Evaluation, First Iteration

The wireframes are evaluated by the four stakeholders. Moreover, the researcher evaluates the usability requirements and accessibility requirements implemented within the wireframes.

6.4.1. User Evaluation, First Iteration

The four interviewees are interviewed again to ask their opinion about the designed wireframes. Here, every page is discussed. Their feedback is recorded and summarised below. The full interviews are added as Appendix P.

For the homepage, several suggestions are made. In general, the interviewees like the layout of the page and the idea of the infographic explaining the implementation of Reducept within the treatment of the practitioner. For the infographic, it is suggested to make clear titles that describe a journey and to ensure it is clear that Reducept is an addition to the treatment and not a replacement. They like the idea of supporting visuals and the option to expand for more text. This way, you can get a quick overview, but they can obtain more information if desired.

Within the text of the infographic, every step should contain a unique selling point (USP) of Reducept. Moreover, the text should contain both the pain education and the training modules as well as the journey through the nervous system. Also, practical examples should be provided wherever possible (e.g. increased range of motion for patients at physiotherapist practice). It is also suggested to add an additional step between pain education and combining Reducept with treatment, namely the step of creating more therapy compliance.

A couple of things are missing. The fact that Reducept is evidence-based needs to be mentioned on the homepage. Also, practitioners want to see the option to request a demonstration and that it is possible to purchase Reducept. Not unimportant, it needs to be instantly clear that Reducept is a VR application.

At the top, there is a contact button. There is a difference of opinion on whether this should stay a contact button, or become a request demonstration button or a purchase button. This is later discussed with the developers and the company in order to make a decision. For the footer, the description of Reducept needs to contain all the important elements Reducept offers and keywords that could help increase the visibility when using search engines.

The interviewees would change the name of the team page, either to community or contact. Moreover, a general mail address should be provided and could be located on top of the team photo. Also, the board of quality assurance should be renamed to something that explains their role more, such as influencers or board of advisors. The suggestion is made to create different pages for the background of Reducept (explaining the roles of the team members in the development of the application) and the team.

The science page should be named differently in Dutch, since this is an English word but everything else is presented in the Dutch language. Furthermore, several interviewees do not think that the media-articles fit with the topic of the Science page. A prominent place for Lorimer Moseley on this page should only be included if he becomes a part of the board of advisors. Last but not least, it is suggested to add further development (with partners) to this page to show Reducept is being tested. For the FAQ page, the “in the practice” module does not fit with the rest of the content. Either this module should become a separate page, or it should be left out. Since the users are not enthusiastic about this section and the company acknowledges it requires a lot of time to keep it updated. Therefore, this section can also be removed from the website. Additionally, it is suggested to include an FAQ about what the patient would pay if they are to receive a referral for Reducept.

For finding practices to refer to, it could be added to the contact page, or become a page on its own. It can also be added to the header of the page. Together with the developers, a design is made later. Last but not least, the pricing page should also contain information about what the patient would pay if they were to receive a referral for Reducept. Practical example or calculations of actual prices and reimbursements could be added. One call-to-action should be present at the pricing page to avoid confusion. The pricing packages could also contain information on what type of healthcare practice the package is suitable for and how many patients can be treated.

6.4.2. Usability Evaluation, First Iteration

The usability guidelines focus on functionality included in the website. Due to the low-fidelity of the wireframes and the absence of functionality, the usability heuristics are evaluated for the second iteration of the wireframes.

6.4.3. Accessibility Evaluation, First Iteration

When evaluating the design of the wireframes on accessibility, the accessibility guidelines for design of Appendix O are consulted. The researcher checks if each guideline is present in the current design or not. Since the aim is to include both level A and AA, these guidelines are evaluated. Table 6 provides an overview of these guidelines, states if they are met in the design or not and explanations regarding their status.

At this point, the researcher concludes the design of the wireframes comply with both level A and AA of the accessibility guidelines.