Findability | Difficulty finding the web site through Google or other external search |
 | Difficulty finding specific content on the site, using on-site search |
 | - non-English participants spelled search queries wrong |
 | - search engine too sensitive |
 | - keywords search didn't work properly |
 | - simple search produced unexpected results (i.e.: too few or too many of wrong type) |
 | - search results were misinterpreted, users confused document types |
 | - confusion when retrieving only a small number of search results |
 | Topics navigation not used or not seen |
 | Minimum of browsing even when encouraged to look around the site |
Usability | Unfamiliar language/jargon caused confusion |
 | Text too small |
 | Too dense, too much text (front page, Help, More information pages) |
 | Important content too far down on page (review pages) |
 | Not interested in reading whole review |
 | Forrest plots unfamiliar and not intuitively located |
Credibility | Users trusted content in The Cochrane Library |
 | Confusion about site ownership/neutrality due to dominance of publisher identity and universal navigation, weakens trust |
 | Misunderstanding about editorial quality evaluation – thinking all content on the whole site content has been reviewed by Cochrane |
Usefulness | Assuming the library only dealt with medical topics (and not topics such as dentistry, nutrition, acupuncture) |
 | Misunderstanding targeted texts on front page, thinking content would be tailored for these groups |
 | Perceived as an academic resource |
 | Plain language summaries appreciated |
Desirability | Site seemed off-putting, overwhelming |
 | Site can be alienating (research/academic identity and language) |
Value | Felt Cochrane represented golden standard for systematic reviews |
 | Site is too difficult, would go elsewhere |
Accessibility | Not evaluated |