Website Usability Review: Belmont Behavioral Health

As of an ongoing series, every few weeks I will be reviewing various psychology and psychiatry websites with an eye towards user centered design and usability. Hopefully, you'll be able to get some ideas on what to do and what to avoid when it comes to your own website

This week: Belmont Behavioral Health (http://www.einstein.edu/yourhealth/behavioral/index.html)

This site is one component of the Einstein Health System. It seems to be a comprehensive in/out patient center providing all sorts of treatment. It is a danger in this type of offering that you need to be all things to all people. However, from a usability point of view, this is one of the best sites I've ever seen.

On the front page, there are four colored boxes, each with a clear title. What makes it so special is that the titles aren't "Symptoms" or "Diagnosis". They are "I am feeling..." with links that say "Sad", "Anxious", "Stressed", "Angry" and "view More Choices." This is fantastic, because it speaks specifically to visitors in a heightened emotional state. Rather than having 20 choices on the front page, there are just 4, with a link to seeing more.

I assume that the 4 links in each box on the front page are either the most frequently needed, or the 4 main specialties that the center wants to be known for. However, by having a "View More Choices" displayed so prominently, if I don't feel sad, anxious, stressed, or angry, I know instantly that I can see they have what I'm feeling. They avoid medical jargon and stick to language patients would actually use.

They also have the call to action, the thing they want you to do, displayed prominently on every page. The telephone number appears on the left, in big, bold letters, and at the end of each description of symptom or diagnosis.

In addition, the frequent use of customer stories, personal reflections, and specific examples are brilliant. It helps visitors identify and understand the point the center is trying to make.

This isn't the prettiest website in the world. In fact, it looks like someone made it years ago and it hasn't been updated since. However, the quality of the experience offsets any lack of polish on the design.

But heck, that's just my reaction. What do you think?

Website Usability Review: The Renfrew Center

As of an ongoing series, every few weeks I will be reviewing various psychology and psychaitry websites with an eye towards user centered design and usability. Hopefully, you'll be able ot get some ideas on what to do and what to avoid when it comes to your own website.

This week: The Renfrew Center (http://www.renfrewcenter.com/)

This site is for a residential eating disorder treatment center. As such, it is targeted to women*. With such a clearly defined demographic, steps were taken in the design to appeal to this audience: all the photos are of women, they use "she" and "her" as all pronouns, and the color palette is pink & purple.

While they are doing noble work, there several usability issues with this site.

The immediate reaction on looking at this site is its words. There are a LOT of words on the home page, and they continue on subsequent pages. While the page outlining clinical informaiton on anorexia is fine to be very wordy, a home page shouldn't be. In "Don't Make Me Think", Steve Krug suggests that in writing for the web, you should write what you want, then cut out 50% of the words. Then cut out 50% of what's left. It isn't an easy process, but it is a powerful one. This home page could benefit from it.

Jared Spool, a noted usability guru, has a technique he calls a "5 second test". If you show someone a successful web page for 5 seconds, and take it away, they should be able to tell you where to click on next to find the information they want (or that you want to direct them to). The home page of the Renfrew Center would never pass a 5 second test. There is no clear path, no clear primary thing they want to provide.

I'd guess that if I am coming to this site, my first thing is to find out availability at the center or to make an appointment. On a number of sub-pages, the direction to action is to call the center. However, on the homepage, the phone number appears is part of logo and buried in the middle of the 6th paragraph. This page could benefit from a clear, large font, set off area that said something like "Appointments? Questions? Call 1-800-RENFREW" or somesuch.

There are two sets of navigation, one for content (Locations, Careers, &tc) and one for role (For Schools, For Family, For You). While this is good, the use of "For" threw me off a little. "For Schools" means "Information for Schools and Educators who have Students with Eating Disorders". I recognize that my title is a bit long, but at first glance, I wondered if "For Schools" meant "For Educators" or "Find Schools". If I was to put myself in the role of a teacher concerned about my students, I'm not sure that this would be the automatic place I would jump. A better suggestion: "Patients" "Educators/Teachers". Leave off the "For" and be specific about who the target of interest is.

On the location page, the locations are presented as a list and in a very strange order. Philadelphia and Radnor, PA are close to one another, but Coconut Creek, FL is listed in between. The list isn't alphabetical, it isn't geographic. My only guess is it is listed in the order that they were opened. Whatever the order, it isn't listed in any order that is meaningful to users. Much better: a map that shows the locations so a user can place herself and judge which center is right for her. Also of interest: I had no idea that they had so many centers. The title of the homepage says: "Renfrew Center Philadelphia Florida" Leaving out the 7 other states. I'd certainly want to promote that fact on the home page.

So, that's the feedback:
- very wordy
- no clear calls to action (particularly on the homepage)
- choppy navigation
- poor location information and promotion

But heck, that's just my 2 cents. What do you think?


* although they point out that eating disorders are increasingly prevalent in men.

Website Usability Review: Council for Relationships

As part of an ongoing series, every few weeks I will be reviewing various psychology and psychiatry websites with an eye towards user centered design and usability. Hopefully you'll be able to get some ideas on what to do and what to avoid when it comes to your own website.

This week: Council for Relationships

I have to say: I really like this site, when looking through the lens of usability. Here are some of the things they get really right.

Clear, consistent navigation: always in the same place on every page. Common links, including a contact method. Demographic based navigation: "for clients" "for professionals" gives visitors clues to where they should be clicking.

Updated content in common places: the Tip of the Week, In the Spotlight, and Upcoming Classes are all content that is easily updated and encourages repeat visitors to the homepage, but gives links to more information

Calls to action clearly marked: They want most visitors to do one (or more) of 3 things: sign up for newsletter, donate money, or make an appointment. Each one is clearly marked (the donate repeats), and easy to find. They stand out and draw the eye.

From a purely usability view, I'd only suggest two changes and they are pretty minor.

The first is the logo for "OPERATION Home & Healing". I understand the purpose of the words "OPERATION" are to enforce and remind of military and service. I also understand that the contrast in font from "OPERATION" and "Home & Healing" is meant to be there. However, the execution of the text makes the Home & Healing hard to read at first glance. The bisecting lines of the OPERATION text make visual disruption and effort on the part of the user to read. By moving the "Home & Healing" down just a little, less than 1/2 the height of the text, so that the full "Home & Healing" is below the "OPERATION" would make the whole logo much more legible.

The second is the menu link "Media Experts & Speakers". This title is not indicative of the content that is listed there. I expected the content to be a library or directory of experts with bios. Instead, it is a calendar of events. Even as I tried to write this paragraph, I kept reading it as "Media EVENTS". Users who are looking for events to attend wouldn't necessarily think to click on this menu. Instead, "Upcoming Events" or just "Public Events" would be much more clear and get the users to the content they want.

As I said, pretty minor items. From a purely "usable" focus, this is a very good site.

However, from a "user experience" or a "design" focus, this site is not very good. It looks much more like a print/newsletter item rather than a website. The initial reaction is not positive, as it feels crowded, "text-heavy", and jumbled. There are 5 different color blues* on the page, not necessarily complimentary. The stark contrast between the blue & the gold makes the gold the first place your eye looks, and makes the top navigation tend to disappear.

I don't claim to have any expertise in pure design. I always say: I design experiences and interactions, I don't do fonts, colors, or logos. I don't have any clear suggestions on how to improve, other than "it needs some work."

Ultimately, any website carries on a conversation with its user. It sends a message to the user. What message is the Council for Relationships sending to their visitors?

But heck, these are just my opinions. What do you think?


* Dark blue in top navigation, medium/dark blue in the logo banner, medium/light blue in the newsletter signup, light blue in the Upcoming Classes and Spotlight, and the electric blue of the links. The blue of the borders appears to match either the logo blue or the link blue, but it could be a 6th blue.