Establishing Best Practices to Improve Usefulness and Usability of Web Interfaces Providing Atmospheric Data

Nina S. Oakley Western Regional Climate Center, Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada

Search for other papers by Nina S. Oakley in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
and
Britta Daudert Western Regional Climate Center, Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada

Search for other papers by Britta Daudert in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Abstract

Accessing scientific data and information through an online portal can be a frustrating task, often because of the fact that they were not built with the user’s needs in mind. The concept of making web interfaces easy to use, known as “usability,” has been thoroughly researched in the field of e-commerce but has not been explicitly addressed in the atmospheric and most other sciences. As more observation stations are installed, satellites flown, models run, and field campaigns performed, data are continuously produced. Portals on the Internet have become the favored mechanisms for sharing this information and are ever increasing in number. Portals are often created without being explicitly tested for usability with the target audience though the expenses of testing are low and the returns high. To remain competitive and relevant in the provision of atmospheric information, it is imperative that developers understand design elements of a successful portal to make their product stand out among others. This work informs the audience of the benefits and basic principles of usability that can be applied to web pages presenting atmospheric information. We will also share some of the best practices and recommendations we have formulated from the results of usability testing performed on a data provision site designed for researchers in the Southwest Climate Science Center and hosted by the Western Regional Climate Center.

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Nina Oakley, Western Regional Climate Center, Desert Research Institute, 2215 Raggio Pkwy., Reno, NV 89512, E-mail: nina.oakley@dri.edu

Abstract

Accessing scientific data and information through an online portal can be a frustrating task, often because of the fact that they were not built with the user’s needs in mind. The concept of making web interfaces easy to use, known as “usability,” has been thoroughly researched in the field of e-commerce but has not been explicitly addressed in the atmospheric and most other sciences. As more observation stations are installed, satellites flown, models run, and field campaigns performed, data are continuously produced. Portals on the Internet have become the favored mechanisms for sharing this information and are ever increasing in number. Portals are often created without being explicitly tested for usability with the target audience though the expenses of testing are low and the returns high. To remain competitive and relevant in the provision of atmospheric information, it is imperative that developers understand design elements of a successful portal to make their product stand out among others. This work informs the audience of the benefits and basic principles of usability that can be applied to web pages presenting atmospheric information. We will also share some of the best practices and recommendations we have formulated from the results of usability testing performed on a data provision site designed for researchers in the Southwest Climate Science Center and hosted by the Western Regional Climate Center.

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Nina Oakley, Western Regional Climate Center, Desert Research Institute, 2215 Raggio Pkwy., Reno, NV 89512, E-mail: nina.oakley@dri.edu
Save
  • Bangor, A., P. Kortum, and J. Miller, 2009: Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. J. Usability Stud., 4, 114123.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brooke, J., 1996: SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Evaluation in Industry, P. W. Jordan et al., Eds., Taylor and Francis.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brooke, J., 2013: SUS: A retrospective. J. Usability Stud., 8, 2940.

  • Brugger, J., and M. Crimmins, 2011: Weather, climate, and rural Arizona: Insights and assessment strategies. Technical Input to the U.S. National Climate Assessment, U.S. Global Climate Research Program, Washington, DC, 80 pp.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dix, A., 2009: Human–computer interaction. Encyclopedia of Database Systems, L. Liu and M. T. Özsu, Eds., Springer, 1327–1331.

  • Dumas, J. S., and J. Redish, 1999: A Practical Guide to Usability Testing. Intellect Books, 404 pp.

  • Faulkner, L., 2003: Beyond the five-user assumption: Benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput., 35, 379383, doi:10.3758/BF03195514.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • International Standards Organization, 1998: Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals—Part 11: Guidance on usability. ISO 9241, 22 pp. [Available online at www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=16883.]

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Krug, S., 2005: Don’t Make Me Think: A Practical Guide to Web Usability. New Riders Publishing, 195 pp.

  • Krug, S., 2009: Rocket Surgery Made Easy: The Do-It-Yourself Guide to Finding and Fixing Usability Problems. New Riders Publishing, 168 pp.

  • National Research Council, 2010: Informing an Effective Response to Climate Change. The National Academies Press, 348 pp.

  • Nielsen, J., 1997: Loyalty on the Web. Alertbox Newsletter, accessed 1 May 2012. [Available online at www.nngroup.com/articles/loyalty-on-the-web/.]

  • Nielsen, J., 2000a: Designing Web Usability. New Riders Publishing, 419 pp.

  • Nielsen, J., 2000b: Why you only need to test with 5 users. Alertbox Newsletter, accessed 1 May 2012. [Available online at www.nngroup.com/articles/why-you-only-need-to-test-with-5-users/.]

  • Nielsen, J., 2003: Recruiting test participants for usability studies. Alertbox Newsletter, accessed 1 May 2012. [Available online at www.nngroup.com/articles/recruiting-test-participants-for-usability-studies/.]

  • Nielsen, J., 2004: Card sorting: How many users to test. Alertbox Newsletter, accessed 1 May 2012. [Available online at www.nngroup.com/articles/card-sorting-how-many-users-to-test/.]

  • Nielsen, J., 2011: How long do users stay on web pages? Alertbox Newsletter, accessed 1 May 2012. [Available online at www.nngroup.com/articles/how-long-do-users-stay-on-webpages/.]

  • Overpeck, J. T., G. A. Meehl, S. Bony, and D. R. Easterling, 2011: Climate data challenges in the 21st century. Science, 331, 700702, doi:10.1126/science.1197869.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Preece, J., Y. Rogers, H. Sharp, D. Benyon, S. Holland, and T. Carey, 1994: Human Computer Interaction. Addison-Wesley Longman, 773 pp.

  • Rood, R., and P. Edwards, 2014: Climate infomatics: Human experts and the end-to-end system. Earthzine, accessed 1 October 2014. [Available online at www.earthzine.org/2014/05/22/climate-informatics-human-experts-and-the-end-to-end-system/.]

  • Sauro, J., 2011: A Practical Guide to the System Usability Scale: Background, Benchmarks and Best Practices. Measuring Usability LLC, 162 pp.

  • Spillers, F., 2009: Usability testing tips. Usability Testing Central, accessed 1 May 2012. [Available online at www.usabilitytestingcentral.com/usability_testing_tips/.]

  • Tullis, T., and L. Wood, 2004: How many users are enough for a card-sorting study. Proc. Usability Professionals’ Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota, UPA, 9 pp. [Available online at http://home.comcast.net/∼tomtullis/publications/UPA2004CardSorting.pdf.]

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014: What and why of usability; user research basics. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, accessed 10 January 2012. [Available online at www.usability.gov/.]

  • Virzi, R. A., 1992: Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: How many subjects is enough? Hum. Factors, 34, 457468.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 2248 601 98
PDF Downloads 788 181 19