Return to Table of Contents

Usability Review: www.couplesinstitute.com

Those of you who have been following this column know I have been conducting usability reviews of psychologists’ web sites for the past few editions. For this edition I will be reviewing, www.couplesinstitute.com, a group practice located in Menlo Park, California; Ellyn Bader and Peter Pearson are the Directors. To get the most out of this article I’d recommend you go to this site, and explore it for yourself first.

I employed the same procedure I used for the previous reviews. That is, I asked three lay people to imagine that they were shopping for a therapist and that they had come upon this site. I asked them to pretend that the practice was located in their area and to use the site as they would in that context. I asked them to try to ignore my presence (I sat behind them taking notes), and to think out loud as much as possible. The only remarks I made were to say things like “what are you thinking?” and “could you say more about that?” For this review I added a six-item questionnaire for the users to respond to after they were done (this was a suggestion offered by Marc Lipton, the author of the first site I reviewed).

The first user is a 33 year old, Caucasian, married, mother who is employed as the manager of a continuing education division of a mid-sized company. The second person is a 47 year old, Caucasian, married mother who is employed as an administrative assistant. The third person is a 47 year old, Caucasian, married father who is employed as the assistant manager of a maintenance division of a mid-sized company. The second and third users are married (though their reviews were done independently). All three people seemed to readily invest in the spirit of the task. Below is a synopsis of their remarks with my commentary in italics. At the end I share their ratings, make some additional remarks and review the site’s status among search engines. Before I begin, I offer one caveat. This site reviews a number services in addition to psychotherapy. The users of the site were asked to explore the site as if they were looking for a psychotherapist; had they been given a different instruction, they would likely have used the site differently.

In no particular order, the users comments were as follows:

• The women liked the opportunity to receive a free newsletter. One of the users signed up for it on the spot. She particularly enjoyed that she was not asked to give more than her name and email address; she noted it bothers her when web sites ask for more information. The man noted that he would have liked to be able to review the most recent edition of the newsletter before making a decision. [This is a nice offer on the part of the site authors. I think our man’s idea is a good one. It wouldn’t take much effort to offer a sample or two of past issues by way of a PDF download. (See previous editions of this column for instruction on how to put a PDF file on your site)]

• One of the users made positive commentary about the layout of the site. She particularly liked the color scheme, referring to it as “soothing.” [I agree. I especially like the clean, elegant appearance of the home page and the inclusion of diversity in the graphics.]

• All three users seemed to like the FAQ section the best. They found the information contained there to be well articulated and stated. One of the users added that she would like to see an FAQ on the limits of confidentiality. [The two sections of the site that seemed to be of most interested to the users were the FAQ section and “the staff” section. I also like the FAQ section and found it to be very clear and tight.]

• Two of the users said they liked the degree of content in the staff descriptions. However, another of the users wanted more information about the clinicians’ training and experience. One of the users also said she wanted all of the therapists to include a description of their areas of specialization [I’m finding users vary regarding how much information they want. I might keep the descriptions as they are, but add a link to a more thorough review for users who desire that. Also the users were less likely to read the descriptions of the therapists whose profiles were more toward the bottom of the page.]
• The women noted not all of the staff have their pictures on the site. They said they liked this feature and wondered why everyone did not display their picture. The man only noted he would have liked a “back to the top” feature on the pages that required scrolling.
• One of the users seemed interested in learning more about the workshops offered. Because of her interest, she would have enjoyed having the staff descriptions contain links to the workshops offered by that person. She also would have enjoyed having the place-date-time information placed near the top of the workshop/seminar page, noting “this is what I would want to know first – if I can make it – before I’d want to read anything about it.”
• One of the users noted she always looks for a search engine when arriving at a new site. She said “I’m a who-what-where-when-and-why person. So I don’t read a lot as I consider most of it to be marketing and I never read the welcome message. I just like to enter the terms that describe what I’m looking for in a search engine.” [I’m guessing that this user represents a large segment of Internet surfers. As readers of this column know, I agree with this user’s recommendation. I use www.atomz.com; they provide a free search engine option, and also give you reports that tell you the terms that visitors have entered into your search engine. The latter allows you a way to collect free information on how your site is being used.]
• The users seemed to be neutral about the book information on the site. [I personally thought this would impress them more. It might help to offer a few excerpts from the book that demonstrate what the authors have to offer.]
• One of the users said she liked being offered a chance to be in touch with them. Though she would prefer to use e-mail instead of a form submission, she understood why they might need to do it that way. One of the users noted it would be nice to add a map and driving directions to the site. [I might list a proviso regarding what the institute can and cannot guarantee about the security of form submissions.]
• One of the users clicked on the “articles” section link. At the time we visited it did not work. [For parts of a web site that are under construction, I’d have an “under construction” graphic come up when people click on it, together with a projected completion date.]
• All three users remarked the tabs on the top of the pages overlap with the bars on the left. One of the users said “eliminating that redundancy gives you less that you have to try to figure out and read.” [The users were more drawn to the section listings on the upper left side of the page, and clicked on the tabs only as an afterthought. I’d probably eliminate the tabs at the top.]

I asked the three users to complete the following items (answers were on a five-point scale, with a 5.0 the best rating and a 3.0 a neutral rating:

1. How effective do you judge this site to be? All three: 4.0 (“effective”)
2. What would you estimate the general clinical skill of the clinicians to be? All three: 4.0 (“skilled”)
3. How much did your review of this site leave you feeling prepared about what to expect at a first appointment? The women: 4.0 (“prepared”); the man: 3.0 (“neutral”)
4. How likely is it that you would return to this site later? The women: 4.0 (“likely”); the man 2.0 (“unlikely”). The man stressed this wasn’t because he didn’t like the site, only that he’s in a good marriage and doesn’t believe he needs the services.
5. Were you to be in search of counseling services, how well does this site address your potential questions and concerns? All three: 4.0 (“well”)
6. Were you to be looking for counseling services, how likely is it that you would schedule an appointment with this practice based upon your visit to their web site (assuming the location was close to you)? The women 4.0 (“likely”); the man: 3.0 (“don’t know”).

That’s it for the users’ feedback. I have a few additional thoughts:

• I like the absence of a lot of text on this site. It is clean and avoids the common mistake of being too chatty. (For those that want to include a lot of content, it is probably better to use PDF files.)
• I might include links to related and helpful Internet sites. Users report this is a preferred feature.
• I personally explored the part of the site that serves mental health professionals. I think it is excellent. I can recommend it to those among you who wish to enhance your skills conducting couples counseling.

My last step was to investigate searchability. I did searches on Google, Alltheweb and Yahoo using the following terms: “couples counseling Menlo Park,” “marriage counseling Menlo Park,” “marriage therapist Menlo Park” and “psychologist Menlo Park.” I only looked at the first two pages of the results as most people using search engines do not find all available choices and choose the best one, but find the first reasonable choice and go with that one. “1st page” means that the site came up on the first page of listings; this is desirable. “Top listing” means that the site placed first overall; this is highly desirable. “2nd page” means the site came up on the second page; this is an okay, but less than optimal. “Absent” means that the site did not come up on the first two pages. Overall, the results for this site are very strong (see Table below).

That’s it for this edition. I want to very much thank the authors of the Couples Institute for volunteering their excellent site for a review; I hope this experience has been a positive one for you.

If any readers would like to have their web site reviewed in this space, just send me an e-mail. Those wishing to arrange for a private usability review may also contact me through email: david@palmiter.com. Previous editions of this column may be found on this Division 42 website and my site (www.helpingfamilies.com; enter the term “Independent Practitioner” into the search engine). Until next time, web on!

Return to Top