website user friedliness q1 generic portal report
TRANSCRIPT
Website User Friendliness Study
Generic Portal
Website User Friendliness Study
Generic Portal Report
Jan-Mar ‘08
Website User Friendliness Study
© copyright JuxtConsult
Generic Portal
Website User Friendliness Study
Table of content
Introduction .............................................................. 1
Methodology.............................................................. 2
Category Websites Tested.............................................. 8
Findings:
Website User Friendliness Aggregate Scores - Overall ............10
Website User Friendliness Sub Parameter Scores - Overall.......11
Website User Friendliness Perceptual Map – Overall ..............13
Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters - Overall..........14
Rating Dispersions by Individual Attributes .........................15
Relative Importance of the Individual Criteria.....................26
Website User Friendliness Aggregate Scores - Website Users Only............................................................................27
Website User Friendliness Sub Parameter Scores - Website Users Only.......................................................................28
Website User Friendliness Perceptual Map – Website Users Only 30
Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters - Website Users Only.......................................................................31
Rating Dispersions by Individual Attributes .........................32
Relative Importance of the Individual Criteria.....................43
Website User Friendliness Aggregate Scores - Website Non Users Only.......................................................................44
Website User Friendliness Sub Parameter Scores - Website Non Users Only ...............................................................45
Website User Friendliness Perceptual Map – Website Non Users Only.......................................................................47
Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters - Website Non Users Only ...............................................................48
Rating Dispersions by Individual Attributes .........................49
Relative Importance of the Individual Criteria.....................60
Demographic Profile ...................................................62
Socio Economic Profile.................................................66
Economic Profile........................................................68
Net Usage Dynamics....................................................70
WUF Index Ranking of Websites by User Segments ................71
Sample Sizes.............................................................78
Generic Portal
Website User Friendliness Study
1
Introduction
Internet users rarely bother to complain about the poor quality or experience of a website. They just ‘switch’ to an alternative website.
Yet most websites do little to track their user’s experience and perceptions about their websites on various critical parameters - be it the appeal of their user interface, ease of navigation and task completion, or the satisfaction derived from the actual usage experience.
To precisely fill this gap JuxtConsult has introduced its ‘Website User Friendliness’ syndicated study. The study helps the online players measure, quantify and benchmark the ‘user friendliness’ and ‘usage satisfaction’ of their website vis-à-vis the key competing websites.
The study is unique in its methodology as it takes the concept of ‘usability testing’ of a website online – it makes the users use a website and give the feedback on its usage experience in ‘live’ online environment. The user feedback is real time and based on actual usage of the website.
In order to define and measure what really makes a website ‘user-friendly’, we looked at a simple and interesting parallel of what makes a person seem ‘friendly’. In human interaction, we identify someone as ‘friendly’ only when that person firstly ‘looks’ friendly to us and then ‘behaves’ friendly towards us. When it comes to our interaction with websites, our expectations and behaviors are no different. We identify or treat a website as ‘friendly’ only when it both looks pleasant and acceptable to us and is easy and convenient to use. That is,
A User friendly website � Looks friendly + Behaves friendly
To ‘look’ friendly, a website must be identifiable, appealing, relevant, and pleasant in its appearance. On the other hand, to ‘behave’ friendly a website must enable the task a user has come to perform on the website in a convenient, smooth, orderly and satisfactory manner.
Accordingly, this study interprets, evaluates, measures and reports the ‘user-friendliness’ of a website taking into account both in its look factors as well as its usability factors.
Generic Portal
2
Methodology
The JuxtConsult ‘Website User Friendliness’ model
Any comprehensive measure of ‘user-friendliness’ of a website must cover all key aspects that determine its ‘user-interface’ (looking friendly) as well as its ‘usage experience’ (behaving friendly). At a broad level, we at JuxtConsult defined these key aspects as follows:
User Interface (look friendly) Usage Experience (behave friendly)
Visually appealing Easy to access
Distinctly identifiable Easy to locate relevant information
Organized interface Easy to comprehend information
Relevant content Easy to navigate and conduct a task
Better quality of content Offer relevant and adequate solutions
Facilitate satisfactory completion of task
Consistent in performance
Highly interactive and responsive
In order to identify the precise and measurable attributes under each of these aspects, we carefully mapped the typical flow of the ‘interaction’ a user usually has with a website. In doing so we identified 6 typical stages of interaction a user has with a website (and therefore, 6 critical aspects that need to be measured to arrive at any comprehensive evaluation of ‘user-friendliness’ of a website):
���� The user accesses the website (Accessibility)
���� Finds the website appealing (Likeability)
���� Finds the content relevant (Relatability)
���� Is able to smoothly navigate on the website (Navigability)
���� Finds the website responsive when needs assistance/help (Interactivity)
���� Is able to complete the task/purpose for which he/she visited the website in the first place (Task accomplishment)
Digging a little deeper in these 6 critical areas we identified 19 individual parameters that required to be measured to make the model a fairly comprehensive one. The parameters related to ‘e-commerce’ and ‘transactions’ were not included in the ‘generic model’ per se (to retain its universality), but have been considered separately as the
Website User Friendliness Study
3
The Model ©
Is the website easy to access?
Is the content relevant and distinct?
Does it look appealing?
Is it easy to use?
Is the user able to accomplish the task?
The Measures
Browser compatibility
Download time
Ease of comprehension
Relevance/Adequacy of content
Content distinctiveness (quality)
Distinctiveness (branding)
Layout and interface
Aesthetics (color, text, graphics)
Identification with the website
Ease of locating task info
Ease of conducting the tasks
Inter-page consistency in design
and flow
Level of task completion (success)
Timeliness of task completion
Adequacy of task compl. (satisfaction)
The Website – User Interaction Points
The User Friendliness Criteria
Accessibility
Relatability
Likeability
Navigability
Task Accomplishment
Interactivity
Technical
Assistance
Solution
Task Flow
Content
Design
Is it able to assist the user when needed?
Navigational cues and helps
Error rate / error recovery
Contacability (and responsiveness)
Sense of security in using the site
‘seventh’ critical aspect of measuring user friendliness of the ‘e-commerce’ websites.
The following graphics outline the precise ‘website user friendliness’ measuring and rating schema used in the JuxtConsult model and in bringing out these reports:
Generic Portal
4
User Friendliness Measuring Schema
Ease of Usage Usage Satisfaction
1. Browser Compatibility
2. Download Time
Ease of Access
Site is easily accessible Site is easy to use with hassle-free navigation Site delivers task accomplishment
16. Timeliness of task completion
17. Quality of usage experience
18. Perceived sense of security in usage
19. Brand preference creation
10. Ease of locating task info
11. Ease of conducting the task
12. Navigation flow between pages
13. Navigational cues and helps
14. Error recovery
15. Customer responsiveness
User Friendly Interface User Friendly Experience
Website User Friendliness
Accessibility Index Navigability Index Satisfaction Index
©
3. Distinctive in identity (branding)
4. Presentation of content (layout)
5. Aesthetics (color, text, graphics)
6. User identification with the site
7. Ease of comprehension
8. Relevance of content
9. Relative quality of content
Design Appeal
Site is likeable and relevant
Appeal Index
User Friendly Interface Index (UFEX) User Friendly Experience Index (UZEX)
Category Level Website User Friendliness Index (WUF)
Website User Friendliness Study
5
As shown in the schema, the 19 individual parameters that determine the overall user friendliness of a website have been clustered together into 4 ‘sub index’ measuring the ‘accessibility’, ‘appeal’, ‘navigability’ and ‘usage satisfaction’ index of a website. Hereafter these are combined to arrive at two higher level ‘user interface’ and ‘user experience’ Index and eventually into the overall ‘website user friendliness’ (WUF) index of a website.
The model thereby allows various websites in a category/vertical to be evaluated, compared, benchmarked and ranked on various aspects of their ‘user-friendliness’ in an objective manner (based on the index score derived from actual ‘ratings’ of these websites by their existing and potential users).
The online survey
To test and get the websites rated on these 19 parameters and some other identified aspects of ‘user friendliness’ by their existing and potential users, an online survey methodology based on ‘live’ usage and rating of websites was used.
The online survey was conducted using JuxtConsult’s own online user panel (www.getcounted.net) as well as using a ‘survey ad campaign’ on Google Ad Sense (contextual search ads).
The online survey was conducted using an e-questionnaire segmented into three sections. The first section had a ‘screener questionnaire’ that was used to identify the ‘users’ of an online category, and of the various websites being tested within that category. Then the identified ‘users’ and ‘non-users’ (taken as potential users) of the various websites were taken to the respective websites for ‘live’ usage. This was done by providing the ‘URL links’ of these websites within the questionnaires.
Half the respondents (of both existing and potential users of the website) were asked to surf the ‘homepage’ and the other half to ‘complete a simple assigned task’ on the website1. This split was done to keep the length of the ‘live’ usage sessions within reasonable time limit, so that including the feedback-giving time (questionnaire filling), the whole session does not become too long for the respondent. In this way we tried to minimize the impact of any possible ‘response fatigue’ in the survey to the extent it is possible to do so in such surveys.
To ensure a statistically healthy representation and calculation of the ratings (and indices) for each website in the study, a minimum sample quota of 120 ‘reported response’ per website was fixed. This is the sample size on which the user friendliness index calculations are based.
1 The tasks that the respondents of the Generic Portal category were asked to perform were – 1) check your horoscope for today, 2) check the day’s news of your interes, 3) check sprots content of your interest.
Generic Portal
6
However, because of a break up of ‘live’ usage between the ‘only homepage surfing’ and ‘only an assigned task completion’, each respondent were to give only ‘part’ rating of the website. This meant that in practice it would take 2 respondents (one of homepage and one of task) to compete one rating of a website as per the JuxtConsult Model. Accordingly, in sample collection, the quota per website was doubled to 240 respondents per website. The eventual break up of the samples as ‘set’ per website and between its existing users and non-users (potential users) was as follows:
Table 1: Sample size by websites
Sample Base Users Non-users Total
Rediff Home page 60 60 120
Task 60 60 120
Yahoo Home page 60 60 120
Task 60 60 120
Indiatimes Home page 60 60 120
Task 60 60 120
Sify Home page 60 60 120
Task 60 60 120
AOL Home page 60 60 120
Task 60 60 120
MSN Home page 60 60 120
Task 60 60 120
Total Category 720 720 1,440
Further to ensure that we report only those responses that are based on actual, and to an extent, sincere ‘live’ usage of the website, firstly the time taken to check/use the website was measured (from the time of clicking the URL link on the questionnaire to the time of answering the first feedback question). Thereafter, we decided to exclude from reporting those respondents who took less than 3 minutes to ‘surf the homepage’ and less than 5 minutes to ‘complete the assigned task’ on the website.
For the 19 individual parameters, except for browser compatibility, the ratings for the rest 18 parameters were taken directly from the respondents. For rating on browser compatibility, websites were tested internally at JuxtConsult by its own technical team on various popular internet browsers and then rated accordingly. The browsers on which the website opening was tested were – Internet Explorer, Firefox, Netscape and Opera.
For the rest 18 parameters where users’ gave the ratings directly, all ratings were taken on a ‘5 point qualitative scale’. For each parameter, respondents were asked to choose one of the five statements given as ‘options’. The five statements ranged from the most positive statement about that attribute on that website to the most negative statement about that attribute on that website.
Of these 18 parameters, only one parameter’s response was taken from the respondents ‘past usage’ of the website (therefore asked only to
Website User Friendliness Study
7
the ‘users’). This parameter was customer responsiveness (measured as timeliness and appropriates of response to any query they may have made on the website in the past). On all the other 17 parameters the respondents were asked to give their ratings basis the ‘live’ usage experience and in real time.
Eventually, Index numbers were calculated and derived from the individual parameter level rating, with each level index having its own calculated scale (depending on the number of individual parameters included under that index). The sample bases of various websites were equalized while calculating their website user friendliness index to ensure that there are no sample size biases in the reported findings.
In the online questionnaires, a response format of ‘clicking’ a single or multiple options among the various given options was used for most questions. Wherever relevant, it was also possible for a respondent to answer ‘none’, ‘not applicable’ or ‘any other’. To enlist complete and sincere responses, an incentive of a significant cash prize was also announced to be given to one randomly selected respondent at the end of the survey.
The questionnaire were pre-tested and timed to take approximately 15-20 minutes for a respondent to complete depending on the speed of comprehension and answering of the questions. The questionnaire was structured and designed to reduce the level of ‘respondent fatigue’ to an extent that was practically possible.
Over 1,421 unduplicated and clean responses were collected from the online survey for the 6 websites being tested under the Generic Portal category (in about 3 weeks of time for which the survey was ‘live’ online). After further cleaning of the data for the actual time spent on surfing the homepage/completing the task on the websites 1,325 responses were finally found to be valid and used in creating this report.
The valid and usable data was then made representative of the entire online urban Indian population by using appropriate 'demographic multipliers’ using highly authentic Govt. of India population statistics. The weights used were derived from the JuxtConsult’s India Online 2007 study and are based on 3 highly relevant demographic parameters – SEC, town class and region.
The end result is that the findings of this report possibly represent the ‘voice’ of over 24 million online urban Indians. Further, the findings represent and effectively cover internet users from all SEC groups, all age groups above 12 years, all income groups and all types of town classes (right down to 20,000 population size level towns)2 .
2 For more details on the demographic and socio-economic profile of the respondents see the ‘Respondent Profile’ section of this report.
Generic Portal
8
Category Websites Tested
���� Rediff (www.rediff.com)
���� Yahoo (www.yahoo.com)
���� Indiatimes (www.indiatimes.com)
���� Sify (www.sify.com)
���� AOL (www.aol.in)
���� MSN (www.msn.com)
Website User Friendliness Study
9
Findings
Generic Portal
10
Website User Friendliness Aggregate Scores - Overall
Table 2: Website user friendliness index (WUF) - overall
Brands WUF Index Relative Index
Rediff 7.0 100%
Yahoo 6.9 98%
Indiatimes 6.5 93%
Sify 6.4 91%
AOL 6.2 88%
MSN 5.4 76%
Base: 1,325
Table 3: Friendly interface index (UFEX) - overall
Brands UFEX Index Relative Index
Rediff 4.1 100%
Yahoo 3.9 97%
Indiatimes 3.7 91%
Sify 3.7 90%
AOL 3.6 88%
MSN 3.1 75%
Base: 1,325
Table 4: User friendly usage experience index (UZEX) - overall
Brands UZEX Index Relative Index
Rediff 3.0 100%
Yahoo 2.9 99%
Indiatimes 2.8 96%
Sify 2.7 91%
AOL 2.6 88%
MSN 2.3 77%
Base: 1,325
Website User Friendliness Study
11
Website User Friendliness Sub Parameter Scores - Overall
Table 5: Accessibility index (overall)
Brands Accessibility Index Relative Index
Rediff 2.2 100%
Yahoo 2.1 96%
Indiatimes 2.0 92%
Sify 2.0 90%
AOL 1.9 88%
MSN 1.7 75%
Base: 1,325
Table 6: Appeal index (overall)
Brands Appeal Index Relative Index
Rediff 1.9 100%
Yahoo 1.8 97%
Sify 1.7 91%
AOL 1.7 89%
Indiatimes 1.7 89%
MSN 1.4 76%
Base: 1,325
Generic Portal
12
Table 7: Navigability index (overall)
Brands Navigability Index Relative Index
Yahoo 1.1 100%
Rediff 1.0 93%
Indiatimes 1.0 92%
Sify 0.9 84%
AOL 0.9 83%
MSN 0.8 72%
Base: 1,325
Table 8: Usage satisfaction index (overall)
Brands Satisfaction Index Relative Index
Rediff 1.9 100%
Yahoo 1.8 95%
Indiatimes 1.8 94%
Sify 1.8 92%
AOL 1.7 87%
MSN 1.5 77%
Base: 1,325
Website User Friendliness Study
13
Website User Friendliness Perceptual Map – Overall
Brand
.3.2.10.0-.1-.2
Att
rib
ute
.2
.1
0.0
-.1
-.2
MSN
AOL
Indiatimes
Yahoo
Rediff
Design Appeal
Ease of Access
Usage Satisfaction
Ease of UsageSify
Generic Portal
14
Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters - Overall
Table 9: Summary table - overall
Ratings (on a 5 point qualitative scale) AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Browser Compatibility 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Download Time 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.5 4.3 4.0
Accessibility Index 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.2 1.7
Distinctive in identity (branding) 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.3
Presentation layout of the home page 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.3
Presentation layout of the task page 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.4 4.4
Aesthetics of text on the homepage 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.7
Aesthetics of graphics on the homepage 4.3 4.2 3.9 3.8 4.2 4.2
User identification with the site 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.7
Ease of comprehension 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.1 3.8
Relevance of content 4.0 4.2 4.3 4.1 4.0 4.2
Relative quality of content 4.1 4.1 4.3 4.0 4.1 4.3
Appeal Index 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.9 1.4
Ease of locating task info 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.1 4.0 4.5
Ease of conducting the task 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.0 4.1
Navigation flow between pages 4.2 4.5 4.0 4.2 4.1 4.4
Navigational cues and helps 2.8 2.9 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.9
Error recovery 4.3 4.6 4.0 4.3 4.4 4.4
Appropriateness of response to queries 4.7 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.4 4.7
Timeliness of response to queries 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.6
Satisfaction with query resolution 4.4 4.4 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.5
Navigability Index 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.8
Timeliness of task completion 4.3 4.0 3.6 4.1 4.0 3.9
Quality of the usage experience 3.9 4.2 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1
Perceived sense of security during usage 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3
Creation of brand preference 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.4
Satisfaction Index 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.5
UFEX Index 3.6 3.7 3.9 3.7 4.1 3.1
UZEX Index 2.6 2.7 2.9 2.8 3.0 2.3
WUF Index 6.2 6.4 6.9 6.5 7.0 5.4
Base: 1,325
Website User Friendliness Study
15
62%
48%41% 39%
50%44%
21%
26%28% 31%
24%28%
7%
9%11% 16%
14%
3%10%
15%7%6%
8%6%
4%
5%7% 10% 13% 9%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Didn't notice thelogo at all'.
I had to search forthe logo
I spotted it but onlyafter a while
It was prominentand I spotted iteasily
It was the first thingthat I noticed on thepage
JFM '08
58%49% 54%
64%57%
41%
28%
28%26%
22%24%
32%
10%15%
16%13%
15%
18%
9%1%
3%5%4% 1%3%
1%2% 3% 0% 0%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Extremely slow
Fairly slow
Neither fast nor
slow
Reasonably fast
Adequately fast
JFM '08
Rating Dispersions by Individual Attributes
Chart 1: Download time (overall)
Base: 676
Chart 2: Distinctive in identity (overall)
Base: 676
Generic Portal
16
62%55%
48%42%
57% 55%
30%39%
37%
34%
26% 27%
9% 5%11%
20%16% 17%
1%0%1% 1% 5%0%0%1%1% 2% 3% 0%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Extremely untidy andcluttered
Fairly untidy
Averagely presented
Fairly well presented
Very well presented
JFM '08
43% 42%
53%
38% 37%28%
39% 44%
34%
40% 44%
45%
18% 9% 10%
16%17%
25%
1%2%2%3% 1% 6%0% 1%0% 2% 2% 0%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Extremely haphazardand badly presented
Fairly disorganized andill presented
Just average inorganization andpresentation
Fairly well organizedand presented
Extremely wellorganized and neatlypresented
JFM '08
Chart 3: Presentation of the home page (overall)
Base: 676
Chart 4: Presentation of the task page (overall)
Base: 676
Website User Friendliness Study
17
66%
50%
55% 54% 63% 60%
17%
33%
20% 14% 14% 21%
6% 9% 5% 9% 11% 8%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Neither engage
me nor distract
me
Too many
Highly relevant
and engaging
JFM '08
76%
54%
74% 73%62%
69%
22%
38%
24%19%
33%31%
2% 2%8% 5% 0%7%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
It has too little
content and
looks empty
It has too much
text and looks
cluttered
It has just the
right amount of
text and looks
fine
JFM '08
Chart 5: Aesthetics of text (overall)
Base: 676
Chart 6: Aesthetics of graphics (overall)
Base: 676
Generic Portal
18
45%38%
47%40% 42% 38%
21% 32%
28% 42% 39%
26%
21%
26% 16%
14%9%
21%
14%
2%
7%3%
4%2%
11%
4%2% 3% 5% 2%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Extremely difficult
Quite difficult
Neither easy nordifficult
Reasonably easy
Extremely easy
JFM '08
33%39% 36% 37% 36%
23%
33%26%
28% 29%38%
39%
24%18% 24% 20%
13%
25%
13%
0%
10%12% 5% 8%5%
3%6% 4% 7% 6%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Its just opposite of mystyle and personality
I find it difficult torelate to it
I can live with it
I can relate to it tosome extent
It matches my styleand personalitycompletely
JFM '08
Chart 7: User identification with the site (overall)
Base: 676
Chart 8: Ease of comprehension (overall)
Base: 676
Website User Friendliness Study
19
42% 40%48%
32%40%
47%
37%36%
33%
37%
43%37%
16%17%
16%
25%
9%15%
1%6%5%
2% 5%2%
0%2%3% 2% 1% 0%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Significantly inferiorthan the otherwebsites
Somewhat inferiorthan the otherwebsites
Same as offered bythe other websites
Somewhat better thanthe other websites
Significantly betterthan the otherwebsites
JFM '08
30%38%
50%44%
36% 34%
45%
45%
36%
33%43% 50%
22%15% 9%
17% 14%16%
0%0%1%
2% 5% 4%0% 6%3% 0% 0% 2%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Almost
irrelevant
Low
relevance
Averagely
relevant
Fairly
relevant
Highly
relevant
JFM '08
Chart 9: Relevance of content (overall)
Base: 676
Chart 10: Relative quality of content (overall)
Base: 676
Generic Portal
20
45%50%
41%45% 46% 44%
29% 15% 32%
36%24% 30%
16% 31%21%
15%
17%21%
6%
7%
4% 6% 3%10%
0%7%
1% 1% 0% 2%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Faced lots of difficulty
Faced some difficultybut was able tocomplete the task
Neither easy nordifficult
Fairly easy with onlysome minor irritants
Extremely easy andhassle-free
JFM '08
61% 56% 53% 48%43%
62%
17% 29% 30%
23%25%
24%
18%13% 12%
24% 25%
13%
1%6%1% 4% 4%1%
0%1%3% 2% 0% 1%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Extremely
difficult
Fairly difficult
Neither easy
nor difficult
Fairly easy
Very easy
JFM '08
Chart 11: Ease of locating task info (overall)
Base: 651
Chart 12: Ease of conducting the task info (overall)
Base: 651
Website User Friendliness Study
21
3% 2% 6%11% 12%
4%
12%
13% 7%
6%
50%53%
42% 32% 39%47%
17%
26%
4% 7%
12%3%16%
15%11%
30%33% 35%25%
30%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Had very few relevantinstructions
Had a fair bit ofrelevant instructions
Almost did not haveany relevantinstructions
Had most of therelevant instructions
Had all the relevantinstructions
JFM '08
54%63%
43% 43% 47%53%
17%
28%
29%
43%28%
38%
22%
6%
16%
7%
11%
8%2%
14%2%
8%5%7%
0%1%0% 2% 5%2%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Relevant page did notopen at all
Faced lot of problems
Neither freely nor withdifficulty
More or less freely
Completely freely
JFM '08
Chart 13: Navigation flow between pages (overall)
Base: 651
Chart 14: Navigation cues and helps (overall)
Base: 651
Generic Portal
22
74%
63%69% 73% 76% 72%
24%
20%
27%26%
11%24%
2%
12%
2%
3%
0%4%1%
1%
1%0% 1%0%
0%
10%0% 4% 1%
0%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
There was noresponse at all
Received only auto-reply, nothingthereafter
They responded butdid not resolve thequery
Query was resolvedonly partially
Query was resolvedcompletely
JFM '08
61%
72%
47%
59%54%
60%
20%
14%
30%
27% 35% 26%
9%
12%
7%
7%8%
7%
4%2%2%1%
13%
5%9%
1%1% 1% 4% 3%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Couldn't resolve andfailed to complete thetask
Resolved with greatdifficulty
Encountered butresolved with websitehelp instructions
Encountered error butresolved on my own
Did not encounter anyerror at all
JFM '08
Chart 15: Error recovery (overall)
Base: 651
Chart 16: Appropriateness of the response (overall)
Base: 268
Website User Friendliness Study
23
53% 52%42% 46%
54% 56%
39% 41%
44%
49%39% 40%
7% 1%6%
5%4%
0%5%0%5% 8%
0%1%0%3%0% 1% 1% 0%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Highly dissatisfied
Moderatelydissatisfied
Neither satisfied notdissatisfied
Moderately satisfied
Highly satisfied
JFM '08
64%57%
50% 46%
65% 68%
23%
19% 33%45%
14%
27%1% 24% 13%
9%
20%
0%5%
0%0%0%
0%
5%
0%1%7%
1% 4%0%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Did not receive anyresponse at all
Fairly late
Neither promptly norlate
More or less in time
Very promptly
JFM '08
Chart 17: Timeliness of response (overall)
Base: 268
Chart 18: Satisfaction with response (overall)
Base: 268
Generic Portal
24
33%45%
36%42% 39% 40%
32%
41%
38%
38%35% 37%
24%
6%21% 12% 24% 20%
1%1%7%
6% 6%9%
2%1%1% 3% 0% 2%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Downright painful
Fairly troublesomeand irritating
Just about agreeable
Fairly pleasant andsatisfactory
Extremely pleasantand delightful
JFM '08
61%
47%43%
56%49%
43%
16%
20%
13%
17%
18%20%
18%
21%
17%
15%18%
19%
14%
3%
14%10%
20%
10%4%
1%2% 2%7%
2%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Took significantlylonger than expected
Took somewhat moretime than expected
Completed in as muchtime as expected
Completed marginallyfaster than expected
Completed a lot fasterthan expected
JFM '08
Chart 19: Timeliness of task completion (overall)
Base: 651
Chart 20: Quality of usage experience (overall)
Base: 651
Website User Friendliness Study
25
57% 59% 58% 60%54% 53%
27% 26% 24%29%
26%34%
12% 12%10%
8%
14%
11%
2%3%
2%5%
2%2%
0%4%2% 1% 3% 2%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Very unlikely to visit it
Fairly unlikely to visit it
Not sure, may or maynot visit it
Somewhat likely tovisit it
Very likely to visit it
JFM '08
38%45%
37%47%
42% 46%
37%31% 45%
39%38%
36%
22% 21%14% 10% 16% 16%
1%2%3% 3% 4%1%1%1%2% 1% 1% 1%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Completely insecure
Fairly insecure
Not sure if I can trustthe website
Fairly secure
Absolutely secure
JFM '08
Chart 21: Perceived sense of security in usage (overall)
Base: 1,325
Chart 22: Brand preference creation (overall)
Base: 1,325
Generic Portal
26
Relative Importance of the Individual Criteria Table 10: Importance ranking of the key individual criteria (overall)
Brands AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN Overall
Fastest to download 80% 70% 90% 62% 76% 79% 76%
Simplest and most easy to understand language
50% 39% 49% 54% 55% 41% 48%
Most responsive and prompt in customer service and support
19% 27% 24% 38% 22% 26% 26%
Brand image in the market place 20% 35% 21% 30% 18% 21% 24%
Provide the best help 28% 19% 20% 24% 24% 25% 23%
Most neat looking design (aesthetics) 20% 29% 20% 13% 20% 24% 21%
Best assures safety against frauds & misuse of personal details & financial info
25% 20% 20% 16% 16% 18% 19%
Gives best assurance on privacy of info provided
15% 15% 22% 21% 21% 17% 19%
Matches my personality and style the best 18% 15% 15% 10% 27% 19% 17%
Most logical structure and flow of info. / content
8% 21% 6% 8% 12% 20% 12%
Helps accomplish the task in least no. of clicks
12% 9% 9% 17% 5% 8% 10%
Most consistent design, look & feel across the page
4% 1% 5% 7% 5% 3% 4%
Base: 1,320
Website User Friendliness Study
27
Website User Friendliness Aggregate Scores - Website Users Only
Table 11: User friendliness index (WUF) - website users only
Brands WUF Index Relative Index
Yahoo 3.7 100%
Rediff 3.7 98%
AOL 3.6 95%
Indiatimes 3.2 86%
Sify 3.2 86%
MSN 2.9 78%
Base: 707
Table 12: Friendly interface index (UFEX) - website users only
Brands UFEX Index Relative Index
Rediff 2.1 100%
Yahoo 2.1 98%
AOL 2.1 96%
Sify 1.8 86%
Indiatimes 1.8 85%
MSN 1.6 77%
Base: 707
Table 13: User friendly usage experience index (UZEX) - website users only
Brands UZEX Index Relative Index
Yahoo 1.6 100%
Rediff 1.5 94%
AOL 1.5 91%
Indiatimes 1.4 86%
Sify 1.4 83%
MSN 1.3 77%
Base: 707
Generic Portal
28
Website User Friendliness Sub Parameter Scores - Website Users Only
Table 14: Accessibility index (website users only)
Brands Accessibility Index Relative Index
Rediff 1.2 100%
Yahoo 1.1 99%
AOL 1.1 95%
Indiatimes 1.0 87%
Sify 1.0 85%
MSN 0.9 77%
Base: 707
Table 15: Appeal index (website users only)
Brands Appeal Index Relative Index
Rediff 1.0 100%
Yahoo 1.0 98%
AOL 1.0 98%
Sify 0.8 87%
Indiatimes 0.8 84%
MSN 0.8 77%
Base: 707
Website User Friendliness Study
29
Table 16: Navigability index (website users only)
Base: 707
Table 17: Usage satisfaction index (website users only)
Brands Satisfaction Index Relative Index
Rediff 1.0 100%
Yahoo 1.0 95%
AOL 0.9 91%
Indiatimes 0.9 85%
Sify 0.9 85%
MSN 0.8 79%
Base: 707
Brands Navigability Index Relative Index
Yahoo 0.7 100%
AOL 0.6 84%
Indiatimes 0.5 80%
Rediff 0.5 77%
Sify 0.5 75%
MSN 0.5 69%
Generic Portal
30
Website User Friendliness Perceptual Map – Website Users Only
Brand
.4.3.2.10.0-.1-.2-.3-.4
Att
rib
ute
.2
.1
0.0
-.1
-.2
Usage Satisfaction
Ease of Usage
Design Appeal
MSN
AOL
Sify
Indiatimes
Yahoo
Rediff
Ease of Access
Website User Friendliness Study
31
Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters - Website Users Only
Table 18: Summary table (website users only)
Ratings (on a 5 point qualitative scale) AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Browser Compatibility 4.3 3.9 4.2 4.7 4.1 4.2
Download Time 4.3 3.9 4.2 4.7 4.1 4.2
Accessibility Index 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.2 0.9
Distinctive in identity (branding) 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.0 3.2 3.4
Presentation layout of the home page 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.0 3.2 3.4
Presentation layout of the task page 4.7 4.5 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.4
Aesthetics of text on the homepage 2.7 2.4 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.8
Aesthetics of graphics on the homepage 4.4 4.1 4.1 3.5 4.1 4.4
User identification with the site 3.8 3.8 4.1 3.8 4.0 3.8
Ease of comprehension 3.9 3.9 4.2 4.3 4.1 3.8
Relevance of content 3.9 4.2 4.4 4.3 4.0 4.3
Relative quality of content 4.1 3.9 4.4 4.0 4.2 4.5
Appeal Index 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.8
Ease of locating task info 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.0 4.5
Ease of conducting the task 4.1 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.0 4.1
Navigation flow between pages 4.0 4.4 3.9 4.2 4.0 4.4
Navigational cues and helps 2.7 2.9 3.2 2.7 2.8 3.0
Error recovery 4.4 4.6 3.9 4.4 4.2 4.4
Appropriateness of response to queries 4.6 4.4 4.8 4.6 4.8 4.8
Timeliness of response to queries 4.1 4.8 4.5 4.2 4.6 4.7
Satisfaction with query resolution 4.5 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.6
Navigability Index 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5
Timeliness of task completion 4.3 3.7 3.6 3.7 4.2 3.9
Quality of the usage experience 3.8 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1
Perceived sense of security during usage 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3
Creation of brand preference 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.3 4.5
Satisfaction Index 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.8
UFEX Index 2.1 1.8 2.1 1.8 2.1 1.6
UZEX Index 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.3
WUF Index 3.6 3.2 3.7 3.2 3.7 2.9
Base: 707
Generic Portal
32
56%52% 50%
35%
49% 54%
26% 31%25%
33%
21%
25%
3%9%
12%16%
16% 4%
7%
10%8%2%
5% 11%4%
5%11%
6% 8%5%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Didn't notice the logoat all'.
I had to search for thelogo
I spotted it but onlyafter a while
It was prominent and Ispotted it easily
It was the first thingthat I noticed on thepage
JFM '08
57%
37%
54%
76%
52% 52%
26%
39%
21%
17%
18%25%
9%
10%19%
6%
22%15%
8%0%
5%
9%
7%1%
5%
2%2% 5%0% 0%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Extremely slow
Fairly slow
Neither fast nor slow
Reasonably fast
Adequately fast
JFM '08
Rating Dispersions by Individual Attributes
Chart 23: Download time (website users only)
Base: 365
Chart 24: Distinctive in identity (website users only)
Base: 365
Website User Friendliness Study
33
67%58%
45%50%
56% 56%
32%
35%
37%34%
29% 28%
6%
14% 12% 12% 15%
1%2% 0%0% 2% 5%0%
0%3%0% 2% 3% 0%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Extremely untidy andcluttered
Fairly untidy
Averagely presented
Fairly well presented
Very well presented
JFM '08
35% 34%
58%
40% 40%
25%
46%53%
31%
37%42%
48%
19% 8% 7%
18%14%
23%
0%0%
5%0%4% 3%4%0%3%0%0% 1%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Extremely haphazardand badly presented
Fairly disorganized andill presented
Just average inorganization andpresentation
Fairly well organizedand presented
Extremely wellorganized and neatlypresented
JFM '08
Chart 25: Presentation of the home page (website users only)
Base: 365
Chart 26: Presentation of the task page (website users only)
Base: 365
Generic Portal
34
67%
44%
54%49% 62%
72%
22%
37%
30% 12% 14% 8%
4%13%
4%8% 10% 13%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Neither engage me nordistract me
Too many
Highly relevant andengaging
JFM '08
73%
53%
77%70%
58%
78%
27%
35%
21%
21%38%
22%
1% 3%9%
5%0%11%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
It has too little contentand looks empty
It has too much textand looks cluttered
It has just the rightamount of text andlooks fine
JFM '08
Chart 27: Aesthetics of text (website users only)
Base: 365
Chart 28: Aesthetics of graphics (website users only)
Base: 365
Website User Friendliness Study
35
45%35%
50% 46% 45%40%
18%32%
34% 40%37%
23%
26%27%
10%13%
5%
18%
16%
3%
7%
5% 3%0%
7%
6%4% 1% 3% 1%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Extremely difficult
Quite difficult
Neither easy nordifficult
Reasonably easy
Extremely easy
JFM '08
30% 33%39%
34%44%
24%
28%31%
42%
33%
29%
36%
35% 23%
15%
21%15%
36%
5%8%10%
0%8%
7%
0%5%
0% 4% 4% 5%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Its just opposite of mystyle and personality
I find it difficult torelate to it
I can live with it
I can relate to it tosome extent
It matches my styleand personalitycompletely
JFM '08
Chart 29: User identification with the site (website users only)
Base: 365
Chart 30: Ease of comprehension (website users only)
Base: 365
Generic Portal
36
40% 39%
54%
33%42%
57%
39%
27%
31%
39%
42%
32%
15%
25%
14%
27%10%
9%1%
5%6%
1% 1%3%
0%1%2% 4% 0% 0%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Significantly inferiorthan the otherwebsites
Somewhat inferiorthan the otherwebsites
Same as offered bythe other websites
Somewhat better thanthe other websites
Significantly betterthan the otherwebsites
JFM '08
28%
42%
53% 53%
33%40%
49%
39%
35%27%
45%
47%
18%19%
12%
15%14%
13%
0%0%
0%
1% 0% 4%0%
8%6%0% 0% 0%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Almost irrelevant
Low relevance
Averagely relevant
Fairly relevant
Highly relevant
JFM '08
Chart 31: Relevance of content (website users only)
Base: 365
Chart 32: Relative quality of content (website users only)
Base: 365
Website User Friendliness Study
37
49%59%
43%48%
53%46%
27% 11%
23%
30% 19%26%
14% 27%24%
16%
14%23%
6%
3%
3%10% 4%10%
0%
11%
0% 1% 0% 2%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Faced lots of difficulty
Faced some difficultybut was able tocomplete the task
Neither easy nordifficult
Fairly easy with onlysome minor irritants
Extremely easy andhassle-free
JFM '08
68% 64%
52%45% 41%
65%
17% 21%
29%
31%
23%
22%
15%10% 14%
14%32%
13%
0%0%5%
3% 5%7%
0% 0%0% 3% 0% 2%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Extremely difficult
Fairly difficult
Neither easy nordifficult
Fairly easy
Very easy
JFM '08
Chart 33: Ease of locating task info (website users only)
Base: 342
Chart 34: Ease of conducting the task (website users only)
Base: 342
Generic Portal
38
0% 4%9%
0%
17%8%
8%
16%
10%
3%
10%
53%
50%
43%
33%
39% 43%
20%
19%
2%
14%1%
7%
27%7%
27%
38% 38%
24% 29%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Had very few relevantinstructions
Had a fair bit ofrelevant instructions
Almost did not haveany relevantinstructions
Had most of therelevant instructions
Had all the relevantinstructions
JFM '08
48%
66%
44% 47% 49% 52%
17%
20%
19%
40%
24%
39%
27%
8%
24%
7%
9%
9%
0%
16%2%
6%
5%8%
1%1%0% 4% 7%2%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Relevant page did notopen at all
Faced lot of problems
Neither freely nor withdifficulty
More or less freely
Completely freely
JFM '08
Chart 35: Navigation flow between pages (website users only)
Base: 342
Chart 36: Navigation cues and helps (website users only)
Base: 342
Website User Friendliness Study
39
67%63%
79%
64%
90%
75%
30%
14%
19%
33%
3%25%
3%
22%
2%6%
0%0%0%1%
1%0% 0% 2%0% 0%0% 1% 0%0%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
There was noresponse at all
Received only auto-reply, nothingthereafter
They responded butdid not resolve thequery
Query was resolvedonly partially
Query was resolvedcompletely
JFM '08
62%
74%
37%
71%
45%
70%
24%
18%
38%
13%
42%
17%
9%7%
7%
7%8% 5%
4%4%4%1%
13%6%
4%2%
1%1% 5% 4%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Couldn't resolve andfailed to complete thetask
Resolved with greatdifficulty
Encountered butresolved with websitehelp instructions
Encountered error butresolved on my own
Did not encounter anyerror at all
JFM '08
Chart 37: Error recovery (website users only)
Base: 342
Chart 38: Appropriateness of the response (website users only)
Base: 154
Generic Portal
40
53%57%
46%38%
58% 62%
42%30%
46%54%
34%
38%
3%
2%
8% 8%2%
0%0%0%
0%10%
1% 0%2% 6%0% 1% 0% 0%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Highly dissatisfied
Moderatelydissatisfied
Neither satisfied notdissatisfied
Moderately satisfied
Highly satisfied
JFM '08
60%
82%
52%
31%
81%
67%
20%
17%
46%
54%
3% 32%2%
0% 2%
15% 15%
1%0%
0%0% 0% 0%
8%
0%1%
10%
1% 0% 0%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Did not receive anyresponse at all
Fairly late
Neither promptly norlate
More or less in time
Very promptly
JFM '08
Chart 39: Timeliness of response (website users only)
Base: 154
Chart 40: Satisfaction with response (website users only)
Base: 154
Website User Friendliness Study
41
33%
45%35% 38% 41%
46%
27%
42%
40%39% 30%
32%
27%
7%25% 20%
27%16%
1%2%
2%0% 0%
13%
4%1%1% 4% 0% 2%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Downright painful
Fairly troublesomeand irritating
Just about agreeable
Fairly pleasant andsatisfactory
Extremely pleasantand delightful
JFM '08
65%
32%40%
32%
49%40%
9%
30% 15%25%
29%
21%
21%
21%
17%
23%
18%
26%
14%
0%4%
16%
24%14%
4%1%2% 2% 5% 5%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Took significantlylonger than expected
Took somewhat moretime than expected
Completed in as muchtime as expected
Completed marginallyfaster than expected
Completed a lot fasterthan expected
JFM '08
Chart 41: Timeliness of task completion (website users only)
Base: 342
Chart 42: Quality of the usage experience (website users only)
Base: 342
Generic Portal
42
58% 61% 61%67%
54%60%
26% 21% 24%21%
32%
31%
11% 16% 9%9% 10%
9%0%0%
2%2%
3%3%4%
3%2% 0% 3% 1%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Very unlikely to visit it
Fairly unlikely to visit it
Not sure, may or maynot visit it
Somewhat likely tovisit it
Very likely to visit it
JFM '08
40% 43% 40% 44% 45%52%
30%30%
43%41%
32%
33%
25% 22%12% 11%
21%14%
1%2%4% 4% 3%2%
1%0%3% 1% 1% 0%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Completely insecure
Fairly insecure
Not sure if I can trustthe website
Fairly secure
Absolutely secure
JFM '08
Chart 43: Perceived sense of security in usage (website users only)
Base: 707
Chart 44: Brand preference creation (website users only)
Base: 707
Website User Friendliness Study
43
Relative Importance of the Individual Criteria Table 19: Importance ranking of the key individual criteria (website
users only)
Brands AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN Overall
Fastest to download 82% 77% 95% 67% 77% 75% 79%
Simplest and most easy to understand language
53% 43% 42% 62% 61% 47% 51%
Most neat looking design (aesthetics) 18% 36% 22% 13% 15% 35% 22%
Matches my personality and style the best 24% 22% 20% 9% 38% 17% 22%
Brand image in the market place 27% 27% 29% 9% 14% 25% 22%
Most responsive and prompt in customer service and support
15% 21% 22% 30% 15% 26% 21%
Provide the best help 20% 14% 24% 17% 27% 15% 20%
Best assures safety against frauds & misuse of personal details & financial info
18% 20% 19% 21% 16% 22% 19%
Gives best assurance on privacy of info provided
19% 12% 15% 31% 15% 19% 18%
Most logical structure and flow of info. / content
9% 18% 3% 13% 11% 8% 10%
Helps accomplish the task in least no. of clicks
9% 11% 6% 24% 4% 8% 10%
Most consistent design, look & feel across the page
7% 0% 4% 6% 7% 5% 5%
Base: 707
Generic Portal
44
Website User Friendliness Aggregate Scores - Website Non Users Only
Table 20: User friendliness index (WUF) - website non users only
Brands WUF Index Relative Index
Rediff 3.4 100%
Indiatimes 3.3 98%
Sify 3.2 94%
Yahoo 3.1 93%
AOL 2.7 79%
MSN 2.5 73%
Base: 618
Table 21: User friendly interface index (UFEX) - website non users only
Brands UFEX Index Relative Index
Rediff 1.9 100%
Indiatimes 1.9 97%
Sify 1.8 95%
Yahoo 1.8 95%
AOL 1.5 80%
MSN 1.4 74%
Base: 618
Table 22: User friendly usage experience index (UZEX) - website non users only
Brands UZEX Index Relative Index
Indiatimes 1.4 100%
Rediff 1.4 99%
Sify 1.3 93%
Yahoo 1.3 90%
AOL 1.1 77%
MSN 1.0 71%
Base: 618
Website User Friendliness Study
45
Website User Friendliness Sub Parameter Scores - Website Non Users Only
Table 23: Accessibility index (website non users only)
Brands Accessibility Index Relative Index
Rediff 1.1 100%
Indiatimes 1.0 98%
Yahoo 1.0 94%
Sify 1.0 94%
AOL 0.9 80%
MSN 0.8 73%
Base: 618
Table 24: Appeal index (website non users only)
Brands Appeal Index Relative Index
Rediff 0.9 100%
Sify 0.8 96%
Yahoo 0.8 96%
Indiatimes 0.8 94%
AOL 0.7 79%
MSN 0.7 75%
Base: 618
Generic Portal
46
Table 25: Navigability index (website non users only)
Brands Navigability index Relative Index
Rediff 0.5 100%
Indiatimes 0.5 95%
Yahoo 0.5 86%
Sify 0.4 84%
AOL 0.4 70%
MSN 0.3 65%
Base: 618
Table 26: Usage satisfaction index (website non users only)
Brands Satisfaction Index Relative Index
Indiatimes 0.9 100%
Rediff 0.9 96%
Sify 0.9 95%
Yahoo 0.8 90%
AOL 0.7 79%
MSN 0.7 73%
Base: 618
Website User Friendliness Study
47
Website User Friendliness Perceptual Map – Website Non Users Only
Brand
.2.1-.0-.1-.2-.3
Att
rib
ute
.3
.2
.1
0.0
-.1
-.2Design Appeal
MSN
AOLSify
Indiatimes
Yahoo
Rediff
Usage Satisfaction
Ease of Usage Ease of Access
Generic Portal
48
Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters - Website Non Users Only
Table 27: Summary table - website non users only
Ratings (on a 5 point qualitative scale) AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Browser Compatibility 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Download Time 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.6 3.8
Accessibility Index 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.8
Distinctive in identity (branding) 3.5 3.2 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.1
Presentation layout of the home page 3.5 3.2 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.1
Presentation layout of the task page 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.0 4.4 4.3
Aesthetics of text on the homepage 2.8 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6
Aesthetics of graphics on the homepage 4.1 4.2 3.7 4.1 4.2 4.0
User identification with the site 3.8 3.9 3.6 3.8 3.9 3.7
Ease of comprehension 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9
Relevance of content 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.1
Relative quality of content 4.1 4.2 4.2 3.9 4.1 4.1
Appeal Index 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.7
Ease of locating task info 4.0 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.0 4.4
Ease of conducting the task 3.9 4.0 4.2 4.2 3.9 4.1
Navigation flow between pages 4.4 4.5 4.1 4.2 4.1 4.4
Navigational cues and helps 2.9 3.0 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.7
Error recovery 4.1 4.5 4.2 4.3 4.5 4.3
Appropriateness of response to queries 4.9 4.4 4.4 4.9 3.9 4.6
Timeliness of response to queries 4.7 3.8 3.7 4.7 4.2 4.6
Satisfaction with query resolution 4.4 4.5 3.8 4.6 4.4 4.3
Navigability Index 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3
Timeliness of task completion 4.3 4.3 3.7 4.5 3.8 3.9
Quality of the usage experience 4.0 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1
Perceived sense of security during usage 4.1 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.2 4.2
Creation of brand preference 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.4 4.2 4.2
Satisfaction Index 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.7
UFEX Index 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.4
UZEX Index 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.0
WUF Index 2.7 3.2 3.1 3.3 3.4 2.5
Base: 618
Website User Friendliness Study
49
69%
45%33%
42%52%
34%
16%
21%
31%
28%
26%
32%
11%
10% 10%
16%11%
2%
12%
21%6%
10% 10%
1%
3%5%1%
15% 16% 13%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Didn't notice the logoat all'.
I had to search for thelogo
I spotted it but onlyafter a while
It was prominent and Ispotted it easily
It was the first thingthat I noticed on thepage
JFM '08
58% 61%54%
50%
63%
28%
29%18% 31%
29%
31%
39%
12%20%
14%19%
4%
21%
11%
1%1%1% 1% 1%0%0%2%
0% 0% 0%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Extremely slow
Fairly slow
Neither fast nor slow
Reasonably fast
Adequately fast
JFM '08
Rating Dispersions by Individual Attributes
Chart 45: Download time (website non users only)
Base: 311
Chart 46: Distinctive in identity (website non users only)
Base: 311
Generic Portal
50
54% 51% 53%
35%
57% 55%
26%43% 37%
34%
23% 25%
19%
4% 8%
26%
20% 19%
1%0% 4%0%1% 0%0%0%2%1%1% 0%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Extremely untidy andcluttered
Fairly untidy
Averagely presented
Fairly well presented
Very well presented
JFM '08
52% 49% 48%
36% 33% 31%
32% 35% 37%
44% 45%42%
16%10% 13%
14% 20%26%
1%0%7%2%
3%0%
0%0%1%3%0% 2%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Extremely haphazardand badly presented
Fairly disorganized andill presented
Just average inorganization andpresentation
Fairly well organizedand presented
Extremely wellorganized and neatlypresented
JFM '08
Chart 47: Presentation of the home page (website non users only)
Base: 311
Chart 48: Presentation of the task page (website non users only)
Base: 311
Website User Friendliness Study
51
66%
56%
56%60% 65%
46%
11%
29%
11%17% 13%
35%
9% 6% 7% 10% 11%3%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Neither engage me nordistract me
Too many
Highly relevant andengaging
JFM '08
80%
55%
72%78%
68%58%
16%
41%
27% 16%27%
41%
4% 3% 1%7% 5% 1%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
It has too little contentand looks empty
It has too much textand looks cluttered
It has just the rightamount of text andlooks fine
JFM '08
Chart 49: Aesthetics of text (website non users only)
Base: 311
Chart 50: Aesthetics of graphics (website non users only)
Base: 311
Generic Portal
52
44% 41%45%
34% 37% 35%
24% 31% 23% 44% 41%
29%
17%
24%21%
16% 15%
24%
12%
0%7%1%
5%3%
15%
1%0% 4% 6% 4%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Extremely difficult
Quite difficult
Neither easy nordifficult
Reasonably easy
Extremely easy
JFM '08
36%45%
34%40%
25% 23%
38%22%
16%
23% 51%
42%
11%15%
32%
20%
11%
14%
21%
0%
13%14%
9%9%3%
0%
13%4%
10% 8%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Its just opposite of mystyle and personality
I find it difficult torelate to it
I can live with it
I can relate to it tosome extent
It matches my styleand personalitycompletely
JFM '08
Chart 51: User identification with the site (website non users only)
Base: 311
Chart 52: Ease of comprehension (website non users only)
Base: 311
Website User Friendliness Study
53
44% 40% 44%
31%37% 36%
34% 46% 35%
36%
44%42%
17%10%
17%
24%
8%22%
1%
8%4% 4% 9%1%
0%3%4% 0% 1% 1%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Significantly inferiorthan the otherwebsites
Somewhat inferiorthan the otherwebsites
Same as offered bythe other websites
Somewhat better thanthe other websites
Significantly betterthan the otherwebsites
JFM '08
33% 34%
47%
34%41%
27%
41%
51%
36%
40%
40%
54%
26%11%
7%18%
15% 19%
0%0%1%3%
10% 4%
0% 3%0% 0% 0% 5%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Almost irrelevant
Low relevance
Averagely relevant
Fairly relevant
Highly relevant
JFM '08
Chart 53: Relevance of content (website non users only)
Base: 311
Chart 54: Relative quality of content (website non users only)
Base: 311
Generic Portal
54
39% 42%37%
42% 40% 40%
30%19%
46%41%
29%34%
18% 35%
17% 13%
20%
19%
7%10%
4%1%
3%10%
0%2%3% 1% 0% 1%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Faced lots of difficulty
Faced some difficultybut was able tocomplete the task
Neither easy nordifficult
Fairly easy with onlysome minor irritants
Extremely easy andhassle-free
JFM '08
51%46%
55% 51%44%
59%
17%
37%
31%
16% 28%
26%
22%
16% 10%
31% 19%
13%
2%8%
0% 3% 1%
4%
0%2%
7%1% 1% 1%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Extremely difficult
Fairly difficult
Neither easy nordifficult
Fairly easy
Very easy
JFM '08
Chart 55: Ease of locating task info (website non users only)
Base: 309
Chart 56: Ease of conducting the task info (website non users only)
Base: 309
Website User Friendliness Study
55
7%1% 1%
20%
7%0%
6%2%
45% 57%
39%
31%
39%
51%
14%
33%
14%
6%
5%
11%
11%6%
29%
5%16%
32%26%
31%26% 31%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Had very few relevantinstructions
Had a fair bit ofrelevant instructions
Almost did not haveany relevantinstructions
Had most of therelevant instructions
Had all the relevantinstructions
JFM '08
63% 59%
40% 40%44%
54%
17%35%
42% 46%32%
36%
16%
3%
5%7%
12%
6%4%
12%2%
10%5%
4%0%0%0% 0% 3% 2%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Relevant page did notopen at all
Faced lot of problems
Neither freely nor withdifficulty
More or less freely
Completely freely
JFM '08
Chart 57: Navigation flow between pages (website non users only)
Base: 309
Chart 58: Navigation cues and helps (website non users only)
Base: 309
Generic Portal
56
91%
64%
49%
86%
59%67%
26%
44%
14%
20%
21%
0%4% 12%
0%0%
9% 2%
0%
0%
0%
1%0%
0%0%
21%
0% 6% 3% 0%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
There was noresponse at all
Received only auto-reply, nothingthereafter
They responded butdid not resolve thequery
Query was resolvedonly partially
Query was resolvedcompletely
JFM '08
59%
71%60%
50%
63%
50%
15%
10%
18% 38%
29%
37%
9%
18%
6%
6%9%
9%
4%0%0%
13%
4%16%
1%0%1% 1% 3% 2%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Couldn't resolve andfailed to complete thetask
Resolved with greatdifficulty
Encountered butresolved with websitehelp instructions
Encountered error butresolved on my own
Did not encounter anyerror at all
JFM '08
Chart 59: Error recovery (website non users only)
Base: 309
Chart 60: Appropriateness of the response (website non users only)
Base: 114
Website User Friendliness Study
57
55%47%
36%
59%50%
44%
30%53%
39%
41%
44%
43%
6%13%
0%0%
1%
0%0%15%
0% 0%
21%
0% 0%0%3%0%0% 0%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Highly dissatisfied
Moderatelydissatisfied
Neither satisfied notdissatisfied
Moderately satisfied
Highly satisfied
JFM '08
72%
30%
46%
70%
46%
72%
28%
21%
6%
30%
27%
17%
35%
27%
12%
0%0%0% 0%
49%
0%0%
0%
0%0% 0%0% 0%12%
0%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Did not receive anyresponse at all
Fairly late
Neither promptly norlate
More or less in time
Very promptly
JFM '08
Chart 61: Timeliness of response (website non users only)
Base: 114
Chart 62: Satisfaction with response (website non users only)
Base: 114
Generic Portal
58
34%44%
37%45%
38%33%
41%
39%
36%
38%
40%42%
20% 4%14%
5%21% 25%
0%0%0%
12% 13% 10%4%
1%1% 1% 0% 2%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Downright painful
Fairly troublesomeand irritating
Just about agreeable
Fairly pleasant andsatisfactory
Extremely pleasantand delightful
JFM '08
55%64%
47%
74%
49% 48%
27% 9%
11%
10%
8%19%
14%22%
17%
9%
18%
12%
15%
7%
23%
4%
16%
7%4%2%1% 1%
9%0%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Took significantlylonger than expected
Took somewhat moretime than expected
Completed in as muchtime as expected
Completed marginallyfaster than expected
Completed a lot fasterthan expected
JFM '08
Chart 63: Timeliness of task completion (website non users only)
Base: 309
Chart 64: Quality of usage experience (website non users only)
Base: 309
Website User Friendliness Study
59
55% 58% 56% 54% 55%46%
27%30%
23%36%
19% 36%
14%8%
11%
7%
19%
15%
3%3%
3%7%
0%0%
0%5%4% 1% 4% 2%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Very unlikely to visit it
Fairly unlikely to visit it
Not sure, may or maynot visit it
Somewhat likely tovisit it
Very likely to visit it
JFM '08
34%
47%
34%
50%39% 40%
47%
33%
47%
36%
46% 41%
19% 19% 17% 9% 12% 18%
1%1%2% 1% 5%0%
0%2%1% 0% 1% 1%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN
Completely insecure
Fairly insecure
Not sure if I can trustthe website
Fairly secure
Absolutely secure
JFM '08
Chart 65: Perceived sense of security in usage (website non users only)
Base: 618
Chart 66: Brand preference creation (website non users only)
Base: 618
Generic Portal
60
Relative Importance of the Individual Criteria Table 28: Importance ranking of the key individual criteria (website non
users only)
Brands AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN Overall
Fastest to download 77% 62% 83% 58% 74% 84% 72%
Simplest and most easy to understand language
46% 35% 57% 46% 49% 35% 45%
Most responsive and prompt in customer service and support
24% 33% 27% 47% 29% 25% 31%
Provide the best help 39% 25% 16% 30% 20% 37% 27%
Brand image in the market place 11% 43% 12% 49% 23% 17% 27%
Most neat looking design (aesthetics)
24% 21% 18% 14% 26% 12% 19%
Gives best assurance on privacy of info provided
9% 19% 29% 13% 28% 14% 19%
Best assures safety against frauds & misuse of personal details & financial info
35% 20% 20% 11% 16% 12% 19%
Most logical structure and flow of info. / content
7% 24% 9% 4% 14% 34% 15%
Matches my personality and style the best
11% 9% 10% 11% 13% 21% 12%
Helps accomplish the task in least no. of clicks
18% 7% 12% 11% 6% 7% 10%
Most consistent design, look & feel across
1% 2% 7% 8% 3% 2% 4%
Base: 613
Website User Friendliness Study
61
Respondent Profile
Generic Portal
62
83%
17%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Overall
Male FemaleJFM '08
19%
8% 6%
43%
24%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Overall
Age 13-18 years Age 19-24 years Age 25-35 yearsAge 36-45 years Above Age 45 years
JFM '08
Demographic Profile Chart 67: Gender
Base: 1,325
Chart 68: Age group
Base: 1,325
Website User Friendliness Study
63
JFM '08
27%
17%
44%
12%
0%
20%
40%
Overall
Upto 1 Lakh 1-5 Lakhs 5-10 Lakhs Avove 10 Lakhs
JFM '08
37%
8%4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Overall
Metro Urban uptowns Emerging Towns Others
Chart 69: City class - by population size
Base: 1,325
Chart 70: City class - by market size
Base: 1,325
Generic Portal
64
JFM '08
23%
11%
26%
40%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Overall
North East South West
Table 29: Top 10 cities
Cities All -Online Travel
Mumbai 7%
Bangalore 7%
Delhi 6%
Hyderabad 6%
Chennai 5%
Kolkata 3%
Secunderabad 3%
Pune 2%
Thane 1%
Visakhapatnam 1%
Base: 1,325
Chart 71: Region-wise break-ups
Base: 1,325
Website User Friendliness Study
65
Native language of respondents
Table 30: Preferred language of speaking - top 10 languages
Languages All -Online Travel
English 52%
Hindi 21%
Telugu 6%
Tamil 4%
Gujarati 4%
Marathi 0.8%
Kannada 4%
Malayalam 2%
Bengali 2%
Urdu 0.9%
Base: 1,325
Generic Portal
66
JFM '08
25%
33%
13%
7%
23%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Overall
SEC-A SEC-B SEC-C SEC-D SEC-E
JFM '08
29%25%
10%
30%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Overall
Up to SSC/HSC College but not Graduate
Graduate & above-general stream Graduate & above-professional
Socio Economic Profile
Chart 72: Socio economic classification
Base: 1,325
Chart 73: Highest education level
Base: 1,325
Website User Friendliness Study
67
JFM '08
9% 7%
3%
15%13%
3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Overall
Jr level salaried emp Sr level salaried emp Self Employed
Businessmen Student HousewifeOthers
Chart 74: Current occupation
Base: 1,325
Generic Portal
68
50%
32%
11%
7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Overall
Upto Rs. 10K 10-30K 30-50K Above 50KJFM '08
41%
15%
25%
20%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Overall
2 Wheeler 4 Wheeler Others Don't own a vehicleJFM '08
Economic Profile Chart 75: Monthly family income
Base: 1,325
Chart 76: Most expensive vehicle owned by the household
Base: 1,160
Website User Friendliness Study
69
15%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Overall
Don't own a credit card Own a Credit CardJFM '08
Chart 77: Ownership of credit cards (individually)
Base: 1,325
Generic Portal
70
57%
3%
38% 38%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Overall
Home Place of work Cyber Cafe In-transitJFM '08
38%
25%
17% 21%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Overall
Upto 1 year 1-2 years2-5 years Above 5 years
JFM '08
Net Usage Dynamics Chart 78: Experience in internet usage
Base: 1,325
Chart 79: Place of internet access (multiple)
Base: 1,325
Website User Friendliness Study
71
WUF Index Ranking of Websites by User Segments
72
Table 1: By gender breakup (overall)
Male Female
Indiatimes Rediff
Yahoo Yahoo
Rediff MSN
Sify Sify
AOL AOL
MSN Indiatimes
Table 2: By gender breakup (website users only)
Male Female
AOL Rediff
Rediff Yahoo
Yahoo Sify
Indiatimes MSN
Sify Indiatimes
MSN AOL
Table 3: By gender breakup (website non-users only)
Male Female
Indiatimes Rediff
Sify Yahoo
Yahoo AOL
Rediff MSN
AOL Sify
MSN Indiatimes
73
Table 4: By age group (overall)
13-18 Years 19-24 years 25-35 years 36-45 years 46-55 years Above 55 years
Rediff Rediff Indiatimes AOL MSN Indiatimes
Yahoo Yahoo Yahoo Sify AOL AOL
AOL Sify Sify Rediff Indiatimes MSN
MSN AOL AOL Yahoo Rediff Rediff
Sify Indiatimes MSN Indiatimes Sify Sify
Indiatimes MSN Rediff MSN Yahoo Yahoo
Table 5: By age group (website users only)
13-18 Years 19-24 years 25-35 years 36-45 years 46-55 years Above 55 years
Rediff Yahoo Indiatimes AOL MSN Indiatimes
AOL Rediff Sify Sify Rediff AOL
Yahoo AOL AOL MSN Indiatimes Sify
MSN Sify Rediff Yahoo AOL MSN
Indiatimes Indiatimes MSN Rediff Sify Rediff
Sify MSN Yahoo Indiatimes Yahoo Yahoo
Table 6: By age group (website non-users only)
13-18 Years 19-24 years 25-35 years 36-45 years 46-55 years Above 55 years
Yahoo Sify Indiatimes Indiatimes MSN Indiatimes
Rediff Rediff Yahoo Rediff AOL Rediff
Sify Indiatimes MSN Sify Indiatimes MSN
MSN AOL AOL AOL Rediff AOL
AOL MSN Sify Yahoo Sify Sify
Indiatimes Yahoo Rediff MSN Yahoo Yahoo
74
Table 7: By socio economic classification (overall)
SEC-A SEC-B SEC-C SEC-D SEC-E
Rediff AOL Rediff Yahoo Indiatimes
Sify Yahoo Yahoo Sify AOL
MSN Sify Indiatimes Rediff Rediff
Indiatimes Rediff MSN Indiatimes Sify
AOL Indiatimes Sify MSN MSN
Yahoo MSN AOL AOL Yahoo
Table 8: By socio economic classification (website users only)
SEC-A SEC-B SEC-C SEC-D SEC-E
Indiatimes AOL Rediff Sify AOL
Rediff Yahoo Yahoo Yahoo Indiatimes
MSN Sify Sify Rediff Rediff
Sify MSN MSN Indiatimes Sify
AOL Rediff Indiatimes MSN MSN
Yahoo Indiatimes AOL AOL Yahoo
Table 9: By socio economic classification (website non-users only)
SEC-A SEC-B SEC-C SEC-D SEC-E
Rediff Sify Rediff Yahoo Indiatimes
Sify AOL Indiatimes Sify Rediff
AOL Yahoo Yahoo Rediff Sify
MSN Indiatimes AOL MSN MSN
Yahoo Rediff MSN Indiatimes AOL
Indiatimes MSN Sify AOL Yahoo
75
Table 10: By vehicle ownership (overall)
Two Wheeler 4 Wheeler Don't Own Any
Yahoo Sify Rediff
Rediff Rediff Indiatimes
AOL AOL Yahoo
Sify Indiatimes AOL
Indiatimes Yahoo MSN
MSN MSN Sify
Table 11: By vehicle ownership (website users only)
Two Wheeler 4 Wheeler Don't Own Any
Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff
Rediff Sify AOL
AOL AOL Sify
Sify Rediff MSN
Indiatimes Yahoo Yahoo
MSN MSN Indiatimes
Table 12: By vehicle ownership (website non-users only)
Two Wheeler 4 Wheeler Don't Own Any
Indiatimes Sify Indiatimes
Sify Rediff Rediff
AOL AOL Yahoo
Rediff Yahoo MSN
Yahoo Indiatimes AOL
MSN MSN Sify
76
Table 13: By region (overall)
North East South West
Indiatimes Rediff Yahoo Rediff
AOL Sify MSN Indiatimes
Yahoo Indiatimes Sify AOL
Sify AOL Rediff MSN
Rediff Yahoo AOL Sify
MSN MSN Indiatimes Yahoo
Table 14: By region (website users only)
North East South West
AOL Sify Yahoo Rediff
Yahoo Rediff Sify MSN
Rediff Indiatimes AOL AOL
Indiatimes AOL Indiatimes Sify
MSN Yahoo Rediff Indiatimes
Sify MSN MSN Yahoo
Table 15: By region (website non-users only)
North East South West
Sify Rediff MSN Indiatimes
Indiatimes Sify Yahoo Rediff
Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff AOL
Rediff Yahoo AOL Sify
AOL AOL Indiatimes Yahoo
MSN MSN Sify MSN
77
Table 16: By monthly household income (overall)
Upto 1 Lakh 1-5 Lakhs 5-10 Lakhs Above 10 Lakhs
AOL Rediff Sify Yahoo
Rediff Indiatimes AOL Rediff
Yahoo Sify Yahoo Indiatimes
Sify Yahoo Indiatimes MSN
Indiatimes MSN Rediff Sify
MSN AOL MSN AOL
Table 17: By monthly household income (website users only)
Upto 1 Lakh 1-5 Lakhs 5-10 Lakhs Above 10 Lakhs
Rediff Yahoo Sify Indiatimes
AOL Rediff AOL Yahoo
Yahoo Sify Indiatimes Sify
MSN Indiatimes Yahoo MSN
Indiatimes AOL Rediff AOL
Sify MSN MSN Rediff
Table 18: By monthly household income (website non-users only)
Upto 1 Lakh 1-5 Lakhs 5-10 Lakhs Above 10 Lakhs
Sify Rediff Yahoo Rediff
Indiatimes Indiatimes Sify Yahoo
Yahoo AOL AOL Indiatimes
AOL Sify Indiatimes MSN
Rediff Yahoo Rediff AOL
MSN MSN MSN Sify
78
Sample Sizes
79
Table 19: Sample sizes by websites
Captured Data Usable Data
User Non User Overall User Non User Overall
Total Sample Base 735 686 1,421 707 618 1,325
AOL 105 107 212 102 96 198
Sify 116 113 229 113 101 214
Yahoo 127 110 237 125 94 219
Indiatimes 132 109 241 123 96 219
Rediff 129 131 260 125 125 250
MSN 126 116 242 119 106 225
Note- The sample sizes of various websites were equalized while calculating their website user friendliness index
80
Index: Charts
Chart 1: Download time (overall) .......................................................15 Chart 2: Distinctive in identity (overall) ...............................................15 Chart 3: Presentation of the home page (overall)....................................16 Chart 4: Presentation of the task page (overall) .....................................16 Chart 5: Aesthetics of text (overall) ....................................................17 Chart 6: Aesthetics of graphics (overall) ...............................................17 Chart 7: User identification with the site (overall) ..................................18 Chart 8: Ease of comprehension (overall)..............................................18 Chart 9: Relevance of content (overall)................................................19 Chart 10: Relative quality of content (overall) .......................................19 Chart 11: Ease of locating task info (overall) .........................................20 Chart 12: Ease of conducting the task info (overall).................................20 Chart 13: Navigation flow between pages (overall) ..................................21 Chart 14: Navigation cues and helps (overall) ........................................21 Chart 15: Error recovery (overall) .......................................................22 Chart 16: Appropriateness of the response (overall).................................22 Chart 17: Timeliness of response (overall) ............................................23 Chart 18: Satisfaction with response (overall) ........................................23 Chart 19: Timeliness of task completion (overall) ...................................24 Chart 20: Quality of usage experience (overall) ......................................24 Chart 21: Perceived sense of security in usage (overall)............................25 Chart 22: Brand preference creation (overall) ........................................25 Chart 23: Download time (website users only)........................................32 Chart 24: Distinctive in identity (website users only) ...............................32 Chart 25: Presentation of the home page (website users only)....................33 Chart 26: Presentation of the task page (website users only)......................33 Chart 27: Aesthetics of text (website users only) ....................................34 Chart 28: Aesthetics of graphics (website users only) ...............................34 Chart 29: User identification with the site (website users only) ..................35 Chart 30: Ease of comprehension (website users only)..............................35 Chart 31: Relevance of content (website users only) ................................36 Chart 32: Relative quality of content (website users only) .........................36 Chart 33: Ease of locating task info (website users only) ...........................37 Chart 34: Ease of conducting the task (website users only) ........................37 Chart 35: Navigation flow between pages (website users only) ...................38 Chart 36: Navigation cues and helps (website users only) ..........................38 Chart 37: Error recovery (website users only) ........................................39 Chart 38: Appropriateness of the response (website users only) ..................39 Chart 39: Timeliness of response (website users only) ..............................40 Chart 40: Satisfaction with response (website users only)..........................40 Chart 41: Timeliness of task completion (website users only) .....................41 Chart 42: Quality of the usage experience (website users only)...................41 Chart 43: Perceived sense of security in usage (website users only) .............42 Chart 44: Brand preference creation (website users only) .........................42 Chart 45: Download time (website non users only) ..................................49 Chart 46: Distinctive in identity (website non users only) ..........................49 Chart 47: Presentation of the home page (website non users only) ..............50 Chart 48: Presentation of the task page (website non users only) ................50 Chart 49: Aesthetics of text (website non users only) ...............................51 Chart 50: Aesthetics of graphics (website non users only)..........................51 Chart 51: User identification with the site (website non users only) .............52 Chart 52: Ease of comprehension (website non users only) ........................52 Chart 53: Relevance of content (website non users only) ..........................53 Chart 54: Relative quality of content (website non users only)....................53 Chart 55: Ease of locating task info (website non users only)......................54 Chart 56: Ease of conducting the task info (website non users only) .............54 Chart 57: Navigation flow between pages (website non users only) ..............55 Chart 58: Navigation cues and helps (website non users only).....................55 Chart 59: Error recovery (website non users only) ...................................56
81
Chart 60: Appropriateness of the response (website non users only).............56 Chart 61: Timeliness of response (website non users only).........................57 Chart 62: Satisfaction with response (website non users only) ....................57 Chart 63: Timeliness of task completion (website non users only)................58 Chart 64: Quality of usage experience (website non users only) ..................58 Chart 65: Perceived sense of security in usage (website non users only) ........59 Chart 66: Brand preference creation (website non users only) ....................59 Chart 67: Gender ...........................................................................62 Chart 68: Age group........................................................................62 Chart 69: City class - by population size ...............................................63 Chart 70: City class - by market size....................................................63 Chart 71: Region-wise break-ups ........................................................64 Chart 72: Socio economic classification................................................66 Chart 73: Highest education level.......................................................66 Chart 74: Current occupation ............................................................67 Chart 75: Monthly family income........................................................68 Chart 76: Most expensive vehicle owned by the household ........................68 Chart 77: Ownership of credit cards (individually) ...................................69 Chart 78: Experience in internet usage ................................................70 Chart 79: Place of internet access (multiple) .........................................70
82
Index: Tables
Table 1: Sample size by websites ........................................................ 6 Table 2: Website user friendliness index (WUF) - overall ...........................10 Table 3: Friendly interface index (UFEX) - overall ...................................10 Table 4: User friendly usage experience index (UZEX) - overall ...................10 Table 5: Accessibility index (overall) ...................................................11 Table 6: Appeal index (overall) ..........................................................11 Table 7: Navigability index (overall)....................................................12 Table 8: Usage satisfaction index (overall) ............................................12 Table 9: Summary table - overall........................................................14 Table 10: Importance ranking of the key individual criteria (overall) ............26 Table 11: User friendliness index (WUF) - website users only......................27 Table 12: Friendly interface index (UFEX) - website users only ...................27 Table 13: User friendly usage experience index (UZEX) - website users only ...27 Table 14: Accessibility index (website users only) ...................................28 Table 15: Appeal index (website users only) ..........................................28 Table 16: Navigability index (website users only) ....................................29 Table 17: Usage satisfaction index (website users only) ............................29 Table 18: Summary table (website users only)........................................31 Table 19: Importance ranking of the key individual criteria (website users only).................................................................................................43 Table 20: User friendliness index (WUF) - website non users only ................44 Table 21: User friendly interface index (UFEX) - website non users only ........44 Table 22: User friendly usage experience index (UZEX) - website non users only.................................................................................................44 Table 23: Accessibility index (website non users only) ..............................45 Table 24: Appeal index (website non users only).....................................45 Table 25: Navigability index (website non users only)...............................46 Table 26: Usage satisfaction index (website non users only).......................46 Table 27: Summary table - website non users only ..................................48 Table 28: Importance ranking of the key individual criteria (website non users only) ..........................................................................................60 Table 29: Top 10 cities ....................................................................64 Table 30: Preferred language of speaking - top 10 languages......................65
83
Index: Segment Wise Tables Table 1: By gender breakup (overall)...................................................72
Table 2: By gender breakup (website users only) ....................................72
Table 3: By gender breakup (website non-users only) ...............................72
Table 4: By age group (overall) ..........................................................73
Table 5: By age group (website users only)............................................73
Table 6: By age group (website non-users only) ......................................73
Table 7: By socio economic classification (overall) ..................................74
Table 8: By socio economic classification (website users only)....................74
Table 9: By socio economic classification (website non-users only) ..............74
Table 10: By vehicle ownership (overall) ..............................................75
Table 11: By vehicle ownership (website users only) ................................75
Table 12: By vehicle ownership (website non-users only) ..........................75
Table 13: By region (overall) .............................................................76
Table 14: By region (website users only)...............................................76
Table 15: By region (website non-users only) .........................................76
Table 16: By monthly household income (overall) ...................................77
Table 17: By monthly household income (website users only) .....................77
Table 18: By monthly household income (website non-users only)................77
Table 19: Sample sizes by websites .....................................................79
84
85