Conclusion

After testing my website, I found that it was mostly successful in terms of meeting my original design criteria...

Original Criteria:

When reviewing the data from test #2, I found that my website caused an overall net decrease in total number of clicks by 61.25%. This met my original criteria of having a 50% reduction in clicks between the two methods. Also, since the website doesn't have any highlighting, I found that it reduced the number of total highlights by 100%, again meeting my original criteria which called for a 10% reduction in highlights. Finally, I found that my website created a 20.48% net decrease in total time completion between the two methods. Unfortunately, this did not meet my original criteria, as it called for a 50% time reduction in time. Additionally, my website met my qualitative design criteria, which were to have all of the GMHS rosters added to the website database as well as allow teachers and counselors to easily update this database in the future. This was met as I added the Google Sheet class input method that auto updates every Sunday at 1 am, meaning any teacher could go in to update the classes for each pathway, at any time, without needing any knowledge about the PHP and HTML code that makes the website run.

Additional Criteria:

When reviewing the data from test #1, I found that my website did have a net increase of 15.3% in user experience, meeting my original criteria of overall increasing the user experience between the two methods. I also found that my website did cause a net increase of 32.1% in the comfortability of the user, which again met my criteria of overall increasing comfortability between the two methods. Furthermore, I found that my website had an overall 8.1% increase in total information obtained, which again met my original criteria of overall increasing the total amount of information that was being obtained between the two methods.

Testing Issues:

In addition to my data proving that I missed one of the design criteria that I originally set, I also found that the data that I collected could have been performed in a better way. This was because my p-values on all of my tests, except for one, were greater than the 0.05 margin on both my T-Samp tests and my Z-Prop tests. This means that there wasn't convincing evidence to rule out random chance as a factor influencing my collected numbers and percentages. If I were to do this test again in the future, I would obtain a bigger sample size, to lower those p-values.

Conclusion:

While I felt that my website was a huge success in terms of what I could get done in the time allotted, I feel that there are still improvements available for the future. The main ones are to find a way to decrease the total amount of time that it takes to fill out the website method as well as obtain a bigger sample size while testing. For a full list of additional improvements, click here.