adfa, p. 1, 2011.

Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Improving Functionality and Design in an Online Forum
Liliana Gaspar
Human Computer Interaction Module (2012-2013)
School of Computer Science and Informatics
University College Dublin, Ireland
liliana.gaspar@ucdconnect.ie
Abstract. This paper describes the development and findings of a project to
improve the design and functionality of an online forum called the French Nor-
ton forum. The French Norton forum is one of five existing online communities
in different languages which are meant to facilitate peer-to-peer support and the
exchanging of ideas about Norton products. The project described here aimed to
(1) understand customers objectives when using the forum (2) get the custom-
ers feedback about key areas of the forum that are relevant to their objectives
and those of the business (3) propose and test a series of improvements on those
key areas. Our tests, although performed among a limited number of partici-
pants, shed some light on how customers use these forums and what their ex-
pectations are. The final design proposed pleased the participants and offers
important suggestions that can be used in the future during a more extensive us-
ability improvement project.
Keywords: online forum, French Norton forum, Q&A community, online so-
cial community, peer-to-peer support, community management, usability test-
ing, human-computer interaction.
1 Introduction and Literature Review
1.1 Characteristics and Design of Online Communities
Online communities are nowadays a fundamental part of our lives. In fact, the grow-
ing popularity of platforms such as Facebook, which is now used by a large variety of
people around the world, both for personal and professional uses, denotes that the
virtual experience now is as relevant to our lives as the concrete one [10].
There is extensive literature that describes the reasons why social media has taken
such a preponderant role in the life of many individuals. In fact, social media presents
the benefit of allowing the delivery of large amounts of messages and overcoming the
barriers of time and space [4].
As a result, online communities have flourished in various contexts and can present
a diversity of shapes and purposes. One type of online community is what is called a
discussion forum. These communities are designed to facilitate group discussions
around a given topic, in an asynchronous manner. Hence, the main design features
allow for messages to be saved and searched in the future by other forums users, as
well as being organised in a way that shows the evolution of each discussion (also
called thread) and the identification of its participants. Forums also have features that
allow participants to provide feedback to each other about the nature of their interven-
tions, namely by allowing members to show their support of other members com-
ments (in the same way Facebook allows users to like another persons posts) and,
more often than not, indicate if a given comment answers the initial question of the
individual who started the thread. In this respect, forums can also be called question
and answer (Q&A) communities, in the sense that their discussions revolve around
the intent to answer someones question or solve someones problem.
Implicit to the notion of Q&A community is the existence of individuals who seek
answers and individuals who contribute with knowledge [11]. The success of an
online community therefore depends on the dynamics of knowledge seeking and
knowledge contributing.
As knowledge contributors tend to be in much less amount than knowledge seekers
[1], an extensive part of the literature that analyses online communities focuses on the
issue of how to entice members to share their knowledge [1-7]. The most frequently
quoted reason for knowledge contribution is the need for recognition [11], also called
social satisfaction [4]. Recognition is a means by which the individual reinstates his
value in society. Such value is normally perceived as deriving from the uniqueness of
the self [1], or, in this context, the uniqueness of the users contributions. The per-
ceived value of ones contributions by the rest of the community creates a feeling of
integration, or belonging, thus helping the individual to define a social identity [10].
As a consequence of the above, another important set of features that form the de-
sign of an online community allow for individuals to express their identity and give
each other signs of recognition.
Gurzick and Lutters [8] provide a good summary of the design guidelines proposed
in current literature for online communities, which reccomend that an online commu-
nity:
1. Establishes and articulates a sense of purpose that is fluid to the changing needs of
the community;
2. Is, at least in part, constructed by its members;
3. Promotes, facilitates and tempers member interaction;
4. Motivates the involvement of members through increased levels of participation;
5. Supports the construction and management of member identity;
6. Incorporates mechanisms that build common ground between members;
7. Manages issues of credibility;
8. Presents a consistent, predictable and controllable user experience.
1.2 The French Norton Forum
The French Norton forum, which is the object of this paper, is part of a group of
five different discussion forums that exist in several languages: Chinese, English,
French, German and Japanese. The forum was created in 2009 to serve the purpose of
facilitating online discussions about Norton products and currently has a total of 8,500
members
1
.
If we take into consideration the theory of community lifecycle proposed by Iriber-
ri and Leroy [9], this forum can be described as being in the maturity stage, as its
purpose and rules are clearly defined and there is a significant group of participants
who have organised into subgroups (both naturally and with the support of modera-
tors), sharing the same culture and identity. The authors establish the success factors

1
This is the total number of accounts created in the forum until this day; it doesnt reflect the
actual number of active users (i.e. users who log in regularly).
of a matured community as being (1) the existence of regular online events; (2) the
presence of sales and offers (depending on the purpose of the community); (3) the
development of context-specific user tools that facilitate the use of the community
(ex.: a search engine); (3) the possibility for permeated managed control, in which
some community members are invited to participate in moderation-related activities;
(4) the recognition of contributions and (5) the establishment and support of sub-
groups.
The French Norton forum being at a matured stage, its design is also matured. This
means that it has evolved in confluence with its members needs and it follows the
eight design guidelines described by Gurzick and Lutters [9], which in many ways
relate to the success factors described by Iriberri and Leroy. Next, we will revise the
current features and design, based on those guidelines.
Guideline 1: An online community should establish and articulate a sense of
purpose that is fluid to the changing needs of the community. The French Norton
forum clearly indicates its purpose in the home page, inviting the users to join and
participate in the discussions. The forums main intent as being a discussion board
about Norton products is pre-established by the business and will always tend to re-
main static as such. Nonetheless, throughout the evolution of the forum, different
discussion sub-topics have emerged which led to changes being made to the existing
discussion boards, or topic sub-categories. The project discussed in this paper includ-
ed a revision of the current structure. Further ahead, we will propose new changes as a
consequence some of the behaviours observed prior to the beginning of the project, as
well as usability test results performed during the course of this study.
Guideline 2: An online community should be, at least in part, constructed by its
members. The involvement of a group of real users in this project is, by itself, a
means of involving community members in its construction, and proved to be an ex-
citing task for many of them. One interesting aspect of the feedback that community
members provided was that many of their suggestions showed their concern with
creating a forum that can be easily used by newcomers. Such attitude reveals deep
involvement in the life of the community. The current forum structure also includes a
specific area that invites users to share their opinion about the forum. Finally, the
forum has a board where a selected group of elders can contribute with tutorials for
the rest of the community.
Guideline 3: Promote, facilitate and temper member interaction. This aspect is
deeply related to how moderators intervene to reinforce positive behaviour and disal-
low the behaviours that do not follow the norm, whether it is because they dont re-
spect the communitys code of conduct, or because they do not relate to its purpose.
The French Norton forum benefits from the existence of both company employees
and especially nominated community members who act as moderators and have been
successful at ensuring healthy interaction between members. There are statistics that
reflect the growth of social interactions and so far there were very few incidents
whereby rules were not respected. Insofar as design, all posted messages automatical-
ly include a link that facilitates escalation of unwanted behaviour, should it not be
immediately noticed by a moderator.
Guideline 4: An online community should motivate the involvement of members
through increased levels of participation. The main characteristic that follows this
guideline is the existence of an automated ranking system that reflects the users level
of participation. A new user starts with the role of new member and progressively
goes up the ladder as the system computes several statistics associated to his or her
participation, including for instance frequency of login or quantity of posts. On top of
that, a selected group of members are manually given special roles in the community,
in consonance with the value of their contributions. More specifically, members can
be nominated Super-Users and then Gurus. These roles allow access to private areas
of the forum, advanced product information and several types of rewards. In addition
to this, some members are also given special permissions that enable them to act as
moderators, such as deleting or moving messages into the appropriate section of the
community.
In addition to effective moderation, this guideline also states that there should be
sufficient and clear information for newcomers to know how to participate. Although
the forum does have information for newcomers, our usability test pointed to some
areas of improvement which will be discussed further ahead.
Guideline 5: An online community should support the construction and man-
agement of member identity. Regarding this guideline, Gurzick and Lutters cite Ma
when indicating four identity-related design features: (1) virtual co-presence, which
means design practices should facilitate a sense of togetherness between members or
otherwise give an impression that an online community is a populated space; (2)
persistent labelling, by incorporating mechanisms that enable identity persistence in
an online community, distinguishing members from each other; (3) self-presentation,
which is deeply connected to the previous, as is enabled by the possibility of customi-
sation of ones profile and (4) deep profiling, which is a set of features that allow
members to get information about who did what in the community.
As far as the French forum is concerned, virtual co-presence is achieved through
the presence of typical features of asynchronous communication platforms, such as
message time stamps. Furthermore, a specific area of the forum is constantly updated
with a list of the members that are online, as well as the usernames of those who re-
cently joined the community, inviting others to welcome them.
Persistent labelling and self-presentation also have a place in the forum, as users
can chose their screen name and image associated to their profile. Feedback provided
by some members in relation to the current ranking system and available profile cus-
tomisations indicate that both these features require improvement. More specifically,
some users expressed interest in having more variety of avatars to choose from, and
more exciting ranking labels. In addition to this, other aspects of the ranking system
have been identified by administrators as being in need of revision, such as the criteria
used for ranking. Revising the ranking system, though, requires extensive statistical
analysis, so we chose to leave it out of the scope of this project, as well as any other
ranking or role definition related improvements.
Deep profiling is achieved in the French Norton forum through the presence of the
metadata in each message posted by the users, namely their rank, date of registration
and number of posts. Each member also has a profile page that others can check
which contains additional information about their participation, including a list of the
latest threads they participated in and information about kudos (or likes) given and
received. User profile pages can be accessed by clicking on their screen name or per-
forming a search among users. Usability testing performed during this project re-
vealed some need for improvement with regards to the metadata associated to users
posts. In light of that, a revision of the information displayed in the user profile page
may also need improvement. The latter, however, was not object of this report, be-
cause it wasnt considered a priority.
Guideline 6: An online community should incorporate mechanisms that build
common ground between members. Common ground is about mutual understand-
ing between communicators, and such mutual understanding is shown by the feed-
back they provide to each other. In the French Norton forum, community features that
build common ground include, for instance, the use of emoticons, the possibility of
liking the other persons post, the possibility of marking someone elses answer as
being the solution to the initial problem and the possibility to signal me too in
someone elses initial problem description, indicating that the problem is shared by
several other members. Our tests revealed that the me too feature is not perceived as
important (a fact that is confirmed by usage statistics). The other features are seen as
important, even if they might need some improvement in design.
Another means of supporting common ground is related to the type of information
that users can display in their profiles. In the French Norton forum, member profile
pages havent been designed for users to provide self-disclosure information. As pro-
file pages were not prioritised for improvement, usability testing for this area of the
forum will be performed in future projects.
Last but not least, the act of promoting events and rituals is also considered a
means of supporting the development of common ground. The French Norton forum
has a dedicated space for announcing events and games. Specific dates and anniver-
saries are also celebrated. One of the projects that is currently planned in line with the
improvements to be made to profile customisation is a competition for the design of
avatars and rank names.
Guideline 7: An online community should manage issues of credibility. Acording
to Gurzick and Lutters, credibility relies on four indicators: (1) consistent and logical
presentation of information; (2) clear statement of motive, as well as design and con-
tents that are consistent with that motive; (3) reputation of the organisers and (4) qual-
ity and consistency of aesthetics.
The maturity of the French Norton forum and the work performed by its modera-
tors, have ensured that the information is properly organised. Although, as previously
stated, this project proposes a new structure for information categorisation, this is
only a means of building upon and further improving the layout that is already in
place, which has proven to be successful so far (e.g.: most customers understand it
and use it accordingly).
As to motive, the forum clearly states that it is a space for peer-to-peer support, and
this fact is easily confirmed by the nature of its content and interactions. One interest-
ing aspect mentioned by the authors indicated above is that users tend to participate
less if they perceive the motive of a community to be of a commercial nature. Alt-
hough the forum is, for the most part, a space for support and knowledge sharing,
there are a few communications regarding promotions. Such communications are
accepted by users, who understand this to be normal for a brand-related community.
We do not believe that they prevent users from posting. Nonetheless, our tests and
previous existing statistics confirm that customers have very limited interest in such
communications and tend to pay more attention to other types of content.
Reputation is not a concern for this community which is clearly associated to a
well known brand and company. Regarding aesthetics, users feedback shed light on
some elements that require improvement, but there is no indication that they negative-
ly affect reputation. The overall visual aspect of the community is considered satisfac-
tory. Despite that, our project aimed to and succeeded at exceeding the users expecta-
tions in terms of aesthetics.
Guideline 8: An online community should present a consistent, predictable and
controllable user experience. The French Norton forum currently has a consistent
structure and design that is used across all Norton communities, with minor adapta-
tions to the needs of each of them. As to the predictability of its elements, our usabil-
ity tests performed with an inexperienced user showed that some elements should be
redesigned. Similarly, our project will show that some in some ways the user experi-
ence should be more controllable, namely by removing some visual elements which
add complexity with no benefit to information.
2 Method
This project comprised three main phases: (1) analysis of community members pur-
poses when using the forum; (2) analysis of feedback on the current existing website
and (3) development and usability testing of a new version. The table below summa-
rises the three phases, the specific assessment tools used in each and the outputs ob-
tained.
Table 1. Summary of methodology
Project Phases Assessment Tools Outputs
Phase 1: Analysis of users
goals
Online Survey among expe-
rienced users
Definition of Personas
Establishment of areas of the forum
to be tested in priority
Phase 2: Analysis of feedback
on current forum website
Online Survey among expe-
rienced users


Eye tracking test with an
inexperienced user
Global user perception of the quality
of the forum
Identification of improvements to be
made for experienced users
Identification of improvements to be
made for inexperienced users
Phase 3: Development and
testing of new version

3.1 First Iteration:



3.2 Second Iteration:



3.3 Third Iteration:



Online Focus Group with
experienced users


Task Analysis with inexperi-
enced user followed by a
personal interview

Online Focus Group with
experienced users



Feedback on first prototype and
identification of improvements to be
made for experienced users

Feedback on second prototype and
further improvements to be made
for inexperienced users

Feedback on third prototype
Note that, due to the limited availability of the users, the first prototype was tested
only with experienced users; next, it was improved based on the eye tracking test and
then this second version was tested with task analysis and personal interview of the
inexperienced user. For the same reason, the process of gathering feedback about the
third version was not fully completed upon submission of this report.
3 Results Obtained in Each Phase
3.1 Phase 1: Analysis of users goals
This first phase of the project was based on the findings of Phang et al [11]. The au-
thors distinguish between two types of users for Q&A communities, based on their
research of a community of students and teachers: knowledge seekers, who use the
community to obtain answers to their queries, and knowledge contributors, who pro-
vide those answers. Based on this distinction, the authors demonstrated that
knowledge seekers are mainly interested in aspects of usability that related to the
presence of a moderator and the ease of use, whereas knowledge contributors are
focused on socialisation and knowledge tracking, which allow them to build up their
reputation.
In order to define the types of users that exist in the French Norton forum, we
wanted to confirm whether we can separate the forum members into knowledge seek-
ers and knowledge contributors, and check whether the main interests of each group is
in consonance with the predicaments of Phang et al. Our assumption was that our
Gurus and Super-Users would represent the knowledge contributors and the remain-
ing users, which we here call regular members, would be knowledge seekers. Wed
like to point out that all Gurus and Super-Users were once regular members, having
been promoted once they spontaneously and consistently acted as knowledge contrib-
utors. We therefore assumed that there could be a limited number of users in the regu-
lar members group that would have a profile that is more similar that of a knowledge
contributor. We also believed however, that this possibility would be remote, as users
who consistently act as knowledge contributors are usually spotted quite quickly and
promoted accordingly to reinforce their behaviour.
When translating the findings of Phang et al into goals for our specific community,
we established three main types of goals: (1) consume knowledge, (2) contribute with
knowledge and moderation activities and (3) socialising. Table 2 lists all the goals
included in the survey, what type of goal they are considered to be and how they re-
late to the supporting theory.
One goal, exchange opinions with other customers like me ((k), (b)) is consid-
ered to be both related to knowledge contribution and to knowledge seeking, a hy-
pothesis which seems to be confirmed by the results of this survey, which we will
present further on. Knowledge tracking was included in the global socialisation do-
main, because it facilitates the establishment of an individuals reputation and hence
social position in the community. Also related to social interaction is the reverse of
knowledge tracking, which is the observation of other performance, an objective
translated by Observe the level of participation of other forum members. The goals
presented in the second column of the table are merely the main goals. One could
argue that, for instance, exchanging opinions with other customers has an element of
socialisation as well.
The survey asked users to identify themselves as regular members, super-users
or gurus and rank each of the goals on a scale of 0 to 6. They also had the chance to
indicate that a certain goal was not applicable to their personal case. This could be the
case, for instance, for goal (d) Solve IT security problems for my own customers.
Goal (l), help maintain good other (...) was considered non applicable to regular
members by default.
Table 2. Goals Survey and Supporting Literature (Phang et al)
Goal Type of Goal Supporting Literature
(a) Stay informed about IT security
issues (ex. Latest threats)
Consume knowledge Knowledge seeking
(b) Exchange opinions with other
customers like me
(c) Stay informed about IT security
products (ex. Choosing an antivi-
rus)
(d) Solve IT security problems for
my own customers
(e) Contact brand representatives
about product and service queries
(f) Solve IT security problems for
myself, my family or my friends
(g) Make suggestions to improve
security products
Contribute with
knowledge or modera-
tion activities
Knowledge contribution
(h) Feel useful to the rest of the
community
(i) Share information I have about
IT security
(j) Help other forum members to
solve their problems
(k) Exchange opinions with other
customers like me
(l) Help maintain good order by
making use of my moderation per-
missions
N/A
(m) Observe the level of participa-
tion of other forum members
Socialise N/A
(n) Make my contributions / ac-
complishments visible to other
forum members
Knowledge contributors
are interested in
knowledge tracking
(o) Socialise with other forum
members
Knowledge contributors
are interested in socialis-
ing
The graph in Figure 1 summarises the results obtained with this survey, to which a
total of 19 participants responded: six regular members, six super-users and two gu-
rus. One of the participants was later on in the project identified as having special
needs
2
. Although this is only a small number of participants, the results present inter-
esting information analysed below.


Fig. 1. Goals Survey Results
First off, the graph demonstrates that all groups of users are strong knowledge
seekers. When it comes to knowledge contribution, there is a visible distinction of the
three groups of users. Regular members are the ones who are least focused in this
behaviour, and super-users are the most motivated. Gurus, whose results for this do-
main are mid-scale, may be influenced by the fact that they are one step higher in the
role evolution ladder, having thus taken an interest in the development of the forum as
a community. In this sense, they are aware that they should leave space for the variety
of participations in the community and may tend to intervene only when they feel
their input is essential. Another possible explanation could be that, as elders, they
have gone beyond the most enthusiastic phase of their involvement and became more
selective of the discussions they are interested in participating in.
The contrasts and similarities observed between regular members and contributors
demonstrate that the distinction between knowledge seekers and knowledge contribu-
tors makes sense when it comes to identifying the personas in the French Norton fo-
rum. Nonetheless, instead of being two completely separate groups, there is an over-
lap, and knowledge contribution is but one additional role that some knowledge seek-
ers have spontaneously taken.
In terms of socialisation goals, and more specifically knowledge tracking, the ob-
jective of making ones contributions visible to others is the strongest one for all us-
ers. Similarly, the observation of other peoples contributions tends to present the
lowest level of interest. This common trend across all groups is an interesting finding.

2
For privacy reasons we will not provide further information, except the fact that those needs
limit mouse pointer precision. The user was encouraged to provide feedback in relation to
her specific needs but we didnt receive any significant information.
We can argue that the desire to be noticed by the community is instinctive to the hu-
man being as an intrinsically social being. The differences seen between each type of
user group are in terms of how far apart the two goals are (being observed and observ-
ing). Namely, those members who are at higher levels of engagement are the ones
who more clearly need to be recognised. The goal of purely socialising, however,
doesnt seem to be of particular importance to the Gurus, whose rating is similar to
that of the regular members. In this respect, super-users seem to be, once more, the
most enthusiastic, probably for the same reasons as presented above.
The findings of this survey point to the existence of an engagement ladder, in
which users first join the community in seek of information, then start helping other
members for various reasons which havent been ascertained through this survey and
finally take on a role that is similar to that of a old wise man, observing and providing
advice only when relevant and/or less excited about an activity that no longer presents
itself as new. This last possibility is to be analysed carefully in order to understand
how we can prevent the eldest members from abandoning the community.
Some of the comments made so far can be confirmed when looking at the global
raking of all goals for each group, shown in the images below.


Fig. 2. Regular Members Global Ranking
The graph above uses the same colour code used in Figure 1: blue representing
knowledge consuming, green represents knowledge contribution and orange repre-
sents socialisation. In one glance, we can see how the consuming goals have higher
importance for this group of users, followed by the contribution goals and then the
socialisation goals, even if these last two become blended at some level. It is also
visible that exchanging opinions with other customers is a kind of hybrid between
consuming and contributing, being close to the frontier between these two categories
(e.g. one of the least important objectives for consuming; whose rank is closer to that
of the contribution objectives).


Fig. 3. Super-Users Global Ranking
Super-Users, who are more engaged as contributors, rank the contribution goals
higher than regular users, even if they are mostly interested in seeking information.
Exchanging opinions with other customers proves once more to be a hybrid goal.


Fig. 4. Gurus Global Ranking
The graph above once more confirms the high level of interest that knowledge
seeking has across all groups, and demonstrates the Gurus interest also in knowledge
contribution. Solving IT security problems becomes less important, possibly because
these users tend to be more experienced and independent in solving their own prob-
lems.
The analysis of the data obtained in phase 1 of our project led to determining three
priority areas to be analysed in the forum to check if improvements were necessary:
knowledge consuming as this is important for all users; knowledge contribution
because the community cannot survive without the contribution of its elders; and,
specifically within the context of socialisation, knowledge tracking which after all is
important to all groups of users, being essential to keep current contributors satisfied
and to entice non contributors to progress up the engagement ladder.
Once the priority areas were established, all the specific areas of the forum were
mapped to the same, and the following were the ones that were considered to be more
important: the home page; the sub-topic page; the discussion reading page; the search
results page and the reply / posting a message page.
3.2 Phase 2: Analysis of Feedback on Current Website
Online Asynchronous Focus Group The next step in our project was to gather
user feedback about the current website, namely with regards to the priority
areas mentioned in the previous section. In order to achieve this, we made
print screens of those pages, numbered the respective elements, and asked that
participants answer an online survey where they had to rate each element from
1 to 5 in terms of importance, easy of use and aesthetics. Before looking at the
results, we will present the print screens with labels for each element.














Fig. 5. Current Home Page
3


3
http://fr.community.norton.com (we suggest Google translate if needed)
1. Banner
1.1 Introduction content
2. Central area: divided by
categories (main topics),
each with several boards
(sub-topics)
3. Login and account manage-
ment
4. Link to private messages
5. Highlights (normally used
for information on promo-
tions and new products)
6. Useful links
7. Follow Norton: links to
other Norton social media
websites
8. Threatcon widget: indicates
the global IT security threat
level and has a link to anoth-
er website for more infor-
mation
9. Latest solved topics
10. Latest tags
11. Online and new members



Fig. 6. Sub-Topic Page
4


4
http://fr.community.norton.com/t5/Norton-Internet-Security-Norton/bd-
p/1a_technical_support
1. Current category
2. Page location (home> cate-
gory> sub-topic)
3. Options
4. Navigation through existing
discussions
5. Discussions list; highlighted
topics are above grey line
6. Same as 5. in previous page
7. Useful links (different from
previous page)
8. Same as 8. in previous page
9. Latest solved topics for this
board
10. Latest liked topics
11. Latest tags
12. Most liked contributors in
this board


Fig. 7. Discussion Reading Page
5








Fig. 8. Replying to a message (similar to writing new message)
6


5
http://fr.community.norton.com/t5/Norton-Internet-Security-Norton/les-2-cl%C3%A9s-
pay%C3%A9es-que-je-ne-peux-pas-utiliser/m-p/47536/highlight/true#M13389
6
We suggest creating a test account on the forum and clicking reply on the thread above
1. Options
2. Navigation through discus-
sions for this board
3. Resolved label
4. Link to report inappropriate
content
5. Link to solution
6. Me too button to indicate
one has the same problem
7. Add a tag
8. Like button and total
Likes count
9. Identification of message
author and metadata (# of
posts; date when registered)
10. Symbol that indicates this
message is the solution
1. Message Title
2. Quote previous message
3. HTML view
4. Preview
5. Toolbar
6. Add attachment
7. Enlarge window


Fig. 9. Search results page
7

Our perspective of the results assumes that any value above 4 represents satisfac-
tion, a value below 4 and above 3.5 means the element needs improvement, and be-
low those values we consider that the element should be prioritised for improvement.
This is a business-oriented perspective, as we aim to provide the best experience pos-
sible to our users. There were 9 participants in this survey, all of them knowledge
contributors. These were the results obtained:
Table 3. Users Opinions on Current Homepage
Homepage
Element Importance
Ease of
Use
Aesthetics
Element
Average
Conclusion
1. Banner 3.89 4.33 3.89 4.04 Improve
1.1 Introduction 4.56 4.44 3.89 4.30 Improve
2. Central area 4.78 4.00 4.00 4.26 Good
3. Account management 4.56 3.67 3.56 3.93 Improve
4. Private messages 4.78 3.89 3.78 4.15 Improve
5. Highlights 3.22 3.67 3.00 3.30 Remove?
6. Useful links 3.78 3.78 3.44 3.67 Improve
7. Follow Norton 3.78 3.78 3.44 3.67 Improve
8. Threatcon 3.33 3.56 3.33 3.41 Remove?
9. Latest solutions 3.78 3.56 3.33 3.56 Improve
10. Latest tags 3.17 3.61 3.28 3.35 Remove?
11. Online and new
members
3.72 3.83 3.61 3.72 Improve
Criteria Average 3.94 3.84 3.55 3.78

7
http://fr.community.norton.com/t5/forums/searchpage/tab/message?filter=labels%2Clocatio
n&location=forum-board%3A1a_technical_support&q=liveupdate
1. Search bars
2. Alternate between search
topics and search users
3. Search results location
4. Sort by
5. Discussion metadata (date;
replies; page views)
6. Search result summary (ti-
tle, excerpt, tags, link to
show solution)
7. Filtering down options (by
location, author, date,
metadata, type of board and
contents).
Table 4. Users opinions on Sub-Topics Page
Sub-Topic Page
Element Importance
Ease of
Use
Aesthetics
Element
Average
Conclusion
1. Current category 4.76 4.67 4.00 4.48 Good
2. Page location 4.22 4.00 3.78 4.00 Improve
3. Options 4.56 3.56 3.44 3.85 Improve
4. Navigation 4.11 4.00 3.67 3.93 Improve
5. Discussions list 4.67 4.11 3.78 4.19 Improve
6. Highlights 4.00 4.33 3.67 4.00 Improve
7. Useful links 4.00 4.22 3.67 3.96 Improve
8. Threatcon 3.22 3.56 3.56 3.44 Remove?
9. Latest solutions 3.67 4.00 3.89 3.85 Improve
10. Latest liked
topics
3.22 3.78 3.67 3.56 Remove?
11. Latest tags 2.67 3.22 3.22 3.04 Remove?
12. Most liked
contributors
3.22 3.67 3.44 3.44 Remove?
Criteria Average 3.86 3.94 3.65 3.81

Table 5. Users opinions on discussion reading page
Discussion Reading Page
Element Importance
Ease
of Use
Aesthetics
Element
Average
Conclusion
1. Options 4.00 4.00 3.67 3.89 Improve
2. Navigation 3.78 3.89 3.67 3.78 Improve
3. Resolved label 5.00 4.67 4.44 4.70 Good
4. Report inapp. content 4.22 4.22 3.67 4.04 Improve
5. Link to solution 4.78 4.44 4.00 4.41 Good
6. Me too button 3.67 4.44 4.11 4.07 Improve
7. Add a tag 3.22 3.44 3.22 3.30 Remove?
8. Like button and
count
4.11 4.11 3.78 4.00 Improve
9. Author Information 3.67 3.56 3.11 3.44 Improve
10. Solution symbol 4.22 4.11 3.89 4.07 Improve
Criteria Average 4.07 4.09 3.76 3.97





Table 6. Users opinions on replying page
Replying Page
Element Importance
Ease of
Use
Aesthetics
Element
Average
Conclusion
1. Message Title 4.67 4.78 4.00 4.48 Good
2. Quote previous
message
3.22 3.56 3.33 3.37 Remove?
3. HTML view 3.44 3.89 3.78 3.70 Remove?
4. Preview 4.11 4.33 4.00 4.15 Good
5. Toolbar 4.56 4.22 3.89 4.22 Improve
6. Add attachment 4.11 3.56 3.33 3.67 Improve
7. Enlarge window 3.33 4.00 3.33 3.56 Remove?
Criteria Average 3.92 4.05 3.67 3.88
Table 7. Users opinions on search results page
Search Results Page
Element Importance
Ease
of Use
Aesthetics
Element
Average
Conclusion
1. Search bars 3.67 3.78 3.33 3.59 Improve
2. Search topics or
users
3.67 3.67 3.33 3.56 Improve
3. Search results loca-
tion
3.22 3.22 3.00 3.15 Improve
4. Sort by 4.11 3.78 3.44 3.78 Improve
5. Discussion metadata 3.11 3.89 3.44 3.48 Remove?
6. Search result sum-
mary
4.00 3.78 3.44 3.74 Improve
7. Filtering down op-
tions
3.22 3.11 3.00 3.11 Improve
8. Search results navi-
gation
3.11 3.22 3.22 3.19 Improve
Criteria Average 3.51 3.56 3.28 3.45

Table 8. Overall averages
Webpage Importance Ease of Use Aesthetics Average
Home page 3.94 3.84 3.55 3.78
Sub-Topic 3.86 3.93 3.65 3.81
Reading 4.07 4.09 3.76 3.97
Replying 3.92 4.05 3.67 3.88
Search Results 3.51 3.56 3.28 3.45
Average 3.86 3.89 3.58 3.78
The results show that the overall opinion about the current website is not very neg-
ative, but there is a lot of room for improvement. Most often, the aspect that got lower
scores was the design.
The search results page is the one that had the most negative results, however wed
like to point out that most of the survey participants indicated that they rarely ever use
the search engine. This is surely related to the fact that they are experienced users and
explains why so many elements are rated as unimportant. For this same reason, we
consider that its better to take into account an inexperienced users opinion when
considering the changes to be made to this area of the forum. Our next tests will con-
firm that the search is important for this type of user.

Eye-Tracking Test with Inexperienced User
8
With a view to obtaining the perspec-
tive of an inexperienced user and also gather information from a different angle, we
asked a female volunteer to do an eye-tracking test. This participant was around 30
years of age, and although she wasnt very experienced with using the forum, she was
experienced with using the internet. On hindsight, wed also like to mention that she
described herself as not usually having much patience to waste time looking for in-
formation.
This participant was asked to perform the following tasks: (1) choose a topic and
find related information; (2) create an account; (3) write a post on the forum; (3) send
a private message and (4) check her inbox for any new private messages received.
The last two tests were not part of the aspects that had been initially prioritised for
improvement. Nonetheless, feedback received prior to this study seemed to indicate
that novice users might be struggling to find the private messages area.
Task 1 finding information on a given topic The main result of this task was that the
participant was firstly drawn to a toolbar that is placed above the forum banner, which
is actually not directly part of the forum itself and leads to another website. The op-
tion that drew the participant attention was called Products and Services. After
being asked to return to the forum, the participant chose to use the search, as the cate-
gory titles didnt immediately seem to correspond to her query (What is the price of
Norton Utilities?). The tester was mainly relying on the instant results displayed as
she typed her query. She didnt click on the Search button.
Upon clicking on a search result, the tester found it didnt answer her query. She
wanted to go back to the home page and scanned the upper section of the page (pre-
dominantly the left) for a link back. She tried clicking the banner, which currently
doesnt have a link back to the home page. In the end, she modified the URL in order
to go back, having seen no other alternative.
The next choice was to scan the Useful links and the categories titles. At this
point the tester indicated she got stuck and didnt know what else to do. She was ad-
vised to try the search again, and the Search button was indicated to her by the pre-
senter. Now on the search results page, the tester scanned the posts topics and sum-
maries in search for her answer. There was no attempt to use the other functions of
this page, or to go on to the next search results. User went back to the home page and
attempts the search once more. She was instructed to modify her query into one that
would be easier to find, just so the test can continue. The tester chose a topic related
to how to download the product.

8
Wed like to remind the reader that for reasons related to the users availability this test was performed
after the first mock-up had been created already. Hence, the feedback obtained was only used in the
second iteration of phase 3 (second set of mock-ups).
Now on the discussion reading page, the tester read each of the messages in the
discussion and quickly looked at the information that identified the authors. Later on
she would indicate that she was trying to identify their legitimacy as knowledge con-
tributors. She clicked on the download link contained in the solution. There was no
attempt to get to the solution by clicking on its direct link. Wed like to point out the
fact that at some stage the tester commented on the fact that the Solved information
that was visible on the first message of the discussion, behind the title, has a symbol
that looked like the Brazilian flag.
This task was considered concluded at this point. Tester instructed to go back to
the home page. For simplicity, the presenter suggested that she users the browsers
Go back button.


Fig. 10. Heat map image: looking for the home page

Task 2 Creating an account This task was performed with no difficulties. The tester
provided positive feedback. She felt it was easy.

Task 3 Writing a post on the forum This task was also accomplished by using the
search bar, after quickly scanning the rest of the page for another option. The partici-
pant typed a query, clicked on a search result, then identified the location of the dis-
cussion using the links on top, went to the corresponding category, scanned the entire
page and finally clicked on the New message button. The rest of the task was com-
pleted straightforwardly. The user provided positive feedback.

Task 4 Sending a private message For this task, the participant was given the forum
administrators name. She used the search function to find the administrators profile
page and easily found a link in there to send a message. The feedback provided on
this task was also positive.

Task 5 Checking for new messages This task was also considered easy. This user
indicated that the envelope symbol was clear and easy to find.


Fig. 11. Heat map image: search function detected as area of interest
Finally, the participant mentioned on two occasions where she had gotten stuck. In
a real situation, she would have searched for this information using Google search
engine. Statistics demonstrate that the forums tend to appear among the first Google
search results. More specifically, the search results will display any relevant discus-
sions. This led us to conclude that often the first page our customers see when they
visit the forum is not the home page, but the discussion page. We consider this to be a
very important finding. The discussion page should be designed to guide the new
comer in navigating from there to other parts of the forum that may be of interest.
Namely, it should be clear what to do if the discussion doesnt present the required
solution, or how to go to the home page if desired.
4 Phase 3: Development and testing of new version
4.1 First iteration
One of the aspects that stand out when looking at the previous results is that not many
elements have an outstanding design. It is possible that our participants might have
been influenced by the fact that they are too familiar with this design, in such a way
that it doesnt cause the same impression anymore. It is also true that the web design
landscape is ever changing: new trends are always coming up. In light of this, our first
step when developing the first prototype was to create a fresh, new look for the web-
site.

First Version of the Home Page When designing the home page, one of the main
issues we wanted to address is the fact that the current page is far too long. In fact,
many elements have gradually been added, and at the moment the page has too much
information to be processed by the user. We used two strategies: looking at which
elements the users found less important and condensing some of the elements.
Figure 10 shows the result of our first design. As for the general look and feel, we
used light orange more often, instead of grey. Orange and black are consistent with
the brand colours; orange generally looks more positive than grey. We also made
titles larger and created a new banner. The latter is adapted from the German forum
9
,
for consistency reasons. Another possibility is to remove it altogether, as seen in the

9
http://de.community.norton.com
English language forum, which would also allow more space on the page. We decided
to keep it because during the eye-tracking test performed later on the banner seemed
to be the easiest point of reference to return to the home page. In addition to that, the
banner is also replaced on special occasions by a different one, to reflect events such
as the forum anniversary. Keeping the banner allows us to keep this tradition, which,
in line with the previously described guideline 6, helps build common ground.

Fig. 12. First version of home page
The introduction information was condensed into one single paragraph, the con-
tents of which didnt undergo any changes at this stage.
The account management element was transformed into a drop-down menu that in-
cludes the private messaging area. Whenever there are new messages, a red rectangle
displays. This aspect of the design leverages the precedent that has been created by
Facebook and later on picked up by Google +.
The highlights element (A la une) was transformed into a text box destined to
contain both information on promotions and also product-related technical news. The
removal of images is inline with the fact that modern internet users tend to avoid them
because they have learned that most are related to publicity, a phenomenon otherwise
called banner-blindness [10]. Our solution keeps the promotional information on
the website, avoids banner-blindness and further draws the attention of the users to
this information by blending it with technical information, which is what the users
would primarily be interested in. This serves both the purposes of the business and
that of the users.
The useful links are now displayed in a drop-down list, so the element is con-
densed, saving space and even allowing for more links to be added, according to our
users previous feedback about their needs.
The tutorials, which were previously one of the boards in the first category, are
now accessed via a lateral element, which gives this area of the forum additional visi-
bility. This element is also a drop-down list, showing product groups. This way, the
articles are better organised.
The current home page shows the latest post underneath each title in the central ar-
ea. In this new version, the latest solutions element was removed and its contents
replace the latest posts information (on those boards that are typically Q&A). This is
yet another way of reducing the excessive number of elements on the right hand side.
We also believe that the latest post information was less relevant for the users. Fur-
thermore, the total number of messages contained in each sub-category was also re-
moved from this area due to its irrelevancy. Only the total number of unread messages
will be displayed for each topic.
The visual aspect of elements such as Follow Norton and Online Members is
now more colourful, with the addition of the users profile images. In accordance with
guideline 5, the Online Members element is thus now more successful in respond-
ing to the users need to display their individual identity.
In spite of the fact that our contributors indicated they didnt find the list of liked
authors very important, we decided to keep it, but change the content. In fact, this
element currently shows the most liked authors of all times. Therefore, it has little
movement and keeps promoting mostly the eldest contributors. Considering how rele-
vant the recognition of contributions is, this item will be kept, but will display the
most liked authors of the month.
Although the current categories structure had received positive feedback, we took
into consideration some observations of inexperienced users behaviour prior to this
study, and decided to make some rearrangements. The table that follows shows the
current structure of contents and a description of the issues identified.






Table 9. Current content structure
Comments
Norton Users Forum (1)
Confusing title; all the
forum is for Norton
users.
Tutorials User Guides (1.1)

Norton Internet Security / Norton Antivirus / Norton 360 (1.2)

Norton Ghost / Norton Utilities / Norton Online Backup (1.3)

Norton Mobile Products (1.4)

Other Norton Products (1.5)

Non-Technical Assistance (1.6)
Users often post on 1.2
instead of here.
Do you speak Norton? (1.7)
Dedicated to feedback
about product transla-
tion. Barely any activi-
ty.
Norton and IT Security News (2)
Beta Versions - Test the new Norton Products (2.1)

Seen in the press / Latest Threats / Comparisons / Free vs. Paid (2.2)
Often mixed-up. 2.3
often used for technical
assistance instead of
debates.
IT Security - share your experiences (2.3)
Your opinion / Chill out area (3)

Forum Guest (3.1) Virtually abandoned.
Your suggestions about the forum (3.2)
Missing product sug-
gestions.
Chill out area - debates games (3.3)
Virtually abandoned.

Note that this is the structure for the public areas of the forum. As indicated previ-
ously, the forum also comprises private areas that are accessed by a limited number of
members, but those were not integrated in this study. Based on the comments we
added to the table, we next present the new proposed structure.
Table 10. Proposed content structure
Comments
Norton Products (1)
More simplicity and focus on
contents.
Tutorials / User Guides (1.1)

Norton Internet Security / Norton Antivirus / Norton 360 (1.2)
Merges previous 1.2 and 1.6
Norton Ghost / Norton Utilities / Norton Online Backup (1.3)

Norton Mobile Products (1.4)

Other Norton Products (1.5)


IT Security (2)
More simplicity
Technical Assistance for Infection Issues (2.1)
New board targeted for this
need.
IT Security News and Debates (2.2)
Merges previous 2.2 and 2.3.
Ask Marian (Machine Translation) (2.3)
Machine translation of Ask
Marian
10

Helloblog de Laurent (2.4)
Integration of contents of this
authors blog.
11,12

Your Suggestions (3)

Products and Services Suggestions (3.1)
Includes forum and products.
Beta Versions - Test the new Norton Products (3.2)
Suggestions category instead
of news.
Chill out area (4)
Separated from (3) due to its
informal nature.
Social Interaction / Games (4.1)
Kept but needs to be revived
by moderators.
This new structure tackles some of the issues previously seen, simplifies the cate-
gory titles and adds a new flow of content, related to IT security in general, namely
through sub-topics 2.3 and 2.4. Taking into account that the customers main goals
revolve around information, it is important that the forum establishes itself as a rele-
vant source of news in its domain.

10
http://community.norton.com/t5/Ask-Marian/bg-p/askmarian
11
http://www.helloblog.fr/
12
The contents of 2.3 and 2.4 remain to be confirmed and would only be used with the courtesy
of the authors.

Fig. 13. Second version of the home page
Second Version of the Home Page A second version of the home page was present-
ed to the participants so they could contrast and compare it to the first one. The main
difference is the central element, which guides inexperienced users on how to write a
post. This modification is a consequence of some of the difficulties observed by the
forum contributors, who indicated that knowledge seekers often neglect to add im-
portant information to their posts. This second version basically provides guidance to
the new comer, who is invited to perform one of three actions (yellow titles): make a
search, write a post or read the latest discussions. Depending on the product selected,
the post will automatically also go to the respective message board.
The presence of this new element forces all the remaining content to go down. To
save some space in the central area, this version of the home page keeps the Latest
Solutions element on the right hand side and simplifies the category and sub-
category information, which now displays only titles. Another strategy used to man-
age the available space was to move the Follow Norton item to the bottom of the
page, and put the tutorials section back in the central area. Note also that the Latest
solutions element now displays the usernames of those who solved the topics, rather
than of those who asked the questions, to promote the recognition of their efforts.

Focus group feedback on home page The five participants who joined the debate all
expressed their satisfaction with the new look presented in the home page, which
some described as simple, clear and concise. Version two was everyones favourite,
except one person, who felt the new element to be redundant. The other participants
were more focussed on the inexperienced users needs and welcomed the change.
Another comment that came up was that the users who have more than one ques-
tion might not know how to proceed. Some participants suggested that a message is
added explaining what to do. There were no other relevant comments.

New Version of the Sub-Category Page The sub-category page displays the infor-
mation about location more clearly (first yellow bar). It also has a new frequently
asked questions area (Question Frquentes). The mock-up only shows 4 questions,
but more can be added with no detriment to the pages design. It is also possible to
group the frequently asked questions and display only links to each group.
In this mock-up, the Highlights area presents the same contents as the home
page, but our intention is to include the highlights that are relevant to each sub-
category. In the same way, we planned for each category to have lateral elements with
content that is relevant to its theme. For instance, should this be one of the sub-
categories of IT Security it would include the Threatcon widget that is currently
displayed in all sub-categories. Also, we would present a more complete version,
which can be found here: http://www.symantec.com/threatconwidget/.
Etiquettes (labels) is a new element that replaces the Latest Tags. At present,
adding tags is a laborious task which depends either on the moderators manual work
or on the users own initiative. As tags are not mandatory, most users do not add them,
and most of the time moderators invest their time on higher level tasks. As a result,
indexation of topics is affected. Moreover, because there isnt a standardized list of
tags, clicking on a tag in the currently displayed tag cloud doesnt bring up a signifi-
cant number of results.
The labels are a different type of metadata. They apply only to the first message in
each discussion, they can be made mandatory (at least one) and can be limited to a set
of pre-defined labels. The advantage is that we can now present those labels on a list
of links which will help users filter their searches. Our concern, which remains to be
verified, would be whether the introduction of this as a mandatory step would be wel-
comed by the users.
Sujets Non Rsolus is also a novelty. This is a list of the latest unresolved que-
ries an invitation for knowledge contribution.
In contrast with the current category page, we removed the symbols that were dis-
played on the left hand side of each discussion topic.

Fig. 14. Some of the currently used balloon symbols
These symbols aim to provide additional information about the discussions (for in-
stance, whether there is a Norton staff member that participated). The symbols are too
varied and we believe that to a great extent they are not really understood by the us-
ers. As this information is not so relevant, removing it makes the page cleaner with
no significant content loss.



Fig. 15. Sub-Category Page
Focus group feedback on sub-category page This mock-up didnt receive any feed-
back. We presume that the users didnt have any objections.

New Version of the Search Results Page The new search results page simplifies the
information previously presented. We now only have one search bar, the metadata is
underneath each message summary, and the filtering down options are shown on the
right hand side. This last choice keeps the page consistent with other pages of the
forum, where the additional elements are on the right hand side. We also propose that
the filtering down options are displayed closed by default. Currently, they are shown
open by default, which creates an excess of visual information that may confuse the
inexperienced users and prevent them from exploring these options. The only part that
we propose to be visible is the filtering down by Metadata (Par metadonnes).
More specifically, we propose that by default the search results present a selection of
solved topics (Rsolu). This helps novice users to find the discussions that might
help them more and also provides a simple demonstration of how the filtering down
options can be of use.


Fig. 16. Search Results Page
13

Finally, another aspect of the search results is that the advanced options gain more
visibility by showing right underneath the Search button (Rechercher). Once this
link is clicked, the advanced search options pane will slide down.


13
The mock-up presented only three results, but it would normally contain 10 by default and
would be customisable in this respect.

Fig. 17. Advanced search options pane
Focus Group Feedback on Search Results Page Once more, the feedback obtained
was extremely positive. The only suggestion made by one of the participants was that
the filtering down options are shown all open to help the novice users see what each
one does. Another participant agreed. Nonetheless, our personal interview of the nov-
ice user showed that there was sufficient attention and interest on this element as it is.
We sustain that having all options open would cause an excess of visual information.
Only further tests performed with several novice users could provide confirmation.

The home page, sub-category page and search results page were the only ones pre-
sented in this iteration of the usability testing process.

4.2 Second iteration
For this iteration, we took into account the feedback obtained during the eye-tracking
test and also the one obtained from the focus group. The following images comprise
the second set of mock-ups created.

Home Page Considering the difficulty the inexperienced user had had in understand-
ing how to post a new message, we decided to use the second version of the home
page, containing the element guides new users. We also wanted to take into consid-
eration the feedback previously provided by one of the experienced users, for whom
the message posting pane was redundant, so we transformed it into a sliding down
element which only fully displays if the user clicks on Click here (Cliquez ici),
making it more discreete.
Another change was integrating the account management element as one of the lat-
eral elements, rather than underneath the banner. The purpose was to create a more
balanced design. Subsequently, we had to reduce the size of the remaining right hand
side elements, which was mainly achieved by reducing the size of the avatar images.
Finally, we tried to filter down the spaces and slightly reduce the fonts, in such a
way that a maximum amount of information is visible without having to scroll down.
More specifically, we wanted to make sure that the three options (search, post, read),
described in the yellow titles, were immediately visible.



Fig. 18. Mock-up two of home page
With regards to the message posting pane, we added some additional guidance. For
instance, there is a message that displays in the query description area which asks
users to write one message at a time (Si vous avez plusieurs sujets ()).

Fig. 19. Message posting pane
Category page The category page suffered only small changes. Once more, we
moved the account management options down to the lateral elements. Most im-
portantly, we changed some information in the top navigation bar, which provides the
location of the page. In the place where previously was indicated Community > Nor-
ton Products (Communaut > Produits Norton) we wrote Home Page > Norton
Products (Page daccueil > Produits Norton). We are also planning that going for-
ward the banner is equally a hyperlink element that leads back to the home page.

Fig. 20. Upper area of the second mock-up of the category page
Search Results Page The main change done in this page was that we included a
small rectangle with a message asking users whether they found the information they
were looking for (Avez-vous trouv ce que vous cherchiez?). Should the user click
no, a pop-up window suggests the next possible steps that can be taken: modify the
search terms, use the filtering down / sorting options or return to the home page and
write a post. This contextual help is available also for visitors who dont have an ac-
count or are not logged in. Furthermore, it has the added advantage of generating
statistics about the success of the searches. Finally, the Resolved symbol was modi-
fied so it doesnt look like the Brazilian flag.


Fig. 21. Mock-up 2 of search results page

Fig. 22. Pop-up with suggestions when information not found
Discussion Reading Page In what concerns the discussion page, some changes were
made as well to reflect the eye-tracking test results and the inexperienced participants
feedback.
Similarly to what had been done with the search results page, we wanted to facili-
tate finding the solution. The link to the solution, which hadnt been seen before, was
now transformed into a square on the left hand side. As for the actual message con-
taining the solution, we added another square which asks the user if that solution
solved his or her problem. Should the answer be negative, another contextual help
pop-up would display with a few suggestions: reply to the thread if the problem is
exactly the same; otherwise, perform a search or go back to the home page and post a
new message. Each option contains a link to the corresponding page.
Once more, the Resolved information was changed so it doesnt have any appar-
ent connection to the Brazilian flag.



Fig. 23. First message on a discussion
One other modification was the like option. First off, the concept was changed
from liking to thanking the author. The symbol, previously corresponding to a
star, had been indicated as having poor design. It was now changed to a thumbs up.
The statistics no longer indicate how many likes, but how many times the author
was thanked for this message. Our assumption is that thanking has a stronger emo-
tional appeal than liking. If this possibility is confirmed, it may help increase the
level of feedback received from knowledge seekers, which is currently poor.
We also propose that this option is available even for users who are not logged in,
and that the author automatically receives a notification every time someone thanks
him for his message.


Fig. 24. Message containing the solution

Fig. 25. Contextual help when the problem is not solved
Task Analysis Results Aiming to test the new proposed design, we asked the same
user who had taken the eye-tracking test to try it out. The test was conducted by
providing this participant with the images of each of the mock-ups, in an image visu-
alisation program and on a scale that was approximate to the size these pages would
have if implemented. The tester was asked, once more, to find information first. This
time, she was given a topic chosen by the presenter, because we needed to lead her to
the topic mentioned in the discussion reading and search results pages we had pre-
pared. She was also asked to describe her actions and her thoughts, and try to not
presume the results of those actions would be similar to the ones that occurred during
the eye-tracking test.

Home Page The first page to be tested was the home page, because we wanted to
check whether the first reaction would be to use the search engine again, which didnt
happen. This time the tester looked at the Highlights area and said she was first
checking whether her problem was listed there, in case other users were experiencing
it as well. Next, she went to the Norton Products category and said she would have
picked the corresponding category to read the latest posts. The justification provided
was that the Products term was perceived as pointing to the area where any product
related query would be treated. This is in consonance with the behaviour that had
been observed during the eye-tracking test, where the user first chose the option
Products and Services that was offered by a toolbar at the top of the page. It con-
firms that the new title we chose for this category is clearer and more appealing. The
user also indicated that in contrast with the current version of the forum she felt that
the list of categories and sub-categories didnt present too much information; she felt
it was cleaner and easier to read. For this same reason, other options were not ex-
plored, such as the Useful links or the Latest Solutions. The tester was asked why
the Labels area didnt draw her attention. She indicated that the links contained in it
didnt appear to be actually hyperlinks, because she is used to hyperlinks being blue
and underlined. She didnt understand what that element was for. The French title
Etiquettes also didnt seem meaningful enough, even if she is a native speaker. The
meaningfulness of this term remains to be confirmed amongst a larger number of
users.

Sub-Category Page Following her own indication of the path she would like to take,
the tester was next presented with the sub-category page. In this new layout, she first
looked and the frequently asked questions and then at the list of discussions, noticing
the ones that were marked as solved. The issue she had been given to search was not
listed in there, so the tester indicated she would have wanted to go back to the home
page to make a search, since the search function had been removed from that page.
She said she would have clicked in the banner to do so. Our participant indicated that
the navigation bar on top (Page daccueil > category name) provided good identifi-
cation of the location of the page, but she personally was looking for an image that
represents the home page and typically expects any banner to lead back there, so this
would be her choice if no other image was found. She also mentioned she would have
preferred to have the search bar in all forum pages.

Search Results Page The page that followed was the search results page, according
to the testers indication. Our participant said she would have first analysed the titles
and summaries of each discussion to see whether they seemed appropriate solutions
for her problem. She said she would have tried to click on some of them to see if they
provided useful information. She then was asked to imagine that none of the visible
discussions seemed appropriate and inform the presenter of what she would do. She
indicated that in that situation she would have tried to change her search query and if
that option didnt provide any results she might have explored the filtering and sorting
options, and nothing else. When asked directly to comment on the question we had
added Did you find what you were looking for?, she said she hadnt noticed that
rectangle at all. She also said she wouldnt have been very interested in it if she did,
because she thought it was there only for statistical purposes. The wording would
have to be changed to make it clear that we are actually offering contextual help.

Discussion Reading Page The discussion reading page was shown next, imagining a
scenario where the user would have clicked on one of the search results. The behav-
iour here was the same as the one observed during the eye tracking test. The user
reads each of the messages in sequence, to confirm whether the issue is similar
enough to the one she is trying to solve, and also noticed the author information.
When asked to comment on the link to the solution that had been placed in the first
message, the tester indicated she didnt realise it was a link. Once more, this was be-
cause it didnt follow her format expectations for a hyperlink: blue and underlined, or
at least underlined, she added. She thought this was just a recommendation to invite
the user to scroll down and check the solution. In the same way, the additional guid-
ance we wanted to provide next to the solution was not taken into account. Once
more, our participant thought that the question was there merely for statistical purpos-
es.
Contextual Help Pop-Ups To finalise our test, we asked the participant to look at the
contextual help menus. The feedback was positive. The user felt they were helpful
and clear. She was happy that the hyperlinks had the format she expected.
4.3 Third iteration
This part of the project was not finalised upon submission of our report. Building
upon all the results obtained so far, and in particular the last task analysis and person-
al interview, we made some changes to our mock-ups. Our participant who had
played the role of an inexperienced user was at the time unavailable to perform any
further tests. For this reason, we went back to the forum and launched another focus
group session which is still on-going and has no comments yet.

Home Page No changes were made to this area of the forum.

Discussion Page A few important details were modified: in the navigation bar above,
instead of Home Page > Norton Products (Page daccueil> Produits Norton) we
replaced home page by a symbol. The banner still leads to the home page as well.
Next we modified the direct link to the solution. It is now underlined and the text has
been changed to Access the solution here. The colour has been changed to green, to
follow the same colour code as the Resolved information. Users may still prefer to
read all the discussion to check if this issue is the same as theirs, but those who want
to go directly to the solution now have a clearer link. Finally, the contextual help was
changed as well. The text was changed to green and instead of a yes / no question this
is now a hyperlink, underlined, which reads: Click here to obtain additional help.


Fig. 26. First message in a resolved discussion


Fig. 27. Message containing a solution
Sub-Category Page The sub-category page equally underwent a few modifications to
reflect the feedback obtained during the task analysis test. First off, we added the
search function back in. Secondly, the previously called Labels element was re-
named Shortcuts (Raccourcis) to better reflect its purpose, and the links are now
underlined.


Fig. 28. Top area of the sub-category page
Search Results Page The search results page was also modified. The top bar was
transformed into a navigation bar with a link to the home page, using the same sym-
bol used in other pages. The connection to the contextual help was kept as a question
because it seemed aesthetically more adequate, but the text was changed to Do you
still need help?. A variation to Click here to obtain additional help can thus be
tested. The rectangle is now strong orange to be more visible.


Fig. 29. Search results page
Wed like to add that some of the modifications done in this last set of mock-ups
are small details and they might be overly adapted to the one user who volunteered to
help. For instance, inexperienced internet users might not immediately understand
that the home symbol leads back to the home page; or they wouldnt necessarily
know that typically a banner can lead back to that area. In that case, the explicit text
Home Page would be more suitable, with no detriment to the experienced users.
5 Discussion and Future Work
Our project looked at the design and functionality of a matured online community, the
French Norton forum. We started by defining the personas that would guide our anal-
ysis and while doing so demonstrated that knowledge seeking and knowledge contri-
bution do not define two separate personas, but rather two different roles that the
same user can assume in different moments. We also found some indication that even
those users who predominantly act as knowledge consumers are more interested in
making their participation visible to other users than observing other users level of
participation. This last assumption might need further verification, especially by test-
ing a different phrasing of the goals. For instance, knowledge consumers might have
interpreted that goal as making their questions visible to the community so they can
get an answer (even if we carefully used the term contributions).
In the next phase of our project, we obtained feedback about the current version of
the forum, both from experienced and inexperienced users. We used an online survey
and an eye-tracking test, respectively. The online survey results were generally ac-
ceptable, but revealed several areas of improvement, namely elements that were not
considered important and a need for more appealing aesthetics. The eye-tracking re-
sults provided important hindsight on the centrality of the search function, the in-
creased user focus on the top part of any page, and the fact that the discussion reading
page is often the users point of entry to the forum, not the home page.
Phase 3 of the project consisted of three design iterations that were tested with an
online focus group (first and third iteration) and a task analysis test with personal
interview (second iteration). In the first iteration, the proposed design was considered
very positive and most users preferred the version that more easily guided the new
comers in how to post a new message. We should note that one of the difficulties we
found when conducting this online asynchronous focus group is that it is hard to lead
the discussion on the direction we need and obtain answers to all our questions. We
found that the participants tended predominantly to make generic comments and only
answered part of our questions presumably the ones that were about issues they
were personally interested in. As a result, the sub-category page, for instance, didnt
receive any feedback, even if it was posted on its own separate topic and with very
specific questions. Also, only 5 participants joined the discussions, when actually
there are more users who have access to that private board and who were aware of the
usability tests taking place. A second difficulty was in conducting the users to talk
about their own personal needs. For the most part, users speculated about how novice
users would react and what their needs would be. This aspect is a natural consequence
of these participants contributor-type role and deep involvement in the life of the
forum. To some extent, we can say that guiding the novice users is part of their own
needs, as it facilitates their role as knowledge contributors. We can also presume that
if any major usability issues had been encountered in the proposed layout we would
have received a clear indication. Such was the case of the user who disliked the mes-
sage posting central pane in the home page.
In a future situation, this focus group could be done with teleconference (since the
users are remote), but it would be a challenge to get all users to be available at the
same time. Alternatively, participants need to be given clear information on what is
expected of them prior to the start of the focus group activity. We felt that this activity
was nonetheless a positive experience to these users, that it helped engage them even
more in the forum life and that it also helped them build common ground by sharing
ideas. This was seen in the type of punctuation and positive wording used during the
debates.
The second iteration collected feedback from the inexperienced user. Our findings
were important to confirm the success of the changing of the Highlights element
into text only and simplifying the visual appearance of the forum. The category titles
were clearer. We also corresponded to the users expectations by transforming the
banner into a hyperlink to the home page. Our attempts to provide extra guidance in
finding solutions, however, were not successful, because our participant believed the
elements to have a merely statistical purpose.
The third iteration is still on-going. We havent received any feedback about the
latest mock-ups yet. Nonetheless, these are not disruptive of the implementations
previously presented, which had been successful. Furthermore, the added options are
mostly there to help the novice users find their way, an aspect that in some ways also
corresponds to the contributors needs. Subsequently, we do not expect any major
objections to the changes we introduced.
6 Conclusion
Our study confirmed some of the findings described in previous literature. The French
Norton forum, a matured community, lives on the dynamics of knowledge seeking
and knowledge contribution, which as a result provides a growing pool of solutions
that passive users of the forum can also benefit from. This delicate balance can only
survive if the knowledge contributors feel motivated to participate, especially if their
need for recognition is filled in. It also deeply relies on guaranteeing that knowledge
seekers have sufficient information and guidance. We believe that this project offered
two important findings: (1) that knowledge seeking and knowledge contribution are
not always totally separate, but two different roles that can be assumed by one same
user; (2) that webpages other than the home page may need to be designed to be a sort
of home page as well, due to the centrality that search engines nowadays have for
internet users and the fact that the home page might not be the one displayed in the
search results. As a result of this study, we were able to create a more pleasing and
intuitive design, which potentially better addresses the requirements of both experi-
enced and novice users. It would be of great interest to conduct more thorough usabil-
ity tests in order to verify the exactitude of our assumptions. This project was also in
itself an interesting way of deepening the contributors involvement.
7 References
1. Beenen, G. et al: Using Social Psychology to Motivate Contributions to Online Com-
munities. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer supported coopera-
tive work (pp. 212-221). ACM, 2004.
2. Bishop, J.: Increasing Participation in Online Communities: A Framework for Hu-
manComputer Interaction. Computers in human behavior, 2007, Vol. 23, Issue 4, pp.
1881-1893.
3. Blakey, J. et al: Online Communities: An Ecology for Knowledge Collaboration. In:
Proceedings of The Higher Education Technology Agenda (THETA). Hobart, 2013.
4. Chiu, S.-P. et al: Understanding Knowledge Contribution Through Online Social Me-
dia, - The Case of Facebook Use. In: Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference
on Business and Information. IBAC, 2013. (Yet to be published, retrieved from:
http://ibac-conference.org).
5. Chuang, Y-S.: Factors Affecting Knowledge Sharing Behaviour: A Content Analysis
of Empirical Findings. In: Proceedings of the 9
th
International Conference of Pacific RIM
Management. ACME, 2009.
6. Errey, C.: Long Time Listener, First Time Caller Why People Do and Dont Engage
in an Online Community. PTG Global, 2012. Retrieved from: http://www.ptg-global.com
/PDFArticles/Longtimelistener,firsttimecaller.pdf
7. Faraj, S., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Majchrzak, A.: Knowledge Collaboration in Online Com-
munities. In: Organization Science, 2011, Vol. 22, Issue 5, pp. 1224-1239.
8. Gurzick, D., & Lutters, W. G.: Towards a Design Theory for Online Communities. In
Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Infor-
mation Systems and Technology , pp. 11-30. ACM, 2009.
9. Iriberri, A, Leroy, G.: A Life-Cycle Perspective on Community Success. In: Proceedings
of the ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), Vol. 41, Issue 2. ACM, 2001.
10. Lanamki, A., & Henriksen, A.: Identity in Online Communities. In: Proceedings of the
21
st
Information Systems Research Seminar. IRIS, 2008.
11. [x]Norman, Donald A.: Banner Blindness, Human Cognition and Web Design. In: In-
ternetworking. ITG, 1999. Retrieved from: http://www.internettg.org/newsletter/mar99/
commentary.html.
12. Phang, C.W. et al: Usability and Sociability in Online Communities: A Comparative
Study of Knowledge Seeking and Contribution. In: Journal of the Association for In-
formation Systems, 2009, Vol. 10: Iss. 10, Article 2.




[22
nd
of May 2013]