How Do People Read Online?
User Research for Terrain.org: A Journal of the Built + Natural Environments
As a writer, you fight a war against indifference. You have to force people to care enough to click through to your story. You have to convince them to take a chance on you…they must answer a question. It’s the same question that we all ask ourselves every day: is this going to be worth my time?
—Quincy Larson, Free Code Camp
(Paul Mirocha personally conducted all of the research on this project and interpreted the results, working with the publisher of Terrain.org, Simmons Buntin.)
Executive Summary
ALTHOUGH Terrain.org, is doing well on the surface, in terms of user sessions and numbers of subscribers, analytics show that the bounce rate is high and time on site is low. Average session is just above a minute, the return rate for new users is low, and donations are less than 1% of the site traffic. To understand why this is happening and how these numbers could be improved, we conducted a user research study.
Research overview. Since Terrain is an all online journal and there are a lot of challenges to reading longer articles on screens, we started comparing how people read online as compared to print magazines. After a review of the literature on readability and surveying similar text-heavy sites, we conducted an expert review of the site usability. Next we conducted live interviews and walk-throughs of the site with both current Terrain readers and potential readers.
Questions. We wanted to understand the goals of new visitors and if usability was a deterrent to engaging with longer literary texts. We wondered how Terrain readers arrive at the site, their motivations for coming there, and how they navigate and search for content they want to read. In addition, we asked people how they thought about donations, to this and other sites. Is the Donate button too small to easily find?
Data analysis. We created a matrix of results from the expert usability review showing the scores, and comments for each check point, as well as an overall score for the site. we recorded user interviews using audio and screen capture videos. From our notes and transcripts, we organized the rich qualitative data obtained from the interviews by research question, also noting new themes and ideas coming out of the research. We organized this data into a Findings and Recommendations Matrix, featuring quotes, summaries and key insights from each participant.
Key findings. Most users commented positively on the site design, admired the images, and eventually read something interesting. Yet, the site’s overall usability score is below average. Users in the interviews were more forgiving than the experts, and combining both methods we found key design edits that would increase readability without changing the site’s Wordpress theme.
Most people interviewed preferred print on paper for personal, literary, and in-depth reading over digital screens. Computers were seen as better for research, email, and finding facts. In keeping with this, participants all scanned the pages first, looking for cues to content before committing to an article. Everyone got stuck on the featured images, trying to use them to decide what to read, which was not reliable. The photos were either a beautiful distraction, or visual overload.
Everyone interviewed did finally enjoy some longer reading that engaged their interest. This supports our idea that providing the right visual cues, and clearing the critical path to interesting content would help people reach this desired state of engagement with text.
Few people found the Donate and Subscribe links. People wanted to share articles, but there is no share link to make that easier.
Key recommendations. Usability improvements will help keep users on the site, but that alone will not increase readership. Since most people arrive at the site from external links to a particular article, Terrain should maximize its presence in the external places where likely readers readers would find the site, like links and banners on other relevant sites, content aggregators, social media, email newsletters, etc.
Given a longer-term trend away from home pages and towards apps and social sites, Terrain should look outward to publishing on other social sites like medium.com, Apple News app, and Facebook’s new Instant Articles feature which allows people to read without leaving that site. A longer-term goal might be to create a phone app, as more people are reading that way as well.
_______________________________________
Introduction
It’s a rule of thumb for designers that people don’t read long texts online, but also well documented by research (Marioo, 2013). Online readers mostly scan text, skim heads and subheads, and look at images and links (Krug, 2006). One study by Jakob Nielsen (2008) concluded that readers will usually read only about 20% of a web page. On the other hand, motivation is also a factor. Research also shows that regardless of the medium, readers will read for pleasure to the end of longer articles that hold their interest (Nell, 1988). This is improved if it is well-written, unique, and structured for online reading (Nielsen, 2007).
The question of which medium — online or paper — is better for speed and comprehension is still debated. Yet even given the sharp rise in digital media, most readers still prefer print on paper for long, engaged reading rather than computer screens. (Jabr, 2013)
The message does seem to be in the medium, at least to some degree. Paper media offers a tactile and kinesthetic sense that may also affect recall and cognition. Still, the advantages of an all-digital magazine are pretty clear: low cost of publishing, easy storage and retrieval, convenience of use, always on multiple devices independent of location, easy to share, etc.
Research Overview
Our goal in this study was to find ways to increase readership, subscribers, and donations for the online literary magazine, terrain.org. All of our questions focused on changes that could be made in the site design.
We tried first to understand more about how the current, and the most likely new audience, for Terrain.org reads literary wok online, observing their habits and perceptions that effect how engaged they become with the content. We did this through user interviews and watching people navigate and read on the site. Second, to get more technical data on usability and readability issues which a normal user might not know how to describe, we designed an expert review using other designers as evaluators.
The Journal
Terrain.org: A Journal of the Built + Natural Environments, is a free online literary magazine covering literature architectural design, and visual arts dealing with the environment. It has a specific point of view, focusing on local place-based perspectives, offering both literary and scientific or technical contributions. The majority of readers are well educated: writers, artists, students, teachers, scientists, architects, and government employees. As some users commented, it has an MFA look.
The site emphasizes beautiful design, engaging visuals, and photography, featuring writing from both well-known and up and coming writers and artists. There is an editorial board and a highly competitive submission process. Yet, to get this excellent work out into the world where it can have the best and most beneficial impact, a larger audience is required.
The Problem
In interviews with the publisher, we identified several issues or “pain points” that we thought could be answered or resolved through user research. The site was established in 1998 and has built a good readership base over time, logging between 200,000–250,000 visits and 280,000–450,000 page views in 2015.
However, in the last five years numbers of new readers have reached a plateau. Analytics shows that visits to Terrain.org in 2015 were down 4.75% from the previous year, and although approximately 80% were new, only 20% of the total viewers were returning visitors. There is a high bounce rate and most users don’t drill down very deep: 85% of visitors exit from the home page, and the average number of pages viewed is 1.5.
The number of new subscribers has leveled off and few people use the “donations” link (less than 1% of site traffic). We see this as a sign that a new stage of growth is needed to take the site to the next level.
Business Goals
1. Increase readership of the site, and increasing time on site.
2. Increase donations to the site
Research Questions
How do people read long articles online, compared to reading printed magazines?
How do people discover and arrive at Terrain.org?
How can we encourage readers to stay longer on the site?
Once people stay, what makes them read longer and deeper?
What entices people to make donations online? What helps them decide?
Hypothesis. Our starting idea was that usability improvements would encourage readers to dig deeper and stay longer on the site, reading more articles and also longer texts. By increasing the number of quality readers — those fully engaged with the content, who read to the end of the articles — we hope to reach a critical mass of users sharing, recommending, and commenting on articles. For this purpose, we also wanted to be sure that the links for donating, subscribing and sharing were easy to find.
Research Methods and Recruitment
A NUMBER of research methods would be appropriate to answer our research questions and help us better understand how to achieve the organization’s business goals. Because of time and budget limitations, we will chose two major research methods: an expert review and user interviews, preparing ourselves first with a brief literature survey and competitive review.
Literature Review.
Since there has been a lot research done in the last 30 years on how people read, both on and off computers, I started with a review of this literature. This survey, and a brief competitive review — a look at at other similar or competitive sites, provided specific criteria to use as metrics in the expert review and usability study.
Based on common findings of other researchers, I identified a short list of tasks critical to the site’s readability. We used these as check points for an expert review (heuristic evaluation) in which other designers follow these scenarios to find the areas expected to cause difficulty for users.
Competition review.
Comparing a site to competitors or others attempting to solve similar issues can orient you within the landscape of similar sites, as well as provide good ideas. Elizabeth Goodman (2012) writes, “Competitive research is the purest user research you can do.” It allows you to see other’s web sites as if you were one of their users. Relevant aspects of similar sites can be chosen for comparison and evaluation.
Good reading sites.
We looked at the following sites for inspiration, all designed for reading of long articles, and all a pleasure to browse.
The Harvard Law Review (http://harvardlawreview.com)
Medium.com (http://medium.com)
Nautilus (http://nautil.us)
Scientific American (scientificamerican.com)
Asymptote (http://www.asymptotejournal.com)
Ecotone (https://ecotonemagazine.org)
The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine)
Expert Review
Because of the well-established standards for web reading and usability, a heuristic evaluation provides a baseline for evaluating the parts of the site to evaluate more carefully. I chose the items rated for relevancy from the commonly used ten usability heuristics proposed by Nielsen (1995), and new elements found in the literature survey specific to readability.
User Interviews
To save time and costs, I conducted a series of hybrid user interviews/usability studies that combined a live in-person walkthrough of the site, then a conversation designed to elicit a user’s needs and desires.
I began the interviews off the computer, asking about how the user thinks in general about reading, then some questions about Terrain.org. We conducted the second half of the interview on-screen with a walk-through of a specific scenario: find an interesting article, read it to the end, then do it again.
Recruitment
We chose three segments of the readership to interview. A potential reader who is interested in arts and the environment but has not been to terrain.org, a current reader of the site, and a “power user” who reads much of the content as it is posted. We recruited these people from the list of subscribers or readers known to the publisher.
Data Analysis
The Expert Review
Hypothesis: Usability issues can cause new users who are curious, but not yet involved with the content to click away from the site. Conversely, improving usability will retain readers, keeping them on the site longer.
Method
USABILITY is fundamental to gaining and keeping readers. So I began with an expert usability review (also called a heuristic analysis) to identify areas that might need help. We chose the check points for the evaluation for their value for readability, as well as common website evaluation “rules of thumb” from two authorities, Jacob Nielsen (Nielsen, 1995) and David Travis (Travis, 2014)
I asked 4 other designers to rate 14 heuristics or check points on a scale using 3 numbers: 0=needs work, 1=satisfactory, 2=excellent.
For each check point, I calculated a score by dividing the sum of the reviewers’ score for each point by the maximum possible score. That gave me a percentage grade for each check point.
Results
Discussion
All the reviewers liked the site and their initial impressions were very favorable. Despite this, they scored it low. Why is that? Ideally, a site should try to score at least a 75% on a standard heuristic evaluation (Balatbat, 2014). The lower than average 54% overall score is due partly to the use of specialized details relating to the research questions, and the tendency of reviewers to want to give lots of constructive criticism. Good readability online is difficult to achieve and requires attention to these fine details of design.
A few of the same issues came up in user interviews as well, which gives them more strength. These are discussed later. Yet, users are not expected to go to this level of scrutiny in interviews. This is because non-designers don’t usually have the vocabulary to discuss usability issues, nor were they asked to look for them. That’s the purpose of an expert review.
Find-ability. First priority is to look at the visibility of secondary links like contact, subscribe, share, search, and donate. Donate is directly related to the business goals, yet easily finding all of these links are critical to the the business goals of the site .
Typography. Second priority is to address small, but important points of layout and typography. This addresses the research goal of getting readers to become more engaged, by reading to the end of their chosen article.
User Interviews
Method
We tried to recruit participants from three segments of the readership: Never been to site, Casual readers of site, and Major reader. In our time frame, we were unable to recruit people who lived in Tucson who read a lot on the site. Finding these readers could be part of a follow-up study, yet we feel that we have a good picture of how the site is used based on these few interviews.
I conducted the user interviews in person, and if possible, in context of their normal use. Minimal notes were taken during the interviews to keep a normal conversational flow. I made audio and screen recordings as permanent records. The interviews went from 30–45 minutes, starting with some demographic questions, then general questions about how they read, both on and offline.
Following this, we did a walk-through of terrain.org. Starting on the home page, the participant was asked to search or browse for an interesting article within a topic of their choice and read it to the end, while speaking their thoughts aloud. Then they searched for a second article of interest.
Within a few days of each interview, I went through each video and made notes, highlighting words and phrases that seemed to stand out or were interesting. Then I arranged these highlighted fragments into themes and ideas using affinity mapping. This process allows ideas to come out of the raw data on their own, especially if they are common to several people. Some of the themes were easier to define because they came from specific interview questions. A summary of this data follows.
Participant Summaries
Meredith
Demographics In her early 40s, a single, independent, working artist. She is prolific and focused, known for her oil and pastel work done outdoors on site. She teaches drawing and painting and as an organizer, works with large groups of artists in meetings and workshops. Interested in art, science, sense of place, and the environment.
Summary She is extremely visual and primarily used the photographs and their subjects to decide whether or not to click through to an article, easily getting stuck on the visuals. She is sensitive, thoughtful, insightful, and vocal, so was very critical of the things she didn’t like, but usually in a humorous way.
Being a visual person, the photos, took most of her attention, and although beautiful, acted as an impediment to getting to an article to read. “Beauty is only skin deep,” she said during a follow up conversation. Featured images were often disconnected from the literary content. I sent her Nielsen’s rule on home pages: “Use graphics to show real content, not just to decorate your homepage” (Nielsen, 2003) and Meredith wrote back, “Yes, that says it…Now I feel vindicated.”
She preferred flipping through a magazine, then going back to what caught her interest, moving back and forth easily within a volume.
Quote “I love mooses. So I might go and look at that [article], because I once lived in a place where there were mooses.”
Key insight A person can be very interested reading about in the arts and environment, yet become extremely sensitive to details and put off by distractions when reading on computer screens. Some potential readers that read a lot may still not be comfortable with the academic MFA tone of the headlines and content.
Wendy
Demographics Age late 30s, married without children, works as a librarian for the University of Arizona. A writer and poet, she has an MFA in creative writing and another in Library and Information Science.
Summary Wendy is very well read and can expertly analyze a piece of writing, giving a mini lecture on the spot. Yet, in her current job has has very little time to read for pleasure, so is very selective about what she chooses. She primarily reads pieces by people she knows, likes personally, and follows. There are so many journals after all. She is a subscriber to terrain, but reads one, maybe two pieces a month. She repeated her concern several times that there is just too much to keep up with.
Quotes “Sometimes I don’t remember the name of the journal I read something in, just the person who wrote it.”
Key insight Most of the terrain readers she knows are writers. She reads more for who the writer is than for the subject or theme. Given that there are over 250 literary journals in her library, Wendy says many professional writers will read mostly in their own network — other writers they follow, friends, and personal connections. They will enter a site like terrain.org through an external link from a personal email or newsletter, find what they came for, and leave. They are busy.
Having said that, Wendy personally, and as as a librarian, wants to enlarge her circle of awareness by seeking more diversity: writing and writers from different ethnicities, gender-identities, cultures and subcultures. Given this interest, she wants to look at a portrait and short bio of an author she doesn’t yet know — the person’s picture would help her decide to read more.
Anna
Demographics Age in the low 30s, works for the Center for Biological Diversity as a web editor, working 11 hour days reading and writing press releases and emails. She has a strong interest in the nature, is passionate about conservation issues, and reads a lot on her job, as well as for pleasure and entertainment. BA degree in English literature.
Summary Anna reads a lot in general, but doesn’t have much time. Unlike others, she reads long articles on her computer, but in the context of lunch hour at work. At home she reads print. She is very interested in arts, conservation, and environmental writing. Being an editor, she is very critical, even talking during the walk-through about punctuation she doesn’t like. She likes the writing on the site.
Quote “Every web site should have one cute thing on the home page slide show, like the cow.”
“It’s about seeing beauty in regular spaces.”
Key insight Deciding to read a new journal is complex. Given even a tangential interest in the subject matter, and the time to read within her normal day, ie. a lunch hour at work, she will subscribe and add terrain to her reading. It is a new area for her, but related enough that she can justify it as a way to expand her awareness as well as apply it to her work writing about environmental issues. Will it stick?
Paul & Gene
Demographics 55–75 years old, respectively. I lumped these two interviews together because they were similar. Both men are retired from careers unrelated to writing, and are focussed on a new career: being a published writer. As such, they are on the list of people who submitted work to terrain,org. Neither were accepted. Yet.
Summary Although both men were heavy readers in general, they admitted they were old school as far as reading primarily in print. They don’t read online for literary enjoyment.
Regarding the site, they were primarily interested in getting published. They were referred to terrain.org by writer friends as a place to submit work. They both had only skimmed through terrain to see if their stuff was a good fit.
After the walk-through, both subscribed, intending to go back and read more. That would be a good follow up.
Key insight Although writers usually want to read good writing in order to become a better writer, they may not be reading literary magazines.
Quote “Currently, I’m re-reading all of Vonnegut and Steinbeck, just to let good writing flow over me.”
Findings
Summary
Not surprisingly, all our participants prefer to read on paper for personal enjoyment. People prefer paper to a screen for longer text. They see a computer as better for information. Often people work at a computer all day and want to get a break from the digital medium because it’s associated with work. Wendy, the librarian, said she had to read a lot of long technical texts online in graduate school, and found that memory unpleasant. But, that also means there is room for improving the reading experience online.
People appreciated anything in the layout that reminded them of a book. Since most of the Terrain’s readers come from a literary culture, one promising approach is to make reading on the site more like reading a familiar book, while adding the advantages of the electronic medium as well — sharing, liking, copying, saving files, etc.
There appear to be two major factors that influence how much time people will spend reading, especially online: level of interest in the content and the readability of the page design.
A very motivated reader will forgive small readability flaws that would deter a more casual browser. People new to the site or who don’t use computers a lot are more sensitive to interface issues, and spend more time trying to find things. This suggests that, in order to attract new readers, terrain.org should make the critical path to finding articles as clear, clean, and free of distractions as possible. This starts on the home page because although most people enter the site from elsewhere, they go back to home and a new starting point to search or read more.
Search. In browsing, people found content especially interesting if it was written by someone they know personally, if they like the author’s photo or bio, or simply liked the photograph associated with the article. Interestingly, they often liked or disliked a text based on very personal and concrete experiences with the subject of the featured image thumbnail, for instance: smoking, if they had tried to quit; moose, if they had seen one. But this is subjective and had little to do with the actual content.
Scanning behavior. Participants spent a surprising amount of time and focus energy skimming, looking for cues, evaluating titles and thumbnails before “committing” to an article. This may be because of the extra click before you can see the article, as opposed to print where turning a page or leafing through many pages, does not take as much thought to undo. People want to decrease their cognitive load and there is more of that when navigating on a computer. Design can take this into account by using the criteria people usually use to decide on the value of a text before reading it.
I identify two reading behaviors. First skimming and then, with luck, engaged reading. Even if an article was on the screen in front of them, they would still skim it, maybe even scroll down, before changing to a quiet deep-reading mode where they spent time with the text.
Images. Although everyone appreciated the large beautiful fine art images, some found the connection to the subject tenuous when looking at thumbnails, and not a necessarily a good guide for deciding whether to click to an article. Several people liked the portraits of the artists or writers and were attracted to those pages. All were interested in reading about the contributor and the photographer or illustrator. This suggests including more portraits, possibly using them for the thumbnails rather than the featured image.
That might not be easy to do within the Valenti Wordpress theme used here, which always shows the featured image full width on the article page. This design limits the kind of photograph that can be used, encouraging landscape and other large, heroic images rather than writers’ portraits. Keep in mind that Wordpress themes are often over-designed because they are meant to stand out, be appealing visually, and sell.
New readers. Writers are the best readers, always seeking to expand their scope, and they are Terrain’s most likely readership. One possible source of new readers are students who want to read good, curated writing as a class resource. Another is people who write for themselves, not to publish, and identify primarily as readers. These promising segments need more research. Some new Terrain.org readers were put off by the the apparently narrow academic “MFA” focus of the site.
Smaller screens. The interviews were all done on a desktop monitor or laptop. We did not do any interviews on tablets or phone readers. This area is full of questions. Terrain.org is responsive in, resizing nicely on smaller screens, but how do people read longer texts on phones and tablets? Are they more likely to read that way? It seems likely given that a tablet is more like a book and can be used anywhere. What are the advantages of a web site, vs an app for a magazine site, even a free one?
The future? It appears that home pages are becoming less important, even web sites themselves may not be prominent in the future on the web. According to a recent New York Times report (Herrman, 2016), online publishing is in a “transition from an Internet of websites to an Internet of mobile apps and social platforms.” This means that a reader may not even know or remember which site content came from — articles will have a life of their own, going out from their parent site and read in emails, RSS, aggregator sites, shared links, social postings, and venues like the new Facebook Instant Articles, which allows people to read without leaving Facebook. Still, articles will always link back to the original published site.
Usability will always be important in keeping visitors on the site, but in itself it is not going to increase readership. Considering this trend away from web sites for reading, publishers may have less control over how a page looks — there will only be the text, the title, and the featured image. Yet these new forms of publishing may be the best way to expand Terrain’s reach and gain new readers. Sites like medium.com spend a lot of effort on user research and are good examples of readable text online. See the competitive review above.
Key recommendations
Start with usability recommendations, especially typography, to help keep users on the site. Since most people arrive at the site from external links to a particular article, make every page a home page, making sure the cues and content people use to search are on every page to encourage them to explore more of the site once they are there.
Since web sites will become less important in the future as people gravitate towards social sites and apps for their reading, Terrain should make sure every page is a home page and has the cues focus on and maximize the external places where likely readers readers would find the site, like links and banners on other related sites, content aggregators, social media, email newsletters, etc.
The web is a powerful collaborative medium whose potential for sharing ideas extends far beyond the reach of printed matter. I recommend starting a Medium.com publication and mirroring selected Terrain articles there. Besides their focus on writing and readability, publishing platforms like Medium generate network value. This means increasing distribution to a potentially larger audience, but more importantly there are new technologies for collective highlighting and publishable responses. (See Medium is not a publishing tool, by Ev Williams, Medium’s founder.)
New Questions
Listening to users as they work through a process tends to bring up new questions. In addition, some of our initial questions turned out to be incomplete or based on wrong assumptions, eg. that most people would start on the home page.
Since we failed to locate enough avid readers of the site to interview, the question remains: “Who are the core readers of terrain.org?” How many of these people land on the front page by entering the url, browse for an interesting article, and read to the end for pleasure? If not on the home page, where do they land and where do they come from?
Doing a second phase of research on tablet and phone screens would be very informative. Reading habits may be very different on smaller, more portable screens.
Note: This was originally a 28-page report, which includes an appendix containing the research data.
__________________________________________
References and Readability Reading List
Balatbat, C. (2014, January 27). A Beginner’s Guide to Heuristic Evaluation (Part 2). Retrieved April 24, 2016, from http://blog.foolprooflabs.com/2014/01/beginners-guide-heuristic-evaluation-part-2/
Jabr, F. (2013, April 11). The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens. Retrieved April 25, 2016, from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reading-paper-screens/
Goodman, Elizabeth; Kuniavsky, Mike; Moed, Andrea (2012–09–01). Chapter 11. Observing the User Experience: A Practitioner’s Guide to User Research (Kindle Locations 4818–4819). Elsevier Science.
Herrman, J. (2016, April 17). Media Websites Battle Faltering Ad Revenue and Traffic. Retrieved May 02, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/business/media-websites-battle-falteringad-revenue-and-traffic.html smid=tw-nytimes
Holst, C. (2010, November 01). Readability: The Optimal Line Length. Retrieved May 21, 2016, from http://baymard.com/blog/line-length-readability
Krug, S. (2006). Don’t make me think!: A common sense approach to Web usability. Chapter 2. Berkeley, Calif: New Riders Pub.
Marjoo, F. (2013, June 6). You Won’t Finish This Article: Why people online don’t read to the end. Retrieved March 31, 2016, from http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/06/how_people_read_online_why_you_won_t_finish_this_article.single.html
Nielsen, J. (2003, November 10). The Ten Most Violated Homepage Design Guidelines. Retrieved May 09, 2016, from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/most-violated-homepage-guidelines/
Nielsen, J. (1995, January 1). 10 Heuristics for User Interface Design: Article by Jakob Nielsen. Retrieved April 01, 2016, from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/
Nielsen, J. (1995, January 1). How to Conduct a Heuristic Evaluation. Retrieved April 2, 2016, from Nielsen Norman Group, https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-to-conduct-a-heuristic-evaluation/
Nielsen, J. (2008, May 6). How Little Do Users Read? Retrieved March 30, 2016, from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-little-do-users-read/
Nielsen, J. (2007, July 9). Write Articles, Not Blog Postings. Retrieved March 30, 2016, from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/write-articles-not-blogs/
Nell, V. (1988). The Psychology of Reading for Pleasure: Needs and Gratifications. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(1), winter, 6–50.
O’Hara, K. (1997). A Comparison of Reading Paper and On-Line Documents. Retrieved July 26, 2016, from http://www.sigchi.org/chi97/proceedings/paper/koh.htm
Sharon, Tomer (2012–03–21). It’s Our Research: Getting Stakeholder Buy-in for User Experience Research Projects (p. 97). Elsevier Science. Chapter 3.
Travis, D. (2016, April 12). 247 web usability guidelines. Retrieved May 01, 2016, from http://www.userfocus.co.uk/resources/guidelines.html
uk.gov, Government Service Manual. (2014, June 4) Expert reviews: Getting input into products and services. Retrieved April 1, 2016, from https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-centred-design/user-research/expert-review.html
