segments identified are: (Primary Target Audience) Prospective Student Traditional: Age 17-19 Prospective Student Non-Traditional: Age 25-55 Current Student Traditional or Non-Traditional: Any age Parent of Current of Prospective Student Any age, likely 40-65 Alumni Age: 25+ but likely 35+ Community and Friends Residents of the local community, any age Faculty and Staff of LWC Age 25+
19
Research Personas – Continued
20
Research Current Site Research – Outcomes and Recommendations
The research data from the surveys and usability test along with the competitive analysis revealed four key areas of the website that need to be addressed. Improve Navigation. To help our visitors to manage infor-
Responsive Framework for www.lindsey.edu and Blue
ence, navigation on our website should be a priority.
about anywhere. This means that they are using mobile de-
mation more successfully and to improve the user experiInformation architecture [13] for websites helps organiza-
tions to better segment their content by placing it in intuitive and easy-to-get-to locations. A strategy for improving navigation should be developed.
Better Content. “People come for information that answers
a question or helps them complete their task. They want that information to be easy to find, easy to understand, accurate, up to date, and credible.� [14] Developing better content will
Raider Portal. Students today access websites from just vices to review content from college websites. [15] Data
from Google Analytics indicates that almost a third of all visitors to Lindsey.edu do so from a mobile device. The survey data indicates that the number of individuals using mobile
devices to surf the web is much higher. This could be an indication that our site discourages visitors with mobile de-
vices since it is not mobile friendly and the user experience suffers.
assist our visitors in finding the information they have come
Lindsey Wilson should develop a mobile-first strategy that
developed as part of a content strategy that will address this
bile framework. Doing so will create an experience that is
to our site for in the first place. Strict guidelines should be issue.
Further, given the differing needs between our target audi-
places emphasis on developing web content around a moboth rewarding and visually appealing to the end of making a good first impression.
ences, we recommend that we remove content from
Publishing. We should move away from the distributed con-
and staff and situate it on Blue Raider Portal. Doing so will
manage their content. This model was appealing to us be-
www.lindsey.edu that is specific for current students, faculty improve both navigation and content by isolating content
that is applicable to the primary audiences of Lindsey.edu.
tent model that allows individuals from each department to
cause we did not have the dedicated resources responsible for publishing content. New personnel will take on these dedicated responsibilities.
21
Design and Usability Testing Low-Fidelity Wireframes and Prototype
Low-Medium Fidelity Wireframes and Prototype High-Fidelity Wireframes and Prototype
Design: Low-Fidelity Wireframes Solution Objectives
The rationale behind the design of the Lindsey
Wilson College website is driven by the strategy of the institution to convert visitors by making con-
nections or conversions. While the diverse target
audience is considered, the primary concern is the prospective student. Further, it is important to
meet the needs of the primary audience by provid-
ing concise and intuitive content without sacrificing the needs of the other target audiences.
Site Map Figure 1
A site map was developed adhering to the goals and marketing initiatives gathered from stake-
holder interviews and the competitive analysis. Using the results from the survey and usability
tests, key search items were identified and a reorganization of content was diagramed.
22
Figure 1
Design: Low-Fidelity Wireframes Concept Sketches
Based on the site map and solution objectives – a series of design sketches were developed. The sketches mapped out user interactions based on the information and content required by the primary target audience. Homepage Layout – Desktop
Mobile Concept
23
Design: Low-Fidelity Wireframes Iteration I
Usability testing, the competitive analysis and the goals of the stakeholders should inform the solution decisions in every phase of interaction design. The low-fidelity wireframes evolved from the data obtained while conducting the
research and the gained understanding of the needs of the target audience. The following is a justification for each UI decision and its affordance:
Top of the Page • Blue Raider Portal – this link provides access to the institution’s secure intranet. Google Analytics shows that this link is the secondmost clicked link on the homepage. While this link does not provide immediate information for prospective students, the decision was made to continue to make this visible due to its popularity. • Offices and Services – this link will provide contact information to the various campus offices. Currently the third most clicked link on the homepage.
• Search – the results of the usability test of www.lindsey.edu and surveys revealed that we need to showcase our search. Beyond the design placement of this UI, it is critical that the search engine be improved to provide more meaningful results.
Menu The menu system in the design is a pattern affordance of the current site and other websites of higher education. It provides organization of flagship content and offers a logical interaction to visitors going through the college selection process. 24
Homepage • Conversion The UI elements Apply, Visit and Inquire are methods in which visitors can convert to prospects. These UI elements are strategically placed above the fold. • All Majors and Programs Google Analytics reveals that this is the most visited area on the current site.
• Cost and Financial Aid Usability testing on www.lindsey.edu exposed that it is difficult for prospective students to locate tuition cost. However, our survey of prospective students revealed that almost 60% of them listed this as the most important information needed when they visit college websites. We are recommending that Lindsey Wilson provides easier access to this information. As we move forward, it will be our job to manage the information on this page in a way that highlights the affordability of a private college education. • Get Started The UI elements Columbia Campus, Evening Program, Distance Learning should give the prospective student pathways to information that is relevant to their educational needs.
• Upcoming Events This area shows upcoming campus events and should invoke the emotion of a vibrant campus to the visitor.
• Infographics Currently visitors navigate to About LWC to learn about the college through a series of text based pages. This area is intended to give prospective students a quick and meaningful glance at Lindsey Wilson. Interactivity will be introduced so that as the visitor hovers over the image more information will be provided. • Headlines and Calendar This area is of little interest to prospective students; however, it too should invoke the emotion of a campus that is dynamic and full of life. It is intended for other target audiences, such as Alumni, as a way to remain connected with Lindsey Wilson.
Mobile
Iteration I – Wireframes
Design: Low-Fidelity Wireframes
Early Homepage Concept
Iteration Used for Testing
25
Usability Testing: Low-Fidelity Prototype Usability Research Goals
Research Methodology – Iteration I
cated or frustrating about accessing desired infor-
Axure. The prototype was then presented to individuals whose de-
Goal 1: To determine if there is anything compli-
mation. The research should identify usability pain points.
Goal 2: To determine if the user interface is intu-
itive, providing the appropriate affordances and language for ease of use.
Goal 3: To determine if the information architecture is easy to comprehend and prioritized according to the primary user’s needs.
Alison
Eric
Aubrie
Brylie
Prospective Student Parent
26
Prospective Student
An interactive prototype was designed using the online software
mographic and behavior characteristics aligned with the target audiences of Lindsey Wilson College. The research method used was micro-usability testing by observational research. Each user was
given a list of tasks to complete. The task completion process was
recorded with a success or fail rating. The primary goal of recruiting prospective students was strongly considered as key task features
were developed. The purpose of each task was to reveal if the information architecture and UI elements combine to answer the most
asked questions of the primary audience segment – college-bound high school juniors and seniors and their parents.
Prospective Student Parent
Prospective Student
Elizabeth
Prospective Student
Megan
Prospective Student
Katya
Prospective Student
Regina
Prospective Student Parent
Usability Testing: Low-Fidelity Prototype Defined Task List 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
What do you expect the app to do when you click on the icon in the upper right corner of the screen? Click on that icon. Briefly look at the menu options. Do you see anything that you do not understand? Are the links arranged in an intuitive order? Close the menu. Tell me what information or action you expect when you click on each of the following: Apply, Visit, Inquire Click on All Majors and Programs. There is an additional icon that appears next to Majors and Programs. Tell me what you would expect to see if you clicked on it. Under the section Get Started, what do these buttons mean to you? Columbia Campus, Evening Program, Distance Learning On a scale from 0 to 5 tell me how important are the Upcoming Events to you as a prospective student in making a decision about Lindsey Wilson College? If you needed to contact Lindsey Wilson College how would you go about doing that? Would you connect with Lindsey Wilson College (or any other institution) through social media?
Additional questions were asked in the desktop format: 9.
If you wanted to know more about student life and student activities, where would you go? 10. How would you determine costs and tuition fees for attendance at LWC? 11. What would you expect to find if you click on all majors and programs?
27
Usability Testing: Low-Fidelity Prototype Outcomes and Analysis
For the design of the Lindsey Wilson website it
Get Started. In addition to the ways that prospective stu-
tent for recruiting students to Lindsey Wilson
vides ways to Get Started in the process. Three options
is essential we remember the value of its conCollege. The introduction of this report high-
lighted the significance of making a good first impression to prospective students and that our content should cap-
ture this audience and navigate them as quickly as possible to relevant content.
Given our design motivation, we recruited individuals that have either experienced or are going to experience the
college selection process. Some of the individuals were
are provided that should help prospective students quickly navigate to the information relevant to them. • • •
Columbia Campus Evening Program Distance Learning
The Columbia Campus affordance was easily recognized by those familiar with Lindsey Wilson while those that
were not were challenged to understand what this meant.
familiar with Lindsey Wilson while others were not. This
There were no issues with the affordance for Evening
that we used in the prototype is intuitive.
holder we do not think this division of Lindsey Wilson Col-
was intentional to ensure that the language and navigation Conversion. Based on research from the surveys and the institution’s marketing strategy to convert or engage
Program. However, based on discussions with stake-
lege is significant enough to merit its own UI element and section.
prospective students, the real estate of the home page
Distance Learning had mixed results. Our intent for the
student to convert.
Programs and programs offered at our Community Cam-
above the fold provides three avenues for the prospective • • •
Apply Visit Inquire
While each of the users were familiar with what Apply
meant the recognition of Visit and in particular, Inquire was not as easily understood by our users.
Recommendation: Modify the labels of these buttons so 28
dents can convert or become engaged, the design pro-
that they are more intuitive.
content behind this button was to address both Online
puses (extended sites.) The users were not clear as to what this affordance meant to them.
Recommendation: These affordances should be revised
so that prospective students can more easily identify with them. It should be noted that this is a critical area of our
homepage and it will be used to drive prospective students to the content they need to get started with Lindsey Wilson College. As such, this should be carefully reviewed.
Usability Testing: Low-Fidelity Prototype Upcoming Events. On the institution’s current home-
velop this content when working on the Campus Life sec-
upcoming events on campus. These events target spe-
cient enough; however, for prospective students this is a
page, the focal point is an image rotator that highlights
cific audiences (community members, alumni, students
and etc.) Each of the users were asked to rate the value of this image rotator in the context of a prospective stu-
tion of the website. The affordance on the menu is suffi-
valuable resource that aids them in their college selection process.
dent. While this information conveyed a positive message about campus activity the users revealed mixed results as to the importance of this information being placed in such a visible area of the homepage.
Recommendation: Move the rotator down and the info-
graphics up on the homepage. The infographics should provide valuable information to prospective students about the Lindsey Wilson experience.
Contacting Lindsey Wilson College. For some users, finding contact information for Lindsey Wilson College
proved a bit challenging, particularly in the mobile format. Recommendation: Add contact information to the primary
hamburger menu of the mobile site. Leaving this information in the footer is sufficient and offers a pattern affordance to the user as contact information is typically located in the footer of websites.
Other Observations. One theme that came up in con-
versations is profiling more about campus life. It may not be imperative that we load the homepage with campus life content but we should at least take the time to de-
29
Usability Testing : Low-Fidelity Prototype Recommendations for Improvement
The obvious observation that was made during the usabil-
Mobile. For the mobile version, the submenu has been
sign. These affordances were in-line with the culture at
contact information to the menu structure as well, since so
ity test was the affordances that we had chosen for the deLWC but the testing revealed these affordances (or language) needed to change. In the next iteration,
low/medium-fidelity, the design has been adjusted to communicate these affordances and provide clearer recogni-
many users used this option to find the information. The hamburger menu on second level pages has been removed to improve navigation.
tion for our visitors.
For this iteration, more content is being developed. We
Secondly, we wanted a way to provide clear pathways to
want to ensure that we communicate more effectively to
information that our visitors needed. This is difficult to do
without crowding the homepage with links and sections of
information. Most users for the usability tests on www.lindsey.edu revealed that our current homepage was too clut-
tered. Given this we wanted to take a minimalist approach to the design of the homepage weighted towards our primary audience: the prospective student. To help us pro-
vide clearer pathways to information without the clutter on the home page we have implemented a drop-down menu
structure to provide this flexibility. The design of this menu
is such that it offers assorted ways to present content. The sub menu can be thought of a web page within itself that
can have links, pictures, widgets and etc. that we feel are necessary to capture the attention of the target audience in which it is intended.
30
streamlined to make it look less cluttered. We have added
have identified 3 key/problem areas for the design that we our visitors. • Academics • Admissions • Cost and Financial Aid
Design: Low/Medium-Fidelity Wireframe Iteration II
User testing through interactive prototype of the low-fidelity iteration revealed pain points with UI elements and affor-
dance. Language barriers prohibited users in the primary target audience from obtaining the information needed to make
an informed decision about attending Lindsey Wilson. Improvements were applied in the second iteration that addressed the explicit affordance issues that caused confusion with site interaction. Mobile
Desktop
31
Usability Testing: Low/Medium-Fidelity Prototype Research Methodology – Iteration II
A small group of college-bound high school juniors and seniors were asked to participate in a focus group. One parent joined the conversation. The moderator was Venus Pop-
plewell using the exploratory approach to generate conversation among the group of friends. In early discussion
participants revealed information about their demographics and their current college choices. One participant had al-
ready applied and been accepted to attend LWC for the fall
of 2016 semester. Questions were presented about the admissions process and any likes or frustrations that have emerged as the participants move through the college
search journey. Participants discussed how they incorpo-
rate college websites into the decision process and what information is most important to them.
The session ended with each participant completing a micro-usability test of the revised low/medium-fidelity wireframe.
Two of the test users had participated in the user test of the first iteration.
The task list was the same as the list used in the first iteration. The participants were rewarded with pizza and a gas card
provided by Lindsey Wilson College.
32
Usability Testing: Low/Medium-Fidelity Prototype Outcomes and Analysis
The focus group confirmed the goals and solution objectives of the new College website for LWC. Participants discussed at length their desire to have full disclosure on important information like tuition and financial aid. They also talked about how helpful it would be to see more information about degree programs and career
paths. When asked to name three words that described a random grouping of colleges and universities – Lindsey Wilson was included. Words used to describe Lindsey Wilson: small, expensive, close to home and family atmosphere. All as-
serted that campus life was important to them and when exploring a college online they search diligently for photos representing the college experience.
The usability test completed by each participant revealed positive feedback on the revisions made to the second itera-
tion. Affordances were better understood when the explicit nature was defined in the language of the UI element. Examples of changes to explicit affordance: •
“Inquire” changed to “Request Information”
•
“Columbia Campus” changed to “Main Campus”
• • •
“Visit” changed to “Schedule a Visit”
“Distance Learning” divided into two buttons communicating “Extended Campuses” and “Online Programs. “Get Started Now” changed to “Ways to Attend”
Recommendations for Improvement
User testing and focus group discussions provided confidence to move forward with a high-fidelity
prototype based on the current design and information architecture. The design will focus on the visual
elements that support the brand and the mission of the College while continuing to
refine the UI elements and interactions.
33
Design: High-Fidelity Wireframe Iteration III – Mobile
User testing through interactive prototype of the low/medium-fidelity iteration re-
vealed that the alterations made to the
low/medium-fidelity wireframe were positive allowing users to interact intuitively with the website solution.
To view the interactive Axure high-fidelity prototype go to:
http://anthonyamoore.com/finalProject/pro totype/hifi/mobile/iteration2/lindsey_wilson_college.html
34
Design: High-Fidelity Wireframe Iteration III – Mobile
Fully populated are the homepage,
and the landing pages for
admissions and academics.
These pages are high-priority.
Usability testing revealed that academics
is the most visited site on the current
www.lindsey.edu. And admissions and
student recruitment is important to the overall goals and
objectives of the College.
To view the interactive Axure
high-fidelity prototype go to:
http://anthonyamoore.com/finalProject/pro
totype/hifi/mobile/iteration2/lindsey_wilson_college.html
35
Design: High-Fidelity Wireframe Iteration III – Desktop
The design team fully populated the
homepage design for www.lindsey.edu. To view the interactive Axure high-fidelity prototype go to:
http://anthonyamoore.com/finalProject/pro totype/hifi/desktop/iteration2/lindsey_wilson_college.html
36
Design: High-Fidelity Wireframe Iteration III – Desktop
The fully populated landing pages for
admissions and academics with the
same strategic initiatives as the
mobile version.
To view the interactive Axure
high-fidelity prototype go to:
http://anthonyamoore.com/finalProject/pro
totype/hifi/desktop/iteration2/lindsey_wilson_college.html
Landing Page Templates
for Main Menu Landing Pages
37
Design: High-Fidelity Wireframe Iteration III – Desktop
Additionally, the team has provided tier
three
designs for the frequently searched information of “cost and financial aid,” “majors and programs,” and the campus calendar. To view the interactive Axure high-fidelity prototype go to:
http://anthonyamoore.com/finalProject/prototype/hifi/desktop/iteration2/lindsey_wilson_c ollege.html
38
Usability Testing: High-Fidelity Prototype Research Methodology – Iteration III
The research method used in the final phase of user testing was micro-usability testing by observational research. The users
were given the same task list as in previous tests. It was important to our research that we use individuals that participated in the first usability study of www.lindsey.edu. This is a critical indicator to determine if the new design out performs the original design. Out of four original participants we were able to schedule a usability test with two.
Videos from the first usability study were reviewed to see where users had struggled the most and what information was im-
portant to them. In this final usability test we asked the participants to perform the same tasks. The high-fidelity prototype usability test revealed the following:
User 1 – Alison (repeat participant): Alison’s first impression about the new design was that it was “very inviting, the pictures made her feel at home and made her want to learn more about Lindsey Wilson.” She was able to quickly identify the branding.
When asked to repeat the tasks from the initial study, Alison was able to quickly navigate to the information she needed the most. While not all pages were completely populated she did quickly find links to the information.
The affordance of the drop down menu was not obvious to Alison. When she hovered over Academics she knew she would get the drop down but she did not know that she could click on Academics to go to the homepage.
User 2 – Eric (repeat participant): As Eric familiarized himself with the new design he made the statement that "everything I need is right here." Eric recalled the trouble he had previously trying to find information from the perspective of a prospective student. He recognized right away that the three conversion buttons at the top afforded him the opportunity to make a connection with Lindsey Wilson.
Overall Eric "got" the design of the homepage. As he scrolled he expressed his thoughts in a natural progressive order typical of prospective students:
“I can apply, schedule a visit or get more information.” “I know what programs are available to me and how much it’s going to cost.” “I see there are different ways that I can attend.” “I can quickly learn about Lindsey Wilson College through the infographics.”
User 3 – Emmanuel (new participant): Emmanuel is an employee of the college and is very familiar with www.lindsey.edu and some of its challenges. Emmanuel reviewed the design of the new site and found it to be very engaging and easy to navigate. However with his experience as a programmer he pointed out, as did Alison’s usability test, that the user does not know they can click on “Admissions” and go to the Admissions page. Discussion was given about changing the event from a hover to a click event and pointing out more clearly to the user that they can go to the pages represented on the submenu.
39
Usability Testing: High-Fidelity Prototype
Outcomes and Analysis – Iteration III Overall, the testing went favorably. Each participant responded positively to the overall organization of the site and aesthetics.
Our recommendation is to continue the testing and refinement of the drop-down main menu and provide clarity to interaction options and affordances.
Secondly, designers should fully populate the “cost and affordance� feature with meaningful informa-
tion in an understandable information hierarchey. This objective will aid the user in understanding
the full tuition portfolio and will eliminate the long list of numbers and costs.
40
Conclusion
and Next Steps
Conclusion While there are many ways for students to become acquainted with Lindsey Wilson College, for many prospective students and parents the website will be the first interaction they have with the institution’s brand and it is here that they will form their first impression of the college.
Google Analytics indicates for the first five months of 2015 nearly 100,000 new visitors visited www.lindsey.edu. This indicator underscores the role that our web presence plays in welcoming people to Lindsey Wilson College. The data further indicates that on average
these new visitors spend just two minutes navigating our site. This knowledge and the data obtained through surveys and usability testing of the current website revealed significant
problems with information architecture, information hierarchy and user interface design. Further, user testing suggested information relevant to the prospective student decision
process is not prominently featured and is difficult to locate in the hierarchy. The visual design of the current site poorly represents the strength of academics. The vibrant campus
community that exists for students to experience is not represented at all. The quality of a Lindsey Wilson College education is not communicated through the brand currently dis-
played at www.lindsey.edu. When frustrations with usability occurs or information cannot be
discovered – prospective students will not pursue the complicated interactions of the current site and move on to another institution.
Stakeholders interviews identified the strategic goals of a new College website design.
Using the information gained from the current site tests and with guidance from the stakeholders – low and medium-fidelity wireframes were developed and tested. Outcomes and
results were documented and applied to the wireframe designs and re-tested. With positive
results, the designers had confidence to move forward with high-fidelity prototypes and testing. The final phase of usability testing was encouraging. There remained a few barriers to information and interaction but those can be solved with better affordance decisions.
42
Next Steps – Going Forward The next step for the Lindsey Wilson College Website Redesign Project would include proceeding with additional user testing of the current populated pages. The high-fidelity prototype will be presented to stakeholders during the summer of 2016 with programming and
coding expected to begin soon after. The technologies that will be used to develop the live site are as follows: •
Coldfusion – for dynamic portions of the site.
•
Javascript and jQuery – UI interactions
• • • • •
Oracle – site database objects (news articles) Bootstrap – making the site responsive HTML5 CSS
Video hosting such as Youtube or Vimeo for the video on the homepage.
A simple content management system has been developed for posting dynamic content
such as news articles, menus and the campus calendar. The internal audience hub, Blue
Raider Portal, will be redesigned to better host content that is used specifically by individual users. Each user will be able to customize the content that is most often used by them for quicker navigation.
The expected completion date of the website redesign is December 2016 with a new site going live in January 2017.
The Lindsey Wilson College website will soon mirror the institution itself – a college committed to helping every student reach his or her potential with challenging academic programs, student support services and a fulfilling campus experience.
43
Resources [1] For Google Analytics, a new visitor is defined as the first visit to a site from a particular device and browser. For example, if a person visits Lindsey.edu at home on their PC and later visits our website on their mobile device this visitor will be counted as a new visitor on both occasions. However, once that device and browser are established and the person returns to our website on those devices they are counted as a returning visitor. Google Analytics tracks this by using cookies on each device used to access our site. If a user deletes her cookies and later returns to our site she will be counted as a new visitor. While the new visitor statistic provided by Google Analytics is not entirely accurate it does provide meaningful context for analysis on our website if properly understood. For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that only one-third of all new visitor data reported by Google Analytics is accurate, this still implies that Lindsey.edu receives a new visitor every six minutes. For consistency, this report uses new visitor data as it is reported by Google Analytics.
[2] Lindbeck, R., & Fodrey, B. (2010). Using Technology in Undergraduate Admission: A Student Perspective. Journal Of College Admission, (208), 10-17. [3] Norris, S. (2012). University websites fail to click with prospective students. Education Journal, (145), 6-7.
[4] Ford, W. G. (2011). Evaluating the Effectiveness of College Web Sites for Prospective Students. Journal Of College Admission, (212), 26-31.
[5] Marcotte, Ethan (May 25, 2010). Responsive Web design. A List Apart. Responsive Web design is a method of design that takes into consideration the optimal viewing capabilities of the device on which content is being viewed. In essence the content “responds” to the size of the screen and adjusts accordingly allowing viewers to see content without the need to pan, swipe, pinch or expand their screen which makes for a better user experience. [6] Shein, E. (March 1, 2015). Mobile First. University Business, 39-42. p 39 [7] Redish, Janice (Ginny) (2012). Letting Go of the Words: Writing Web Content that Works (Interactive Technologies) (Kindle Locations 517-523). Elsevier Science. Kindle Edition.
[8] Nielsen, Jakob. (April 17, 2006). F-Shaped Pattern For Reading Web Content. Nielsen Norman Group. “Eyetracking visualizations show that users often read Web pages in an F-shaped pattern: two horizontal stripes followed by a vertical stripe.” [9] Davis, N. (2011). Information Overload, Reloaded. Bulletin Of The American Society For Information Science & Technology, 37(5), 45-49. Information overload is a product of having too much information to process. When individuals are presented with too much material to review it becomes paralyzing and actually inhibits one’s ability to make a decision. Streamlining web content to provide only the information that is needed to educate visitors is the first step toward alleviating information overload that leads to information anxiety.
44
Resources [10] Koltay, T. (2011). Information Overload, Information Architecture and Digital Literacy. Bulletin Of The American Society For Information Science & Technology, 38(8), 33-35. [11] Ruberman, L. (2014). Challenges in the transition to college: The perspective of the therapist back home. American Journal Of Psychotherapy, 68(1), 103-115.
[12] Lenhart, Amanda. (April 9, 2015). Teens, Social Media and Technology Overview 2015. Pew Research Center. “This report covers the current landscape of teens’ technology use. The survey shows gaps in access to technology which fall along socio-economic, racial and ethnic lines — especially access to desktop and laptop computers, and smartphones. The survey also reveals that a large number of teens are using sites and apps like Instagram and Snapchat. However, adolescents continue to use Facebook, and it is the site that the largest share of teens say they use most often.” [13] Velasco-Martin, J. (2010). Information Architecture in Virtual Worlds. Bulletin Of The American Society For Information Science & Technology, 37(2), 13-17. Information architecture deals with the organization and presentation of information in digital spaces, creating navigation structures and defining metadata schemas to facilitate browsing and searching through collections of documents. Hyperlinks and conceptual hierarchies tie documents together in digital information architectures. [14] Redish. (Kindle Location 468).
[15] Understanding Responsive Web Design in Higher Education. (September 2014). Educause Center for Analysis and Research. Retrieved Jan 30, 2016.
[16] Krug, Steve (2013-12-23). Don't Make Me Think, Revisited: A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability (3rd Edition) (Voices That Matter) (Kindle Locations 1707-1715). Pearson Education. Kindle Edition. Further Reading
Howe, Sean. (April 3, 2013). What Prospective Students are Really Looking for From College Webpages.
Halvorson, Kristina; Rach, Melissa (2012). Content Strategy for the Web (2nd Edition) (Voices That Matter)
Knight, Kayla. (January 12, 2011). Responsive Web Design: What It Is and How To Use IT. Smashing Magazine.
45