I think we all know it's a sad fact of life in institutions like ours that a report from an external organisation always carries
more weight than one produced internally.
To answer Jean's question, a couple of years ago we employed Quaestor to user test the 'prospectus' area of our website and
compare how people used it with how they used our paper prospectus, and the relationship between the two.
http://www.quaestor.com/frameworks/generic/framesets/special_wh/media_intro.htm
I can dig out contact details if you contact me off-list.
Will
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will DG Cox - New Media Marketing Manager
Department of Marketing, Sheffield Hallam University
Telephone 0114 225 3893 E-mail [log in to unmask]
On 24 Feb, 2005, at 10:37, Jean Provest wrote:
> We have previously used in-house resources to perform user testing.
> With an entire new university website I am looking to involve an
> external consultancy who are capable of substantial testing with
> international as well as UK audiences. Has anyone any experience they
> are willing to share?
If the web team take no notice of the 'in-house' (that means us..) when problems are reported, why is it that you want to throw
away more money to involve an external consultancy to tell you some of the things we've been reporting for free.
John
- --
(Originator of the MCC/Manchester website way back in 1993.) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFCHbubDwhbGQHPUt0RAuKFAJ91KIEq1BPXL+C6PYtPg7FCpq3OzwCfUDQK
hetGtCgJt+doUYsg5DqM3Ok=
=x1kP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|