Skip to main content

Table 2 Main findings, sorted into the facets of the honeycomb user experience model

From: User experiences of evidence-based online resources for health professionals: User testing of The Cochrane Library

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