Congratulations! This is one of our last free usability reviews from UsabilityInstitute.com. "Usability" refers to how easy and effective it is to use a Web site. Although it involves how a site looks (graphic artwork), it is primarily concerned with how a site works, what you click on, what happens, and whether the site does its job. Perhaps this review is all you need to improve your site. If that's the case, great. Please mention UsabilityInstitute.com if you talk with others who need help with their site.

Here's a larger picture condensed top-to-bottom:

The following three sections provide a general analysis of your website from a relatively quick review. Although Web design is still perceived as a highly creative endeavor, there are many aspects of it that call for standardization and compliance with widely established conventions. Implementing even a few of the ideas below can really improve a site.

	Part 1: Content Basics
			This first section is intended for typical public web sites (for products and corporate information), but also applies for the most part to intranets and software applications that run in a browser. We've been advocating many of these ideas—in the context of general software—since our 1997 book, Computers Stink, but they've been beautifully enumerated for WWW purposes in Steve Krug's book, "Don't Make Me Think."
			Click for explanation		Hover for explanation	Comments
		1.	Logo in top left, linked to home		Mixed results. The principle is there, but there might be too many exceptions. For instance, once you get to the elaborate Search subsite, the logo is "scoped" down to that site, which despite a separate domain name is really part of the same site from the user's perspective.
		2.	Tagline		"Government made easy." (Interesting... fascinating actually, in that the creators of the site convinced someone to put in a tagline. I think it should be more customer-focused than to include the word "government," but that's another matter.)
		3.	Welcome blurb		I originally rated this item as "N/A" thinking everyone should know where they've come to. But think of an apsiring immigrant... they need at least a short sentence saying that this is the official site, not a private or business attempt to look like it. Ordinarily this should always be at the top, but since I can't think of anything other than this one sentence, it's fine at the bottom... and it's there! Nicely done.
		4.	Plain wording		I thought these three deserved extra credit considering that most folks would consider government the ultimate language "obfuscators."
		5.	No 'happy talk'
		6.	Concise wording
		7.	Visited pages are distinguished by link color-coding		The "visited" color is customized (from the standard purple) but it works. They seem to have made it gray... almost matching my long-term prediction that black will be come the predominant color for underlined visited links (so they match surrounding text).
		8.	"Utilities" are easy to find		My eye immediately went to the "Change Text Size" feature but I didn't immediately notice the utilities below it; they're the only thing without a "callout" box or icons. It's a very busy page, which is understandable given the 370 million stakeholders, so any see my good example from a Microsoft page or even the White House site. It mostly means adding icons. On some pages like Search, it stands out.
		9.	Search on all pages, with box and button
		10.	"You Are Here" indicator		When you drill down from the top nav, the second level isn't always indicated. It's hard to consider this a failure knowing what the likely challenges are... the sub pages might serve many realms. The left nav does indicate where you are.
		11.	Breadcrumbs' as links		Yes, but I noticed that when I click them, the left nav disappears. Hmmmm... it's actually something else that causes the left nav to appear and disappear... not sure.

If you've made it this far, I have a free gift for the first 10 visitors who reply. If you know anyone who's learning to read, email me and I'll send you a free copy of a kid's book I wrote that has just been printed. Please include "Poopy Phonics" in the subject line so I have a chance of recovering it if it goes to my spam folder. For smart mouths everywhere, the book is PoopyPhonics(.com). No strings attached, but if you like it, consider posting a review to Amazon.com. —Thanks, Jack On Amazon >>>Get $2.00 back until October 31, 2007. No strings, no small print.<<< Just send me the actual UPC code from the book. — No spam, no emails, no private info given out—

Part 2: Visual Design: Fonts, Colors, Layout, Basic Interaction Design, and Accessibility
As we read in a graphic artist's ad, "Technology makes it work but art makes it sell," and you should take heed. We're not graphic artists here at Uinst, but we know good art when we see it and the common denominators that separate good pages from bad are clear. Look at the top sites and you'll see they spell out the following criteria.
	Click for explanation		Hover for explanation	Comments
1.	Sans-serif fonts
2.	Appropriate background color
3.	Appropriate color hues		Maybe all companies should start off with a flag instead of a corporate style guide?
4.	Visual representation of the information hierarchy		Beyond the top nav, there's no feel for "being anywhere." This criteria is one of our checklist's most subjective/ambitious items and for this site in particular, judging it is commensurately challenging. I think I could safely say "no" it does not have a strong visual representation, but it's presumptuous to flag it as failing the criteria if I don't know that a solution is feasible. I searched for the site map to determine if a solution was imaginable, but couldn't find it.
5.	Conservative quantity of colors
6.	Text sizes are "relative"		Pleasantly suprised to see that the browser's feature to increase the size worked, since these guys are the purveyors of the Americans With Disabilities Act 508. It's an interesting question, since these guys are the model(?) whether the menus and other navigation should enlarge, too.
7.	Anti-aliased graphics
8.	Graphics' file size doesn't slow navigation
9.	"Alt tags" used well		Better than most.
10.	Links don't just say "Click Here"
11.	A style sheet (CSS) is used

Do your hands ache after a day at the keyboard??? This review sponsored by RSIRescue.com ...

Part 3: Genuine Value: Useful Content & Critical Interaction Design
And now for the hard part. If all of good Web design were as clear-cut as parts 1 & 2, above, you wouldn't need much judgment and there would be a lot more good sites. But the easier the decisions are, the less significant the thinking and effort behind them... and the easier it would be to provide useful content. This section is where you make or break your rapport with the visitor. If you provide real value and give folks enough tools to get to it, they will push past the basic omissions and ignore even the most amateurish art.
	Click for explanation		Hover for explanation	Comments
1.	Questions are answered		After initially thinking, "How can I even pretend to do a cursory examination of this criteria..." one that challenges even small websites, I relented and went right to the foot of the mountain and typed "Iraq policy" into the Search box. Within either 2 or 3 clicks the White House site was there and the PDF of the July 12, 2007 "Initial Benchmark Assessment Report" was coming out of my printer.   THE PRODUCERS OF USA.GOV ARE TO BE CONGRATULATED ON THIS IMPRESSIVE ACCOMPLISHMENT.
2.	Search results get the job done		See above. Obviously not a comprehensive review, but what do you want for a nickel, lobster?
3.	Effective 'click tree'		This is actually the "central dogma" or holy grail of web design, hidden in a three-word criteria. It means, do you find yourself "pogo-sticking" back and forth before you find what you want. For a vast site, it's difficult. I'm crediting
4.	Conceptual flow from upper left to lower right
5.	Simple, outline-like site map		1) I don't know if a simple outline is possible. 2) Until 2/3 through this review, I didn't find the "Site Index" link at the top! Maybe I was sleepy or maybe it was the word "Index" (this, even though the techwriter in me has argued for the historical precedent "index" for years, but stopped bothering!). Most probably, I didn't "absorb" the word Index because I expect the Site Map feature to be in the upper right. Thus my sensitivity toward standard design elements does translate into an innate rigor in my own perception. 3) Oops, searching for the site map showed it as the second hit on the search page and then failed with "The webpage cannot be found."
6.	Primary navigation is obvious
7.	Secondary navigation is obvious		The left panel and second top bar appear dynamically. Perhaps a comprehensive review of the site map could uncover a static solution. When you go to the Chat page the primary navigation is replaced; a better solution should be considered.
8.	Contact information easily accessible		Fairly intricate but in contrast to pure-play websites that try at all cost to prevent contact, the info is there and they appear to consider this a primary focus of the site, not a utility.
9.	Links are clear
10.	Intro panel or animation not excessive
11.	Graphics used only for core message

Summation & Next Steps

Overall Rating: Strives / Survives / Thrives

I'm sure anyone visiting this site with a distinct, real need, could instantly come to the completely opposite conclusion that I have. That's the nature of web usability and the likely problem with such a huge site.

1. Review the site map of core pages and see if the primary and secondary navigation could be stabilized and made uniform. The fact that the site spawns so many independent sites shouldn't prevent organizing the innate pages. For an example from smaller government, I like http://www.tredyffrin.org/ which is on my Website State of the Art page.
2. Move Site Map to the upper right.
3. Add icons and a soft callout box to the page utilities.
4. Continue to review real users' actual search activity and tune the results accordingly.

I did not initially try to study or understand the site as a whole. As one studies the site, it seems that it is a collection of focused "index" or link pages in addition to a strong set of utilities or "contact" techniques (chat/RSS/phone numbers), compared to other sites. Perhaps the site index could not just indicate but emphasize which links are outside of USA.gov... maybe a two-sided tree whose visual purpose is to make the array of institutions the key value that the site provides. The site is actually a big interactive map to institutions, but the user doesn't see this... it becomes a constant surprise. It's not a bad thing, it's a reality. The question is, how can the site continue to provide its basic search/browse value but grow into a bigger role... showing off the most accomplished organization in the history of civilization, the US Government?

Hope this helps and let me know what you think,
Jack Bellis, UsabilityInstitute.com