HCI VISTAS, VOLUME-I, 2005-2006
	Usability Survey Report of Indian State Government Web Portals   Dr. Dinesh S. Katre
About HCI VISTAS	INDEX	Article IRN-8./Mar. 2006	<< >>
This article presents a survey of eight randomly selected web portals setup by Indian state governments. Though my main objective is to evaluate the usability of web portals from the perspective of citizens living in a particular state, when I began the usability evaluation, I realized that most of these web portals are too far from the goal of usability. Therefore, I had to bring down the level of evaluation and restrict it to 'Technical Maturity' and 'Basic User Interface'. Technical Maturity refers to effective use of web tools. Basic User Interface refers to the use of common user interface elements and elementary design principles.   Legend for Table 1 / Part A & B : + = Positive - = Negative Positive - stands for good presence of that particular aspect stated in the parameter. Negative - stands for weak of lack of presence of that particular aspect stated in the parameter.     Table 1. Survey of Eight Indian State Government Web Portals Sr. Criteria Rajasthan Haryana Maharashtra Bihar Karnatak Gujarat Panjab West Bengal (Part A) Technical Maturity       1.  Best view size indication + + Not visible + - + + + + 2.    Sitemap, search, home, contact, feedback + - + Some places - -  + + + 3.    Global hyperlinks to broad topics + - + - + + - + 4.    Dropdown menus - - + - - Hierarchical structure +  - - 5.    Use of Animation + - - - - - - - 6.    Use of audio /music - - + - - - - - 7.  Use of video - - + - - - - - 8.    Breadcrumb trails / Navigation plan - - - -  - + -  -  9.    Use of tables / frames + - + +  + + + + 10.    Link to webmaster + - + - - + - -  Total compliance 6 1 8 1 3 7 3 4 (Part B) Basic User Interface Sr. Criteria Rajasthan Haryana Maharashtra Bihar Karnatak Gujarat Panjab West Bengal 1.    Masthead title image + + Not legible  + + +  Not legible + + + 2.    User wise leveling of information - - -  - - - - - 3.    Structuring of information + - + + + + -  + 4.    Conceptual chunking/grouping + - + - +  + - - 5.    Layout Design / Organization + - + +  Very ordinary +  Very ordinary + - -  6.    Logic for use of separate browser window - - + - - - - - 7.    Controlled and meaningful use of fonts + Controlled usage -  + + Controlled usage - + - - 8.   Semantic use of colors -  - +  Some places - -  +  -  - 9.    Legibility of text +  - + +  + + + + 10.    Link title reference on page +  - -  + + + + +  11.    Indication of selected link - - + + - - -  - 12.    Indication of active link - - - - - + - -  13.    Navigation within a link (next-prev.) - - -  -  - + - -  14.    Bookmark navigation within a page -  -  -  -  -  + + - 15.    Consistent sizes, borders, quality of images + -  - - No images +  + -  -  16.    Use of icons - - + -  - + -  + 17.    Use of metaphor / theme - -  + -  - -  - -  18.    Aesthetic value of design -  -  +  -  -  + -  - 19.    Cultural flavor in design - -  +  -  -  -  -  -  20.    Use of regional/national language -  -  + -  + -  -  +  21.    Font download support - - + -  + -  -  +  22.    Help for tour planning/ regional language learning - - + -  - - - -  23.    Icon / file size indication for PDF files Indication for downloading other players - - + - - - - + 24.    Passive or interactive / dynamic / proactive features -  Passive  -  Passive +   Interactive / Proactive in some places -   Passive -  Passive - Passive - Passive -   Passive 25.    General web design conventions - - - - - - - - 26.    Standard visual design principles - - - - - - - - 27.    Standard web usability rules - - - - - - - - 28.  Standard web content rules - - - - - - - - 29.  Consideration of low bandwidth - - - - - - - - 30.    Consideration for adult, handicap, illiterate users - - - - - - - - Total compliance 8 1 18 6 9 14 4 8   As per the 10 criteria of 'Technical Maturity', the web portals of Maharashtra, Gujarat and Rajasthan have done fairly well. On the contrary, the web portals of Bihar, Haryana, Panjab and West Bengal have scored very badly. It is evident that most state governments have not hired the best technical experts to develop their web portals. But shockingly, the web portal of Haryana Government shows a scrolling caption about its winning an award during 7th National Conference on e-Governance. As per this survey report Haryana state web portal has scored very poorly (Technical Maturity = 10% and Basic User Interface = 3%).   As per the 30 criteria of 'Basic User Interface', the web portals of Maharashtra and Gujarat states have scored approx. 50% points. On the contrary, the web portals of Bihar, Haryana, Rajasthan, Karnatak, Panjab and West Bengal have scored very badly. Basic application of user interface components and design principles is very weak. These web portal will be eligible for usability evaluation only after they comply with at least 75% of the criteria. It is evident that these web portals are really far from the goal of usability. It is surprising that the web portal of Karnatak state, which claims to be the hub of Indian IT, scored only (Technical Maturity = 30% and Basic User Interface = 30%). The other leading states like Maharashtra (Technical Maturity = 80% and Basic User Interface = 60%) and Gujarat (Technical Maturity = 70% and Basic User Interface = 46.6%) have relatively better web portals. In the selected sample of 8 web portals only 2 (25% of them) are positive on the criteria. One will have to evaluate further to find how much positive they are on each criterion. Present sample of web portals (approx. 25%) is fairly representative enough for total number of web portals belonging to 29 states and 6 union territories of India.   Another common problem visible in most web portals is that they do not provide current information. It means, the state governments have not developed mechanisms for hosting latest information. It is very likely that they have not created the technical supports to maintain the portals. But most web portals have promptly updated the photographs/names of ministers and other senior bureaucrats! Also the state governments are not using web portals as a effective tool or a medium to interface with citizens. Very few of them try to promote local education, industries, agriculture, culture and tourism. As if it is of no business to them. No wonder if World Bank Report projects 35% of e-government projects in developing countries as total failures.   Readers may like to go through another related article published on HC-eye titled as Deficiency of Vitamin D (Design) in Indian Society.   Feedback at Contribute Articles To
© Copyright 2006-2007
Perspectives
I thank you for the initiative in developing a system for rating govt websites. Its a great idea. Such documentation should help future researchers by serving as some reference. I agree with others that posting URLs is a good idea since, some parameters such as (#19, part B) on Cultural flavour in design, are subjective ratings and I would like to visit a specific site for my own judgement. Also, sharing URLs can help track progress over time in terms of improvements. Screenshots also help. You could perhaps create an appendix with comments on individual sites and share that document separately. Maybe a comprehensive rating (with explanation of course) could help get a sense of how "good or bad" the websites are. Rating and evaluation are not exactly my core strengths, but I am sure there are extensive methods out there that will help you evolve this task you have undertaken. I am reminded here of Richard Saul Wurman's Understanding USA <http://www.understandingusa.com/> that makes viewing data a pleasure. A suggestion is to group the parameters under A, B into sub-categories such as navigation, search, relevance, accessibility and so on. Search itself is a key thing (refer J. Nielsen for this) and could be brought out separately, instead of clubbing it with others (PartA, #2). You could test the search using some common search term relevant to all e.g. registration, road tax, so on. and see how good the search has been in terms of results, ranking, relevance. I guess with time we will get there. Thanks. Sridhar Dhulipala