Discuss: Testing Content
by Angela Colter
- Editorial Comments
2
Thanks for writing such an informative article. As you outlined, testing content can be challenging. Your example of the mass transit website passes really hits home. I will definitely apply this to future testing!
posted at 01:53 pm on December 14, 2010 by Jessica Ivins
3 Testing: Benefits vs features
Thank you Angela. I still come across clients who don’t understand that benefits motivate consumers (even b2b) more than features do. Testing benefit content versus feature content looks like a great way to help such clients understand what works and what doesn’t. In closing, content testing should be added to any comprehensive site inventory.
posted at 04:17 pm on December 14, 2010 by Robert Moss
4 From objects to words
Thanks Angela. With this article now I know how to move usability from the level of objects to words.
posted at 08:23 am on December 15, 2010 by kalimati
5
@kanzlei
You’ve hit on what’s beautiful about usability testing: It often reveals that people do behave in unique ways that we may not have predicted when we built the interface or wrote the content. What you’re calling “non-deterministic UX.”
With so many moving parts, I maintain that it’s possible—necessary, even—to test how well the content supports what you’re trying to do. How you do this will in part depend on what you’re testing, but even with complex interactions I’d encourage you to start by identifying what task people are trying to user your interface and content to accomplish. If they fail, is it clear why they failed and at what point in the process it happened? Getting users to think aloud and paraphrase what they’re reading can help you zero in on the issue, regardless of whether the interaction is simple or complex.
posted at 12:17 pm on December 15, 2010 by Angela Colter
6
@Jessica Ivins
Glad you found the article useful!
@Robert Moss
I like the distinction you draw between “benefit content” and “feature content” because you could ask different questions to assess whether people get each type. For features, you might ask “what” questions (What is it? What does it do?) where for benefits you’d ask “so what” questions (How would this help you?) I’d expect the benefit content questions might trigger more personal, colorful responses. Great idea.
@kalimati
I love how you summarized this: moving usability “from the level of objects to words.” Beautiful!
posted at 12:32 pm on December 15, 2010 by Angela Colter
7 Fantastic article
Angela, this is a great article rising some key points on user testing for content. I specially like the ideas to do “poor men tests” for the cases where a moderated usability test is simply not possible.
Thanks a lot for the info.
posted at 07:45 pm on December 15, 2010 by Kampa
8
You’re right, nobody really tests content. My unofficial test for content is whether my average time on the site is going up or down.
The other two tests you mentioned would be quite difficult to pull off on my site.
Great post. Makes you think.
posted at 02:27 am on December 18, 2010 by Relocation to Atlanta
9 Addressing wonky words
I think this is a great entry on the readability of website content. Also if you’re creating text to try to drive up your SEO and it sounds like a robot created the paragraph, then you’ve pretty much lost your reader and thus credibility. The section about the physician and lay person viewing a site was particularly relevant; we all look and read websites relatively the same…with a 15 second attention span!
posted at 04:05 am on December 20, 2010 by Fresh Eyes Design
10
I too rely on the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level formula in Microsoft Word. I can’t get over how simple and effective the Cloz test is. The best content article I’ve read in a while. (And the last best one was on A List Apart too.)
posted at 11:16 am on December 20, 2010 by robot
Got something to say?
Discuss this article. We reserve the right to delete flames, trolls, and wood nymphs.
Create a new account or sign in below if you’d like to leave a comment.
Subscribe to this article's comments: RSS (what’s this?)
1
Thanks for that pretty good article about testing web content. Actually, what I am missing a bit – the big advantage that the web gave us in communications is interactivity. Don’t communicate like a book, take responses and act with interactive content when you understand your audience.
Let the user choose her detail, give dynamic hints with bubbles, automatic scaling areas …
Thats a marvelous feature of the web, but it will make testing quite more complicated, I think. How can we handle this non-deterministic user experience in content (communication)?
posted at 09:50 am on December 14, 2010 by kanzlei