A tree testing conducted for a website navigation and the result was 53% then, we redesigned the information architecture and produced a new tree testing with the new navigation. The result improved from 53% to 74% but it is still under the standard accepted rate of 78%. What reasons to put forward while communicating this? Is there anybody encountered this type of situation.

  • It depends on the type of navigation. If you use complex megamenus, nested browsing or specific menus for secondary pages the percentages will vary, and so will the reasons why this happens. On a side note, where did you get this 78% rate? I know Jeff Sauro used it as a generic example, but he didn't say is average for menus, just as a general rule for generic tasks. And I know Jeff won't tell anything without data supporting it, so specific tasks like yours might differ (again, depends on complexity). Besides, a 40% improvement is really good – Devin Feb 8 '19 at 17:06

The 21 percentage points increase is an impressive improvement and only 4 points below the standard rate. You could explain what adjustments were made and how they could have contributed to the jump in success rates. However, you need to include more factors when communicating the results.

Is the 78% standard accepted rate specific to the industry or topic that the website is designed for? A shopping website is less complex in terms of topic and domain knowledge, compared to an industry-specific website.

The validity of these test results are also dependent on the test participants: How many participants were there in the test? Are they expert users and high levels of domain knowledge? Were they the same users in the first test or were they a different group?

These are other factors you can think about including in your report.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.