Website Design and Evaluation¶

Status: emerging
Last updated: 2026-05-31
Sources: 9781119636113.Ch39.Pdf
Tags: [website-design, web-usability, accessibility, information-architecture, navigation, universal-access, ux]

Summary¶

Website design and evaluation applies human-factors principles to the World Wide Web, beginning from a clearly articulated site goal and an accurate understanding of targeted user groups (Vu, Proctor & Hung, 2021). The chapter argues that poor web design frustrates users who cannot easily find information or complete tasks, leading them to abandon sites and defeating their purpose. It covers information organisation and navigation, information presentation, accessibility and universal access, security and privacy, and methods for evaluating usability and accessibility, including remote and mobile testing.

Body¶

Context¶

Vu, Proctor and Hung (2021), in their handbook chapter on website design and evaluation, examine how human-factors principles apply to the World Wide Web, beginning from a clearly articulated site goal and an accurate understanding of targeted user groups. The chapter covers information organisation and navigation, information presentation, accessibility and universal access, security and privacy, and methods for evaluating usability and accessibility. Within this knowledge base the article applies the general design-and-evaluation principles of Usability And User Experience to the web, draws on the requirements work in User Requirements Methods, makes Design For All concrete through accessibility and universal access, and connects to Cybersecurity Privacy And Trust through its treatment of web security and privacy.

Key Points¶

Website design starts from purpose. Every website is intended to serve a specific purpose, and articulating this goal clearly is essential because it drives the design process. By accurately identifying the needs of targeted user groups and the tasks they must perform, designers can focus on features that let those users accomplish their tasks, aligning web design with user-centred design more broadly (PDF p. 1, orig. p. 1016).

The cost of poor design is user abandonment. Poor web designs frustrate users who cannot easily access information or perform intended tasks, and that frustration may cause them to abandon the site, defeating the purpose of providing services, selling products, or disseminating information; a good website, by contrast, can give an organisation a competitive edge. This frames usability as directly consequential for an organisation's goals rather than cosmetic (PDF p. 1, orig. p. 1016).

Understanding users is a prerequisite to design. Vu, Proctor and Hung discuss defining and understanding targeted user groups — more obvious for some sites than others — and then address the organisation and navigation of information and information presentation, the structural decisions that determine whether users can find what they need (PDF pp. 2–8, orig. pp. 1017–1023).

Accessibility and evaluation complete the chapter, covering designing for accessibility and universal access alongside security and privacy, with evaluation methods including remote, online, and mobile usability tests as well as accessibility evaluation specifically (PDF pp. 11–16, orig. pp. 1026–1031).

Conclusion¶

Vu, Proctor and Hung (2021) conclude that effective web design is goal- and user-driven and validated empirically: by grounding design in site purpose and user tasks, building in accessibility and security, and testing usability and accessibility through remote and mobile methods, web design connects to the evaluation-driven core of usability work and the wider goal of design for all.

References¶

Vu, K.-P.L., Proctor, R.W. & Hung, Y.-H. (2021) 'Website Design and Evaluation', in Salvendy, G. & Karwowski, W. (eds.) Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics. 5th edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. vu2021websitedesign

Open Questions¶

How should website goals be reconciled when organisational objectives (e.g., selling) conflict with user task goals?
How do mobile and remote usability testing methods compare with in-person testing for web evaluation?