Short evaluation of the information on the websites for Industrial Alliance (iA) and its subsidiaries.
Web properties evaluated:
- http://ia.ca/
- https://www.industrielleallianceauto.com/
- http://investia.ca/
- http://www.iafiducie.ca/
- https://www.iavaleursmobilieres.ca/fr
- http://iavag.ca/
- Also:
- Successes and improvements
- Social media monitoring
Bastien & Scapin's cognitive ergonomic criteria was used for this analysis.
Criteria:
1.2. Grouping/Distinction of Items, 2.1.2. Minimal Actions
Description:
The site entry portals are well exposed, clear, concise, and correspond to the Industrial Alliance customers.
Criteria:
1.2.2. Grouping/Distinction by Format, 1.3. Immediate Feedback, 2.2. Information Density
Description:
The hierarchy of the menus and sub-menus needs to be clarified.
The sub-menu is visually larger than the main menu, which should dictate the sub-menu content.
Recommendation:
Inverse the size of the menu and sub-menu.
The colors could also be switched, the attention being more drawn to the menu with the white background.
Criteria:
1.1. Prompting, 1.2.2. Grouping/Distinction by Format, 3.2. User Control
Description:
Carousels are, on average, only clicked on by 5% of users and only 1% of users see the entire carousel.
Recommendation:
The welcome page often being political for companies, it is important to prioritize pertinent content and guide the user to their objective.
The welcome pages are a sales and conversion tool.
Criteria:
1.2.1. Grouping/Distinction by Location, 7. Significance of Codes
Description:
The user can navigate the sub-menu categories, which seem simple and clearly identified.
Recommendation:
Shouldn't "Je suis déjà client" be on the welcome page to avoid having to click on menus and sub-menus?
Criteria:
1.4. Legibility, 2.1. Brevity, 2.1.1. Concision, 2.2. Information Density
Description:
The grouping of information demands quite a bit of learning.
Recommendation:
Simplify the visual hierarchy.
Criteria:
1.2.2. Grouping/Distinction by Format
Description:
- The pages are very long. The user must scroll to access page information.
- There are several different font sizes.
- The "call to action" buttons clash with other page design features that draw user focus.
Recommendation:
- The pages don't need to be so long.
- Standardize font size.
- Draw attention to the "Call to action" (green, red, or in a similar color) through contrast and accessibility.
Criteria:
1.2.1. Grouping/Distinction by Location, 1.4. Legibility, 2.1. Brevity, 6. Consistency
Description:
1- The repetitive rhythm of these boxes interferes with reading.
The graphic design takes up too much space and the same text repeats itself throughout.
2- The other products and services are usually at the bottom of the page.
Recommendation:
1- Reduce the size of the graphic design.
Re-examine the written content for a shorter, less-redundant message.
2- Study the hypothesis of having other product suggestions at the bottom of the page.
Criteria:
1.3. Immediate Feedback
Description:
Navigator design
Recommendation:
Direct integration into the iA site
Criteria:
1.3. Immediate Feedback, 6. Consistency
Description:
There is a lack of consistency between the different brands of iA subsidiaries.
Recommendation:
Page rhythm
Headers
Footers
Criteria:
4.2. User Experience, 8. Compatibility
Description:
Flash should not be used for this type of presentation.
Mobile - Static images.
Recommendation:
HTML 5 gives more control to users.
Criteria:
3. Explicit Control, 3.2. User Control
Description:
The video starts automatically.
On mobile, the video does not start automatically (this is preferable).
Recommendation:
The video starting automatically breaks the comfort of the client experience.
Consider high bandwidth associated with video.
Make the video shorter.
Criteria:
1.4. Legibility, 4. Adaptability
Description:
The images are pixelated.
Recommendation:
Quality assurance.
Criteria:
1.1. Prompting, 1.2.2. Grouping/Distinction by Format, 2.1.2. Minimal Actions
Description:
Standardize brands.
Consistency of button actions.
Recommendation:
Standardize the visuals and the experience.
Criteria:
1.3. Immediate Feedback, 1.4. Legibility, 2.2. Information Density
Description:
Page clarity
Recommendation:
Good rhythm.
Clear and concise text.
Add more clear "call to actions".
Criteria:
1.2.1. Grouping/Distinction by Location, 1.3. Immediate Feedback
Description:
Large carousel.
Site color.
No product or service feedback.
Color and font contrast.
Recommendation:
Photography: communicated messages.
Buttons and contrast (increase).
Site colors.
Criteria:
2.2. Information Density
Description:
Many Facebook pages with names associated with iA.
Recommendation:
Strong brand.
- Page organization and rhythm
- Unify subsidiary sites
- Give more user control
- Too large of a target client base
A/B Testing Tools:
- https://www.optimizely.com (more known)
- https://www.maxymiser.com
- http://www.abtestmaster.com
- http://www.monetate.com/products/optimization/
- https://vwo.com
- http://usabilitytools.com/ (high-performing)
Web Analytics Tools:
- http://www.clicktale.com
- https://clicky.com
- http://www.inspectlet.com
- https://www.kissmetrics.com
- https://mixpanel.com
- http://www.userzoom.co.uk
- https://www.woopra.com
I'm also giving the link to the Dashthis website to visualise the analytics data, a great aide. The founders are in Québec.
Please find below the criteria used to general this report:
1. Guidance
User Guidance refers to the means available to advise, orient, inform, instruct, and guide the users throughout their interactions with a computer (messages, alarms,labels, etc.), including from a lexical point of view.
1.1. Prompting
As it is used here, Prompting has a broader definition than usual. Here it refers to the means available in order to lead the users to making specific actions whether it be data entry or other tasks. This criterion also refers to all the means that help users to know the alternatives when several actions are possible depending on the contexts Prompting also concerns status information, that is information about the actual state or context of the system, as well as information concerning help facilities and their accessibility.
1.2. Grouping/Distinction of Items
The criterion Grouping/Distinction of Items concerns the visual organisation of information items in relation to one another. This criterion takes into account the topology (location) and some graphical characteristics (format) in order to indicate the relationships between the various items displayed, to indicate whether or not they be long to a given class, or else to indicate differences between classes. This criterion also concerns the organisation of items within a class.
1.2.1. Grouping/Distinction by Location
The criterion Grouping/Distinction by Location concerns the relative positioning of items in order to indicate whether or not they belong to a given class, or else to indicate differences between classes. This criterion also concerns the relative positioning of items within a class.
1.2.2. Grouping/Distinction by Format
The criterion Grouping/Distinction by Format concerns more precisely graphical features (format, colour, etc.) that indicate whether or not items belong to a given class, or that indicate distinctions between different classes, or else distinctions between items of a given class.
1.3. Immediate Feedback
Immediate Feedback concerns system responses to users’ actions. These actions may be simple keyed entries or more complex transactions such as stacked commands. In all cases computer responses must be provided, they should be fast, with appropriate and consistent timing for different types of transactions. In all cases, a fast response from the computer should be provided with information on the requested transaction and its result.
1.4. Legibility
Legibility concerns the lexical characteristics of the information presented on the screen that may hamper or facilitate the reading of this information (character brightness, contrast between the letter and the background, font size, interword spacing, line spacing, paragraphs spacing, line length, etc.). By definition, the criterion Legibility does not concern feedback or error messages.
2. Workload
The criterion Workload concerns all interface elements that play a role in the reduction of the users’ perceptual or cognitive load, and in the increase of the dialogue efficiency.
2.1. Brevity
The criterion Brevity concerns the perceptual and cognitive workload both for individual inputs and outputs, and for sets of inputs (i.e., sets of actions needed to accomplish a goal or a task). Brevity corresponds to the goal of limiting the reading and input workload and the number of action steps.
2.1.1. Concision
The criterion Concision concerns perceptual and cognitive workload for individual inputs or outputs.
2.1.2. Minimal Actions
The criterion Minimal Actions concern workload with respect to the number of actions necessary to accomplish a goal or a task. It is here a matter of limiting as much as possible the steps users must go through.
2.2. Information Density
The criterion Information Density concerns the users’ workload from a perceptual and cognitive point of view with regard to the whole set of information presented to the users rather than each individual element or item.
3. Explicit Control
The criterion Explicit Control concerns both the system processing of explicit user actions, and the control users have on the processing of their actions by the system.
3.1. Explicit User Action
The criterion Explicit User Action refers to the relationship between the computer processing and the actions of the users. This relationship must be explicit, i.e., the computer must process only those actions requested by the users and only when requested to do so.
3.2. User Control
The criterion User Control refers to the fact that the users should always be in control of the system processing (e.g., interrupt, cancel, pause and continue). Every possible action by a user should be anticipated and appropriate options should be provided.
4. Adaptability
The adaptability of a system refers to its capacity to behave contextually and according to the users’ needs and preferences.
4.1. Flexibility
The criterion Flexibility refers to the means available to the users to customise the interface in order to take into account their working strategies and/or their habits, and the task requirements. Flexibility is reflected in the number of possible ways of achieving a given goal. In other words, it is the capacity of the interface to adapt to the users’ particular needs.
4.2. User Experience
The criterion User Experience refers to the means available to take into account the level of user experience.
5. Error Management
The criterion Error Management refers to the means available to prevent or reduce errors and to recover from them when they occur. Errors are defined in this context as invalid data entry, invalid format for data entry, incorrect command syntax, etc.
5.1. Error Protection
The criterion Error Protection refers to the means available to detect and prevent data entry errors, command errors, or actions with destructive consequences.
5.2. Quality of Error Messages
The criterion Quality of Error Messages refers to the phrasing and the content of error messages, that is: their relevance, readability, and specificity about the nature of the errors (syntax, format, etc.) and the actions needed to correct them.
5.3. Error Correction
The criterion Error Correction refers to the means available to the users to correct their errors.
6. Consistency
The criterion Consistency refers to the way interface design choices (codes, naming, formats, procedures, etc.) are maintained in similar contexts, and are different when applied to different contexts.
7. Significance of Codes
The criterion Significance of Codes qualifies the relationship between a term and/or a sign and its reference. Codes and names are significant to the users when there is a strong semantic relationship between such codes and the items or actions they refer to.
8. Compatibility
The criterion Compatibility refers to the match between users’ characteristics (memory, perceptions, customs, skills, age, expectations, etc.) and task characteristics on the one hand, and the organisation of the output, input, and dialogue for a given application, on the other hand. The criterion Compatibility also concerns the coherence between environments and between applications.
To submit, please leave your contact informations:
You have a Capian account, please log in: