State Fish and Wildlife Websites

Usability Test
 1

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife vs. Idaho Fish and Game

Table Of Contents
Title Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Discussion/Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
 2

Intro:
I will be comparing the websites of Idaho Fish and Game and the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife. These websites are a place for general information on the
state’s hunting, fishing, licensing and education surrounding the wildlife in the area. You do not
need to have any background information in order to navigate and use these websites or any real
technical abilities other than basic computer knowledge. This white paper presents the results of
a cognitive walkthrough usability test that compared how easily navigated these websites are for
typical users in the five component standards that define usability.

Methods:
Tasks:
1. Open each website.
2. Find the information about how to obtain a hunting license in the state.
3. Learn about the enforcement of the laws in the area.
4. Find out how to contact the offices.
5. Learn about the local wildlife.
6. Search for local events surrounding wildlife.
7. Find out how to share photos and writings about your adventures in the state.
8. Subscribe to the newsletter.
9. Buy merchandise from their store.
10. Evaluate the information I have collected and determine which website is more user
friendly for beginner users.
 3

11. Record my finalized findings onto this white paper.

Test Environment:
● The test was done in my apartment on November 12th, 2020, using a Dell laptop with
Windows 10, and a 64 bit operating system. On a Chrome Browser on our house Wifi.
Evaluative Criteria/Rating Scale:
All of these criteria were rated using a Likert scale of one to five, one being strongly
disagree, and five being strongly agree. I will go through both websites and rank each category
according to how they perform.
1) Efficient: I was able to complete the task efficiently.
2) Effective: I was able to execute the task effectively.
3) Engaging: The menu was appealing. The layout was helpful for achieving my goal.
4) Error Tolerant: Errors were easy to correct.
5) Easy to Learn: The task was easy to learn.

Results:
As I completed this usability test, I found that both websites were user friendly and easy
to use. Both sites cater to people who don’t frequent Fish and Game facilities. For the average
person, the websites are easily navigated and interactive. All of the resources they provide were
advertised and able to be found very easily. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife was
more interactive and friendly to the inexperienced user but Idaho Fish and Game was
professional and filled with information.

Discussion/Conclusion:
Overall, I found the Idaho Fish and Game website to be easier for the typical person to
navigate. This is because the tabs are plentiful and the information is easily found. The search for
information is less complex, and there is less of a selling point to this website. The Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife’s website was user friendly, but less professional, and the
information was spread all over the place and was less condensed and categorized. I think that
the Washington website could be improved by creating more tabs, or at least organizing their
information better. Both sites were loaded with information but Idaho Fish and Game’s website
seemed to have a more focused, direct approach.
 4

Appendix
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Website
TASK 1: Assessing the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Website for ease of
access.
Efficient: I was able to complete the task efficiently.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
Effective: I was able to execute the task effectively.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
Engaging: The menu was appealing. The layout was helpful for achieving my goal.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
Error Tolerant: Errors were easy to correct.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
Easy to Learn: The task was easy to learn.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
Additional Notes: (description of what happened when the task was attempted/completed)
- This website was easy to use, and had a very professional look and was appealing in
every tab. The information was simple to find, but some specific things were more
 5

difficult to access, such as their educational resources and information on how to

subscribe to their newsletter.

Idaho Fish and Game Website

TASK 1: Assessing the Idaho Fish and Game Website for ease of access.
Efficient: I was able to complete the task.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
Effective: I was able to execute the task efficiently
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
Engaging: The menu was appealing. The layout was helpful for achieving my goal.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
Error Tolerant: Errors were easy to correct.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
Easy to Learn: The task was easy to learn.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
Additional Notes: (description of what happened when the task was attempted/completed)
- Their tabs were very clear and easy to access. The look was professional but not as
interesting or engaging as Washington’s website. Idaho Fish and Game’s website is easy
to use and straightforward to learn, but is not as sleek or modern looking as the other.

Bibliography

“Home: Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife.” Home | Washington Department of Fish &
Wildlife, 20 Nov. 2020, wdfw.wa.gov/.

Idaho Fish and Game, 2020, idfg.idaho.gov/.

Wright, Samantha. “'Outdoor Idaho' Pays Tribute To Idaho's Wild Places With '50 Years Of
Wilderness'.” Boise State Public Radio, 2019, boisestatepublicradio.org/post/outdoor-
idaho-pays-tribute-idahos-wild-places-50-years-wilderness.

Photos:
https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/idahostatejournal.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/e
ditorial/c/14/c1453b74-561b-5013-9b33-dafc7948c29e/5882cfa5d9a92.image.jpg?
resize=1200%2C800
https://cdn.allleavenworth.com/images/content/21697_18818_Leavenworth_Washington_Fishin
g_lg.jpg