It doesn't take a usability expert to figure out that the visual appearance of an interface is important. In Fogg, Soohoo and Danielson (2002), domain novices report that visual elements such as layout, use of color, and typography influenced their impression of site credibility. Ivory and Hearst (2002) report that visual parameters like font size, colors used, and persistent navigation contribute to the quality ratings of a Web site. Ozok and Salvendy (2000; 2004) find that users commit fewer errors when the visual and linguistic attributes of information sites are consistent.
The value of consistency isn't hard to see: Sites that are consistent are easier to learn. There is positive transfer from one area of the site to the others. To ensure this, interface design guidelines tend to preach consistency. The guidelines stress that the consistency of the visual presentation is a key to usability. Shneidermann's first Golden Rule for interface design is "Strive for consistency."
Since no one had an evidence-driven definition for consistency, designers tend to interpret this recommendation quite literally. Usability experts focus sharply on continuity within an interface as a determiner of usability. But are we too focused?
When asked to review sites, usability experts tend to identify more inconsistency problems than users do. (Jeffries, Miller, Warton and Uyeda, 1991). Further, the experts often disagree about which inconsistencies are problems and how severely the problems will affect ease-of-use. (For more details about the inconsistency amongst usability experts, see Molich in last month's newsletter.)
So how much consistency is enough? And which consistencies are the important ones? And what type of evidence could we use to capture key aspects of perceived consistency?
Van der Geest and Loorbach (2005) report a study that seeks to explore users' perceptions of internal consistency on Web sites. The internal consistency of an interface reflects the similarity among the features and graphics within an interface. They accomplish this exploration through a novel application of the card sorting technique.
In card sorting, representative users are given a stack of index cards each containing one word or phrase. The words/phrases represent the information or services provided on the Web pages. Participants are asked to sort the cards into natural sets of what "belongs" together. They then order the cards within each set by interest. Finally, participants generate a category label for each set. Typically, card sorting provides results that provide the basis for the information architecture.
To explore the visual cues supporting perceived consistency across sites within a Web system, the researchers examined six sites within Dutch Higher Education Consortium. The sites included the main Consortium site and five sub-sites representing schools within the organization. All six sites were created based on the organizational style guide and templates. Although the sites were based on a common design standard, each school within the consortium clearly worked within the standard to create a unique and differentiated Web identity. The researchers also selected 24 typical pages from the sites.
To explore visual consistency, the card sorting technique was modified. Instead of presenting words/phrases to sort on a card, the researchers asked the participants to (among other tasks) sort, rank and label the 24 pages. (All words were "greeked" to ensure that the participants would focus on visual rather than linguistic information to sort the elements). After the sorting task was completed, participants were asked to describe the basis for their groupings and labels.
20 individuals participated in the card sorting task (Tullis and Wood, 2004).
Far and away, the most common cue for signaling that pages or elements should be grouped together was color. After color, participants looked to the grid/navigation structure to indicate belongingness. They looked to background elements and font about equally often (and third). The logo was identified as a component that created consistency only once in the study.
Van der Geest and Loorboch's report the following observations:
These findings indicate that designers need to take special caution when selecting colors for their designs. Users "see" color first. And they will attempt to derive a meaningful grouping from similarly colored elements – whether the designer intends it to or not.
Van der Geest and Loorbach's study indicates that users do notice consistency within and across pages of a site. Users are prepared to and do notice and exploit some types of consistency within a Web system (color, navigation structure).
However, their findings also suggest that users do not take advantage of certain types of information that experts might identify as critical to usable consistency.
For example, users may fail to exploit other seemingly obvious connecting information, such as the logo.
That said, it seems critical that standards intending to promote usable consistency with local variability should promote the use of color as a cue, both to group and differentiate page elements and site sections. However, since color is so powerful, clear and appropriate guidance for use of color is critical to building an effective standard.
Fogg, B.J., Soohoo, C. and Danielsen, D. (2002). How do people evaluate a Web Site's credibility: Results from a large study. New York, NY: Consumer's Web Watch.
Ivory and Hearst, (March, 2003). Statistical Profiles of Highly-Rated Web Sites. ACM CHI 2002.
Jeffries, R., Miller, J.R., Wharton, C. and Uyeda, K.M. (1991). User interface evaluation in the real world: a comparison of techniques. Proceedings of the ACM CHI '91. New York, NY: ACM Press, pp 119-124.
Ozok, A.A., and Salvendy, G. (2000). Measuring consistency of Web page design and its effects on performance and satisfaction. Ergonomics 44, pp. 443-460.
Ozok, A.A., and Salvendy, G. (2004). Twenty guidelines for the design of Web-Based interfaces with consistent language. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 149-161.
Tullis, T. and Wood, L. (2004). How many users are enough for a card-sorting study? Paper presented at the Usability Professionals Association Conference. Minneapolis, MN.
van der Geest, T. and Loorback, N. (2005) Testing the Visual Consistency of Web Sites. Technical Communication 52(1), 27-36.
Sign up to get our Newsletter delivered straight to your inbox
HFI may use “cookies” or “web beacons” to track how Users use the Website. A cookie is a piece of software that a web server can store on Users’ PCs and use to identify Users should they visit the Website again. Users may adjust their web browser software if they do not wish to accept cookies. To withdraw your consent after accepting a cookie, delete the cookie from your computer.
HFI believes that every User should know how it utilizes the information collected from Users. The Website is not directed at children under 13 years of age, and HFI does not knowingly collect personally identifiable information from children under 13 years of age online. Please note that the Website may contain links to other websites. These linked sites may not be operated or controlled by HFI. HFI is not responsible for the privacy practices of these or any other websites, and you access these websites entirely at your own risk. HFI recommends that you review the privacy practices of any other websites that you choose to visit.
HFI is based, and this website is hosted, in the United States of America. If User is from the European Union or other regions of the world with laws governing data collection and use that may differ from U.S. law and User is registering an account on the Website, visiting the Website, purchasing products or services from HFI or the Website, or otherwise using the Website, please note that any personally identifiable information that User provides to HFI will be transferred to the United States. Any such personally identifiable information provided will be processed and stored in the United States by HFI or a service provider acting on its behalf. By providing your personally identifiable information, User hereby specifically and expressly consents to such transfer and processing and the uses and disclosures set forth herein.
In the course of its business, HFI may perform expert reviews, usability testing, and other consulting work where personal privacy is a concern. HFI believes in the importance of protecting personal information, and may use measures to provide this protection, including, but not limited to, using consent forms for participants or “dummy” test data.
HFI may use personally identifiable information collected through the Website for the specific purposes for which the information was collected, to process purchases and sales of products or services offered via the Website if any, to contact Users regarding products and services offered by HFI, its parent, subsidiary and other related companies in order to otherwise to enhance Users’ experience with HFI. HFI may also use information collected through the Website for research regarding the effectiveness of the Website and the business planning, marketing, advertising and sales efforts of HFI. HFI does not sell any User information under any circumstances.
HFI may disclose personally identifiable information collected from Users to its parent, subsidiary and other related companies to use the information for the purposes outlined above, as necessary to provide the services offered by HFI and to provide the Website itself, and for the specific purposes for which the information was collected. HFI may disclose personally identifiable information at the request of law enforcement or governmental agencies or in response to subpoenas, court orders or other legal process, to establish, protect or exercise HFI’s legal or other rights or to defend against a legal claim or as otherwise required or allowed by law. HFI may disclose personally identifiable information in order to protect the rights, property or safety of a User or any other person. HFI may disclose personally identifiable information to investigate or prevent a violation by User of any contractual or other relationship with HFI or the perpetration of any illegal or harmful activity. HFI may also disclose aggregate, anonymous data based on information collected from Users to investors and potential partners. Finally, HFI may disclose or transfer personally identifiable information collected from Users in connection with or in contemplation of a sale of its assets or business or a merger, consolidation or other reorganization of its business.
If a User includes such User’s personally identifiable information as part of the User posting to the Website, such information may be made available to any parties using the Website. HFI does not edit or otherwise remove such information from User information before it is posted on the Website. If a User does not wish to have such User’s personally identifiable information made available in this manner, such User must remove any such information before posting. HFI is not liable for any damages caused or incurred due to personally identifiable information made available in the foregoing manners. For example, a User posts on an HFI-administered forum would be considered Personal Information as provided by User and subject to the terms of this section.
Information about Users that is maintained on HFI’s systems or those of its service providers is protected using industry standard security measures. However, no security measures are perfect or impenetrable, and HFI cannot guarantee that the information submitted to, maintained on or transmitted from its systems will be completely secure. HFI is not responsible for the circumvention of any privacy settings or security measures relating to the Website by any Users or third parties.
Human Factors International, Inc.
PO Box 2020
410 W Lowe Ave
Fairfield IA 52556