To begin identifying issues within Translinks website I started by conducting a cognitive walkthrough. A cognitive walkthrough is something that came up in my research, this is a task-oriented method where the auditor walks through the product as if they were a new user. You perform specific tasks step by step to identify potential obstacles in the user journey. This should help me to highlight any issues with Translinks site.
This is kind of new territory for me so I asked AI to create me an action list for this cognitive walkthrough. These are actions that users would take when navigating the site. This will help me comb through the interface in search for any issues.
User goal: “I want to plan a trip using public transit.”
Upon opening the site the user is first greeted by a landing page that features 3 separate cards all serving a similar function. These being Plan a journey, Next Services and Timetables. Immediately I can recognise that these could be condensed into one card. This would make the landing page less confusing and streamline the process for trip planning.
This violates Aesthetic and Minimalist Design, as presenting three cards with overlapping purposes introduces unnecessary complexity and increases cognitive load at the entry point.
I tried planning a trip from Belfast to Ballymena and I was met with a list of different options for this journey. Both rail and bus services were offered but what I found interesting is that the rail services just state “rail” whilst bus services show the specific bus service the user would take to reach their destination. I feel this can be an issue if a user is just checking what service to get then at a glance they wont know unless the proceed further than this.
This violates Consistency and Standards, because rail services are labelled generically while bus services display specific route numbers, making comparison difficult at a glance.
When purchasing a ticket for this journey the user is met with a card displaying the different fares offered. This card shows over 20 different fares for varying types of passenger. I felt this to be a ridiculous way to present this information. It feels as though they exported this information straight from excel. The information presented here must be kept relevant to the user, this could be done by perhaps using a form of sorts, or even displaying the most common ticket purchases first.
This violates Recognition Rather Than Recall, as users must scan and interpret an excessive number of fare types instead of being guided toward relevant options.
Proceeding with this journey the user is then prompted to select their appropriate fare to then make the purchase for this journey. This page is a summary of sort in regards to the journey the user will be taking. With this in mind I feel it could be more visual to re affirm to the user that they have input the correct information for this journey. This could be done using a map perhaps.
This violates Visibility of System Status, as the interface does not clearly reaffirm the selected route and journey details before the user commits to payment.
User goal: “I want to know if my transit line is running normally.”
For this action I started by using the next service card. This offered information in regards to route specific journeys. Whilst it showed delays in journeys by highlighting their times red it doesnt show any actual reasoning for the delay or any other information about the service.
This violates Visibility of System Status, because users are informed that a service is delayed but not why, limiting their ability to make informed decisions.
To find real time service information I had to access a different page located within a drop down list. I feel this should be given more priority. Building on this I think since I accessed two ages for this there is potential for these pages to be combined into one.
This Violates Match Between System and the Real World, as critical service status information is not prioritised in a way that reflects real user expectations.
Within that same travel updates page. Translink allow the user to filter between the different services. An issue I found here is that they display services that have no updates. This offers nothing to the user and could cause confusion as well as cluttering actual information.
This violates Aesthetic and Minimalist Design, as showing empty or irrelevant results adds clutter without providing value.
Again this same travel updates page begins to feel like a wall of text at times. This can feel overwhelming, especially considering how the content is written here. I feel if the filtering options were clearer and maybe required this could make this process clearer and more approachable.
This violates Recognition Rather Than Recall, since dense, unstructured text forces users to work harder to extract key information.
For this action I started by accessing the timetables card featured on the landing page. From here I was able to search for a schedule by using a specific service number. This itself isn’t an issue but I feel there could be something here. Once I had provided a service I was greeted with a timetable for that service. Very quickly this became quite overwhelming showing all possible journeys offered on this route. This is simply just too much information that needs to be either condensed of refined in its presentation.
This violates Aesthetic and Minimalist Design, as presenting all possible journeys at once overwhelms users and obscures relevant information.
In using this timetable there are buttons below to move to an earlier or later time in the schedule. When pressed these buttons move the table by one journey. At anytime there are 10 journeys shown on screen so this means it would require at least 10 clicks to not see a repeated journey. These buttons could be removed in favour for scrolling or altered to move the table further than one journey.
This violates Flexibility and Efficiency of Use, because the interface requires excessive repetitive interaction to browse schedules.
