Table 2.
Main findings, sorted into the facets of the honeycomb user experience model
| Findability | Difficulty finding the web site through Google or other external search |
| Difficulty finding specific content on the site, using on-site search | |
| - non-English participants spelled search queries wrong | |
| - search engine too sensitive | |
| - keywords search didn't work properly | |
| - simple search produced unexpected results (i.e.: too few or too many of wrong type) | |
| - search results were misinterpreted, users confused document types | |
| - confusion when retrieving only a small number of search results | |
| Topics navigation not used or not seen | |
| Minimum of browsing even when encouraged to look around the site | |
| Usability | Unfamiliar language/jargon caused confusion |
| Text too small | |
| Too dense, too much text (front page, Help, More information pages) | |
| Important content too far down on page (review pages) | |
| Not interested in reading whole review | |
| Forrest plots unfamiliar and not intuitively located | |
| Credibility | Users trusted content in The Cochrane Library |
| Confusion about site ownership/neutrality due to dominance of publisher identity and universal navigation, weakens trust | |
| Misunderstanding about editorial quality evaluation – thinking all content on the whole site content has been reviewed by Cochrane | |
| Usefulness | Assuming the library only dealt with medical topics (and not topics such as dentistry, nutrition, acupuncture) |
| Misunderstanding targeted texts on front page, thinking content would be tailored for these groups | |
| Perceived as an academic resource | |
| Plain language summaries appreciated | |
| Desirability | Site seemed off-putting, overwhelming |
| Site can be alienating (research/academic identity and language) | |
| Value | Felt Cochrane represented golden standard for systematic reviews |
| Site is too difficult, would go elsewhere | |
| Accessibility | Not evaluated |