Website User Friendliness Study of Job Portals

Website User Friendliness Study

Job Portal

Website User
Friendliness Study

Job Portals Report
Jan-Mar ‘08

2


Table of content
Introduction .............................................................. 1
Methodology.............................................................. 2
Category Websites Tested.............................................. 8

Findings:
Website User Friendliness Aggregate Scores - Overall ............ 10
Website User Friendliness Sub Parameter Scores - Overall....... 11
Website User Friendliness Perceptual Map – Overall .............. 12
Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters - Overall.......... 13
Rating Dispersions by Individual Attributes ......................... 14
Relative Importance of the Individual Criteria ..................... 25
Website User Friendliness Aggregate Scores – Website Users .... 26
Website User Friendliness Sub Parameter Scores – Website Users
............................................................................ 27
Website User Friendliness Perceptual Map – Website Users ...... 28
Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters – Website Users . 29
Website User Friendliness Aggregate Scores – Website Non Users
............................................................................ 42
Website User Friendliness Sub Parameter Scores – Website Non
Users...................................................................... 43
Website User Friendliness Perceptual Map – Website Non Users 44
Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters – Website Non
Users...................................................................... 45
Respondent ProfileDemographic Profile............................. 58
Demographic Profile ................................................... 59
Socio Economic Profile................................................. 63
Economic Profile........................................................ 65
Net Usage Dynamics.................................................... 67
WUF Index Ranking of Websites by User Segments ................ 68

Sample Sizes............................................................. 75


Introduction
Internet users rarely bother to complain about the poor quality or
experience of a website. They just ‘switch’ to an alternative website.

Yet most websites do little to track their user’s experience and
perceptions about their websites on various critical parameters - be it
the appeal of their user interface, ease of navigation and task
completion, or the satisfaction derived from the actual usage
experience.

To precisely fill this gap JuxtConsult has introduced its ‘Website User
Friendliness’ syndicated study. The study helps the online players
measure, quantify and benchmark the ‘user friendliness’ and ‘usage
satisfaction’ of their website vis-à-vis the key competing websites.

The study is unique in its methodology as it takes the concept of
‘usability testing’ of a website online – it makes the users use a website
and give the feedback on its usage experience in ‘live’ online
environment. The user feedback is real time and based on actual usage
of the website.

In order to define and measure what really makes a website ‘user-
friendly’, we looked at a simple and interesting parallel of what makes
a person seem ‘friendly’. In human interaction, we identify someone as
‘friendly’ only when that person firstly ‘looks’ friendly to us and then
‘behaves’ friendly towards us. When it comes to our interaction with
websites, our expectations and behaviors are no different. We identify
or treat a website as ‘friendly’ only when it both looks pleasant and
acceptable to us and is easy and convenient to use. That is,

A User friendly website Looks friendly + Behaves friendly

To ‘look’ friendly, a website must be identifiable, appealing, relevant,
and pleasant in its appearance. On the other hand, to ‘behave’ friendly
a website must enable the task a user has come to perform on the
website in a convenient, smooth, orderly and satisfactory manner.

Accordingly, this study interprets, evaluates, measures and reports the
‘user-friendliness’ of a website taking into account both in its look
factors as well as its usability factors.

1

Job Portals

Methodology
The JuxtConsult ‘Website User Friendliness’ model
Any comprehensive measure of ‘user-friendliness’ of a website must
cover all key aspects that determine its ‘user-interface’ (looking
friendly) as well as its ‘usage experience’ (behaving friendly). At a
broad level, we at JuxtConsult defined these key aspects as follows:

User Interface (look friendly) Usage Experience (behave friendly)

Visually appealing Easy to access

Distinctly identifiable Easy to locate relevant information

Organized interface Easy to comprehend information

Relevant content Easy to navigate and conduct a task

Better quality of content Offer relevant and adequate solutions

Facilitate satisfactory completion of task

Consistent in performance

Highly interactive and responsive

In order to identify the precise and measurable attributes under each of
these aspects, we carefully mapped the typical flow of the ‘interaction’
a user usually has with a website. In doing so we identified 6 typical
stages of interaction a user has with a website (and therefore, 6 critical
aspects that need to be measured to arrive at any comprehensive
evaluation of ‘user-friendliness’ of a website):

The user accesses the website (Accessibility)

Finds the website appealing (Likeability)

Finds the content relevant (Relatability)

Is able to smoothly navigate on the website (Navigability)

Finds the website responsive when needs assistance/help
(Interactivity)

Is able to complete the task/purpose for which he/she visited the
website in the first place (Task accomplishment)

Digging a little deeper in these 6 critical areas we identified 19
individual parameters that required to be measured to make the model
a fairly comprehensive one. The parameters related to ‘e-commerce’
and ‘transactions’ were not included in the ‘generic model’ per se (to
retain its universality), but have been considered separately as the

2


‘seventh’ critical aspect of measuring user friendliness of the ‘e-
commerce’ websites.

The following graphics outline the precise ‘website user friendliness’
measuring and rating schema used in the JuxtConsult model and in
bringing out these reports:

©
The Model
The Website – User
The Measures
The User Friendliness Criteria
Interaction Points
Browser compatibility

Accessibility Download time
Is the website easy to access?
Technical
Distinctiveness (branding)
Layout and interface
Aesthetics (color, text, graphics)
Likeability Does it look appealing?
Identification with the website
Design

Ease of comprehension
Relevance/Adequacy of content
Relatability Is the content relevant and distinct?
Content distinctiveness (quality)
Content
Ease of locating task info
Ease of conducting the tasks
Navigability Is it easy to use? Inter-page consistency in design
Task Flow
and flow

Navigational cues and helps
Error rate / error recovery
Interactivity Is it able to assist the user when needed?
Contacability (and responsiveness)
Assistance
Sense of security in using the site
Level of task completion (success)
Task Accomplishment Timeliness of task completion
Is the user able to accomplish the task?
Solution Adequacy of task compl. (satisfaction)

3

Job Portals

©
User Friendliness Measuring Schema
3. Distinctive in identity (branding)
4. Presentation of content (layout) 10. Ease of locating task info
5. Aesthetics (color, text, graphics) 11. Ease of conducting the task
6. User identification with the site 12. Navigation flow between pages 16. Timeliness of task completion
7. Ease of comprehension 13. Navigational cues and helps 17. Quality of usage experience
1. Browser Compatibility 8. Relevance of content 14. Error recovery 18. Perceived sense of security in usage
2. Download Time 9. Relative quality of content 15. Customer responsiveness 19. Brand preference creation

Site is likeable and relevant
Site is easily accessible Site is easy to use with hassle-free navigation Site delivers task accomplishment

Design Appeal
Ease of Access Ease of Usage Usage Satisfaction
Appeal Index
Accessibility Index Navigability Index Satisfaction Index

User Friendly Experience
User Friendly Interface
User Friendly Interface Index (UFEX) User Friendly Experience Index (UZEX)

Website User Friendliness
Category Level Website User Friendliness Index (WUF)

4


As shown in the schema, the 19 individual parameters that determine
the overall user friendliness of a website have been clustered together
into 4 ‘sub index’ measuring the ‘accessibility’, ‘appeal’, ‘navigability’
and ‘usage satisfaction’ index of a website. Hereafter these are
combined to arrive at two higher level ‘user interface’ and ‘user
experience’ Index and eventually into the overall ‘website user
friendliness’ (WUF) index of a website.

The model thereby allows various websites in a category/vertical to be
evaluated, compared, benchmarked and ranked on various aspects of
their ‘user-friendliness’ in an objective manner (based on the index
score derived from actual ‘ratings’ of these websites by their existing
and potential users).

The online survey
To test and get the websites rated on these 19 parameters and some
other identified aspects of ‘user friendliness’ by their existing and
potential users, an online survey methodology based on ‘live’ usage and
rating of websites was used.

The online survey was conducted using JuxtConsult’s own online user
panel (www.getcounted.net) as well as using a ‘survey ad campaign’ on
Google Ad Sense (contextual search ads).

The online survey was conducted using an e-questionnaire segmented
into three sections. The first section had a ‘screener questionnaire’
that was used to identify the ‘users’ of an online category, and of the
various websites being tested within that category. Then the identified
‘users’ and ‘non-users’ (taken as potential users) of the various
websites were taken to the respective websites for ‘live’ usage. This
was done by providing the ‘URL links’ of these websites within the
questionnaires.

Half the respondents (of both existing and potential users of the
website) were asked to surf the ‘homepage’ and the other half to
‘complete a simple assigned task’ on the website1. This split was done
to keep the length of the ‘live’ usage sessions within reasonable time
limit, so that including the feedback-giving time (questionnaire filling),
the whole session does not become too long for the respondent. In this
way we tried to minimize the impact of any possible ‘response fatigue’
in the survey to the extent it is possible to do so in such surveys.

To ensure a statistically healthy representation and calculation of the
ratings (and indices) for each website in the study, a minimum sample
quota of 120 ‘reported response’ per website was fixed. This is the
sample size on which the user friendliness index calculations are based.

1
The tasks that the respondents of the Job Portal category were asked to
perform were – 1) search for a job posting of your interest on the website, 2)
upload your resume on to the website, and 3) check for career tips in your area
of interest on the website.

5

Job Portals

However, because of a break up of ‘live’ usage between the ‘only
homepage surfing’ and ‘only an assigned task completion’, each
respondent were to give only ‘part’ rating of the website. This meant
that in practice it would take 2 respondents (one of homepage and one
of task) to compete one rating of a website as per the JuxtConsult
Model. Accordingly, in sample collection, the quota per website was
doubled to 240 respondents per website. The eventual break up of the
samples as ‘set’ per website and between its existing users and non-
users (potential users) was as follows:

Table 1: Sample size by websites

Sample Base Users Non-users Total
Monster Home page 60 60 120
Task 60 60 120
Jobstreet Home page 60 60 120
Task 60 60 120
Clickjobs Home page 60 60 120
Task 60 60 120
Timesjobs Home page 60 60 120
Task 60 60 120
Naukri Home page 60 60 120
Task 60 60 120
Total Category 600 600 1,200

Further to ensure that we report only those responses that are based on
actual, and to an extent, sincere ‘live’ usage of the website, firstly the
time taken to check/use the website was measured (from the time of
clicking the URL link on the questionnaire to the time of answering the
first feedback question). Thereafter, we decided to exclude from
reporting those respondents who took less than 3 minutes to ‘surf the
homepage’ and less than 5 minutes to ‘complete the assigned task’ on
the website.

For the 19 individual parameters, except for browser compatibility, the
ratings for the rest 18 parameters were taken directly from the
respondents. For rating on browser compatibility, websites were tested
internally at JuxtConsult by its own technical team on various popular
internet browsers and then rated accordingly. The browsers on which
the website opening was tested were – Internet Explorer, Firefox,
Netscape and Opera.

For the rest 18 parameters where users’ gave the ratings directly, all
ratings were taken on a ‘5 point qualitative scale’. For each parameter,
respondents were asked to choose one of the five statements given as
‘options’. The five statements ranged from the most positive statement
about that attribute on that website to the most negative statement
about that attribute on that website.

Of these 18 parameters, only one parameter’s response was taken from
the respondents ‘past usage’ of the website (therefore asked only to
the ‘users’). This parameter was customer responsiveness (measured as
timeliness and appropriates of response to any query they may have
made on the website in the past). On all the other 17 parameters the

6


respondents were asked to give their ratings basis the ‘live’ usage
experience and in real time.

Eventually, Index numbers were calculated and derived from the
individual parameter level rating, with each level index having its own
calculated scale (depending on the number of individual parameters
included under that index). The sample bases of various websites were
equalized while calculating their website user friendliness index to
ensure that there are no sample size biases in the reported findings.

In the online questionnaires, a response format of ‘clicking’ a single or
multiple options among the various given options was used for most
questions. Wherever relevant, it was also possible for a respondent to
answer ‘none’, ‘not applicable’ or ‘any other’. To enlist complete and
sincere responses, an incentive of a significant cash prize was also
announced to be given to one randomly selected respondent at the end
of the survey.

The questionnaire were pre-tested and timed to take approximately 15-
20 minutes for a respondent to complete depending on the speed of
comprehension and answering of the questions. The questionnaire was
structured and designed to reduce the level of ‘respondent fatigue’ to
an extent that was practically possible.

Over 1,400 unduplicated and clean responses were collected from the
online survey for the 5 websites being tested under the Job Portal
category (in about 3 weeks of time for which the survey was ‘live’
online). After further cleaning of the data for the actual time spent on
surfing the homepage/completing the task on the websites 1,160
responses were finally found to be valid and used in creating this
report.

The valid and usable data was then made representative of the entire
online urban Indian population by using appropriate 'demographic
multipliers’ using highly authentic Govt. of India population statistics.
The weights used were derived from the JuxtConsult’s India Online
2007 study and are based on 3 highly relevant demographic parameters
– SEC, town class and region.

The end result is that the findings of this report possibly represent the
‘voice’ of over 24 million online urban Indians. Further, the findings
represent and effectively cover internet users from all SEC groups, all
age groups above 12 years, all income groups and all types of town
classes (right down to 20,000 population size level towns)2 .

2
For more details on the demographic and socio-economic profile of the
respondents see the ‘Respondent Profile’ section of this report.

7

Job Portals

Category Websites Tested

Naukri (www.naukri.com)

Monster (www.monster.com)

Timesjobs (www.timesjobs.com)

Clickjobs (www.clickjobs.com)

Jobstreet (www.jobstreet.com)

8


Findings

9

Job Portals

Aggregate Scores - Overall
Table 2: Website user friendliness index (WUF) - overall

Brands WUF Index Relative Index
Naukri 8.3 100%
Clickjobs 7.9 95%
Monster 7.8 95%
Jobstreet 6.8 82%
Timesjobs 6.5 79%
Base: 1,160

Table 3: User friendly interface index (UFEX) - overall

Brands UFEX Index Relative Index
Naukri 4.7 100%
Monster 4.5 95%
Clickjobs 4.4 94%
Jobstreet 3.9 81%
Timesjobs 3.7 78%
Base: 1,160

Table 4: User friendly usage experience index (UZEX) - overall

Brands UZEX Index Relative Index
Naukri 3.5 100%
Clickjobs 3.4 97%
Monster 3.4 95%
Jobstreet 2.9 82%
Timesjobs 2.8 79%
Base: 1,160

10


Sub Parameter Scores -
Overall
Table 5: Accessibility index (overall)

Brands Accessibility Index Relative Index
Naukri 2.6 100%
Monster 2.5 95%
Clickjobs 2.4 92%
Jobstreet 2.1 81%
Timesjobs 2.0 78%
Base: 1,160

Table 6: Appeal index (overall)

Brands Appeal Index Relative Index
Naukri 2.2 100%
Clickjobs 2.1 95%
Monster 2.0 94%
Jobstreet 1.7 81%
Timesjobs 1.7 78%
Base: 1,160

Table 7: Navigability index (overall)

Brands Navigability Index Relative Index
Clickjobs 1.3 100%
Monster 1.2 93%
Naukri 1.2 92%
Jobstreet 1.0 78%
Timesjobs 1.0 77%
Base: 1,160

Table 8: Usage satisfaction index (overall)

Brands Satisfaction Index Relative Index
Naukri 2.3 100%
Monster 2.1 92%
Clickjobs 2.1 91%
Jobstreet 1.9 81%
Timesjobs 1.8 77%
Base: 1,160

11

Job Portals

Perceptual Map – Overall

.2

Monster
.1
Ease of Access

Timesjobs
Ease of Usage
0.0

Jobstreet

Design Appeal
Naukri Clickjobs
Attribute

Usage Satisfaction
-.1

-.3 -.2 -.1 -.0 .1 .2 .3

Brand

12


Average Ratings on the
Individual Parameters -
Overall
Table 9: Summary table - overall

Ratings (on a 5 point qualitative scale) Monster Jobstreet Clickjobs Timesjobs Naukri
Browser Compatibility 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Download Time 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.3
Accessibility Index 2.5 2.1 2.4 2.0 2.6
Distinctive in identity (branding) 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.4
Presentation layout of the home page 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.4
Presentation layout of the task page 4.2 4.3 4.5 4.2 4.4
Aesthetics of graphics on the homepage 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 2.7
User identification with the site 4.1 4.0 4.2 4.2 3.7
Ease of comprehension 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.1
Relevance of content 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.5 4.3
Relative quality of content 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.4 4.3
Appeal Index 2.0 1.7 2.1 1.7 2.2
Ease of locating task info 4.0 4.3 4.4 4.1 4.3
Ease of conducting the task 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 4.1
Navigation flow between pages 4.1 4.4 4.4 4.1 4.3
Navigational cues and helps 4.1 4.4 4.4 4.1 4.3
Error recovery 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.2
Appropriateness of response to queries 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.5 4.8
Timeliness of response to queries 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.2
Satisfaction with query resolution 4.7 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5
Navigability Index 1.2 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.2
Timeliness of task completion 4.0 4.1 4.1 3.8 4.1
Quality of the usage experience 4.0 4.3 4.1 4.1 4.0
Perceived sense of security during usage 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3
Creation of brand preference 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Satisfaction Index 2.1 1.9 2.1 1.8 2.3
UFEX Index 4.5 3.9 4.4 3.7 4.7
UZEX Index 3.4 2.9 3.4 2.8 3.5
WUF Index 7.8 6.8 7.9 6.5 8.3
Base: 1,160

Note – Individual ratings are based on a 5 point qualitative scale. For each
parameter respondents were asked to choose 1 out of the 5 mentioned
statements, which ranged from the most positive statement to the most
negative statement.
Index numbers are derived numbers from the ratings, with each level index
having its own calculated scale and not adhering to any standard numeric scale.

13

Job Portals

Rating Dispersions by
Individual Attributes
Chart 1: Download time (overall)

JFM '08 Extremely slo w
0% 1%
1%
3% 2%
100% 4%
4%
4% 8% 1%
11%
11%
9% 7% 14%
Fairly slo w
24%
75% 24% 25%
25%
32%
Neither fast no r
50% slo w

64% Reaso nably fast
60% 60% 56%
52%
25%

A dequately fast
0%
M onst er Jobst reet Clickjobs Timesjobs Naukri

Base: 598

Chart 2: Distinctive in identity (overall)

Didn't no tice the lo go
JFM '08
1% at all'.
2% 2%
100% 8%
10% 2% 6% 7%
9%
7% 10% 9%
6% I had to search fo r the
6%
6% lo go
75% 21%
35% 28%
25%
31% I spo tted it but o nly
after a while
50%
It was pro minent and I
62% spo tted it easily
55% 56%
52%
25% 47%
It was the first thing
that I no ticed o n the
0% page
M o nster Jo bstreet Clickjo bs Timesjo bs Naukri

Base: 598

14


Chart 3: Presentation of the home page (overall)

JFM '08 Extremely haphazard
0% 1 0% 0% 0% and badly presented
2% 2%
100% % 4%
2%
9%
15%
1%
1
17%
1%
1
5% Fairly diso rganized
and ill presented
75%
34% 37% 39% 38%
41% Just average in
o rganizatio n and
50%
presentatio n
Fairly well o rganized
and presented
51%
25% 48% 46% 46%
42%
Extremely well
o rganized and neatly
0%
presented
M o nster Jo bstreet Clickjo bs Timesjo bs Naukri

Base: 598

Chart 4: Presentation of the task page (overall)

JFM '08
Extremely untidy and
0% 0% 0%
1% 0% 2%
3%
100% 4% 0% 4%
1% cluttered
17%
12%
22% 16%
Fairly untidy
75% 43%
29%
35%
30%
33%
A veragely presented
50%

Fairly well presented
54%
53%
25% 50% 48%
44%

Very well presented
0%
M onster Jobst reet Clickjobs Timesjobs Naukri

Base: 598

15

Job Portals

Chart 5: Aesthetics of text (overall)

JFM '08
It has to o little co ntent
100% 1% 2% 3%
8%
11% and lo o ks empty
24%
13% 28%
33%
75% 29%

It has to o much text
and lo o ks cluttered
50%
80% 75%
70%
64%
60%
25%
It has just the right
amo unt o f text and
lo o ks fine
0%
M onster Jobstreet Clickjobs Timesjobs Naukri

Base: 598

Chart 6: Aesthetics of graphics (overall)

JFM '08
100%
15% To o few
19%
19% 20%
28%
75%
42%
Neither engage me
41%
50%
71% no r distract me
71%
73%

25%
44%
To o many
31%
10% 10%
8%
0%

Base: 237

16


Chart 7: User identification with the site (overall)

JFM '08 Its just o ppo site o f my
style and perso nality
1% 2%
100% 5% 4% 9%
3%
7% 2%
8% 14%
11% 8% I find it difficult to
10% 23%
relate to it
15%
75%
25% 36% 39% I can live with it
27%
50% 42%

I can relate to it to
so me extent
53%
25% 47%
43% 42%
26% It matches my style
and perso nality
0%
co mpletely

Base: 598

Chart 8: Ease of comprehension (overall)

JFM '08
Extremely difficult
1% 3%
100% 3% 4%
6% 3% 2%
10% 7%
3% 7%
8%
14% 21% Quite difficult
21%
75%
29% 40%
31%
31%
23% Neither easy no r
50% difficult

Reaso nably easy
53%
25% 46% 47% 47% 42%

Extremely easy
0%

Base: 598

17

Job Portals

Chart 9: Relevance of content (overall)
JFM '08
A lmo st irrelevant
1% 0% 1% 0% 1%
100% 5%
1% 2%
3%
1% 5% 12%
9%
21% 19%
Lo w relevance
75% 34%
46%
45%
33% 38%
A veragely
50% relevant

Fairly relevant
58%
25% 45% 41%
40% 40%

Highly relevant
0%
M onst er Jobstreet Clickjobs Timesjobs Naukri

Base: 598

Chart 10: Relative quality of content (overall)

JFM '08 Significantly inferio r
0% 1% 1% than the o ther
4%
100% 4% 2% 3%
6% 5%
4% 1% websites
13%
13%
9% 13%
Somewhat inferio r
than the o ther
75% 40%
28% websites
32%
31% 31%
Same as o ffered by
the o ther websites
50%

Somewhat better than
56% 53%
52% 52% the o ther websites
25% 50%

Significantly better
than the o ther
0%
websites

Base: 598

18


Chart 11: Ease of locating task info (overall)

JFM '08
Extremely difficult
0% 2% 3% 2%
100% 4% 2% 4%
3% 5%
4% 9%
16% 13%
18%
18% Fairly difficult
23%
75%
26%
29%
32%
50%
difficult

63% Fairly easy
55%
53%
25%
42%
41%

Very easy
0%

Base: 563

Chart 12: Ease of conducting the task info (overall)

JFM '08 Faced lo ts o f difficulty
1%
2% 1% 3%
4%
100%
3%
5% 4%
5% 11%
18% 19%
19% Faced so me difficulty
37% 23%
75% but was able to
co mplete the task
27%
36%
26%
50% 21% difficult

Fairly easy with o nly
25% 46%
42% so me mino r irritants
40% 40%
39%

Extremely easy and
0%
hassle-free

Base: 563

19

Job Portals

Chart 13: Navigation flow between pages (overall)

JFM '08
Relevant page did no t
1% 2% 2%
100% 5% 6%
4% 6% o pen at all
6% 3%
3% 3% 6% 5%
16% 7%
Faced lo t o f
22%
28%
75%
pro blems
34%
35%
43% Neither freely no r with
50%
difficulty
68%
61% M o re o r less freely
54%
25% 46%
37%
Co mpletely freely
0%

Base: 563

Chart 14: Navigation clues and helps (overall)

JFM '08
Relevant page did
1% 2% 2%
100% 5% 6%
4% 3% 6% no t o pen at all
3% 3% 6% 6% 5%
16% 7%
22% Faced lo t o f
75% 28%
34% pro blems
35%
43%
Neither freely no r
50%
with difficulty
68%
61% M o re o r less freely
54%
25% 46%
37%

Co mpletely freely
0%

Base: 563

20


Chart 15: Error recovery (overall)

JFM '08
Co uldn't reso lve and
0%
2% 2% 3%
100% 5%
6% 2% failed to co mplete the
3% 1%
8% 8%
7% 6% task
9% 10%
Reso lved with great
75% 35%
29% 31% difficulty
25% 22%

Enco untered but
50%
reso lved with website
help instructio ns
59% 57% Enco untered erro r but
57% 57%
55%
25%
reso lved o n my o wn

Did no t enco unter any
0%
erro r at all

Base: 563

Chart 16: Appropriateness of the response (overall)

JFM '08
There was no
0% 0% 0%
2% 2% 1%
100% 0% 1%
5% 2% 1% respo nse at all
3% 4% 6%
2% 17%
18% 10%
20% 32% Received o nly auto -
75%
reply, no thing
thereafter
They respo nded but
50%
did no t reso lve the
82% 82%
78% query
71%
64%
Query was reso lved
25%
o nly partially

Query was reso lved
0%
co mpletely

Base: 261

21

Job Portals

Chart 17: Timeliness of response (overall)

JFM '08 0%
0%
1% Did no t receive any
100% 1% 0% 6% 5%
1%
5% 1% 6% 1%
0% respo nse at all
9%
14%
26%
30% 29% Fairly late
75% 13%
37%

Neither pro mptly no r
50%
late
73% 67%
63% 64% M o re o r less in time
25% 48%

Very pro mptly
0%

Base: 261

Chart 18: Satisfaction with response (overall)

JFM '08
0% 0% 0% 0%
2% 2%
3% Highly dissatisfied
100% 2% 0% 4% 6%
4% 0%
9%
25%
27%
M o derately
75% 38%
24%
dissatisfied
53%
18%
Neither satisfied no t
50%
dissatisfied
71%
61% M o derately satisfied
56%
54%
25%
39%

Highly satisfied
0%

Base: 261

22


Chart 19: Timeliness of task completion (overall)

JFM '08
1% 1% 1%
1% 3% To o k significantly
100%
9% 7% 9% 7% lo nger than expected
15%
13%
22% 17%
22% To o k so mewhat mo re
75%
29% time than expected
20% 34% 27%
22%
Co mpleted in as much
50% 15% time as expected

Co mpleted marginally
50%
25% 46% 46%
44% faster than expected
40%

Co mpleted a lo t faster
0%
than expected

Base: 563

Chart 20: Quality of usage experience (overall)

JFM '08
1% 2% 1% 2%
3% Do wnright painful
100% 2% 2%
1% 0% 5%
10%
13%
23%
23%
23%
Fairly tro ubleso me
75%
and irritating
36%
55%
36%
35% Just abo ut agreeable
45%
50%

Fairly pleasant and
25% 47%
satisfacto ry
38% 35%
32%
29%
Extremely pleasant
0%
and delightful

Base: 563

23

Job Portals

Chart 21: Perceived sense of security in usage (overall)

JFM '08
Co mpletely insecure
0% 0% 1%
1% 1%
100% 1%
3% 1% 2%
7%
10%
14%
17% 15%
14%
Fairly insecure
75%
42% 29%
27% 35%
37%
No t sure if I can trust
50%
the website

Fairly secure
52% 53%
25% 49% 46%
41%

A bso lutely secure
0%

Base: 1,157

Chart 22: Brand preference creation (overall)

JFM '08
Very unlikely to visit
1% 1% 0% 1% 0%
100% 2% 1% 3% 6%
3% it
10%
7%
10% 11% 8%
Fairly unlikely to
18%
20%
75% 29% 29%
31% visit it

No t sure, may o r
50%
may no t visit it
69%
66% So mewhat likely to
60% 61%
55%
25% visit it

Very likely to visit it
0%

Base: 1,157

24


Relative Importance of the
Individual Criteria
Table 10: Importance ranking of the key individual criteria (overall)

Brands Monster Jobstreet Clickjobs Timesjobs Naukri Overall
Fastest to download 50% 54% 46% 55% 56% 52%
Most responsive and prompt in customer
37% 36% 35% 38% 35% 36%
service and support
Provide the best help 35% 47% 36% 33% 24% 34%
Simplest and most easy to understand
38% 34% 25% 41% 34% 34%
language
Brand image in the market place 29% 31% 30% 36% 35% 32%
Gives best assurance on privacy of info
17% 21% 31% 20% 21% 22%
provided
Most neat looking design (aesthetics) 13% 19% 12% 20% 33% 20%
Best assures safety against frauds &
21% 22% 18% 15% 20% 19%
misuse of personal details & financial info
Matches my personality and style the best 15% 15% 21% 17% 20% 18%
Most logical structure and flow of info. /
17% 10% 14% 13% 12% 13%
content
Helps accomplish the task in least no. of
clicks 17% 8% 20% 10% 7% 13%
Most consistent design, look & feel across
the page 11% 4% 12% 4% 4% 7%
Overall Base: 1,160

25

Job Portals

Aggregate Scores – Website
Users
Table 11: Website user friendliness index (WUF) - website users only

Brands WUF Index Relative Index
Clickjobs 4.3 100%
Monster 4.1 96%
Naukri 3.8 88%
Jobstreet 3.3 76%
Timesjobs 2.8 66%
Base: 518

Table 12: User friendly interface index (UFEX) - website users only

Brands UZEX Index Relative Index
Clickjobs 1.9 100%
Monster 1.8 93%
Naukri 1.6 85%
Jobstreet 1.4 74%
Timesjobs 1.2 64%
Base: 518

Table 13: User friendly usage experience index (UZEX) - website users
only

Brands UFEX Index Relative Index
Clickjobs 2.4 100%
Monster 2.3 97%
Naukri 2.2 90%
Jobstreet 1.9 78%
Timesjobs 1.6 67%
Base: 518

26


Sub Parameter Scores –
Website Users
Table 14: Accessibility index (website users only)

Brands Accessibility Index Relative Index
Monster 1.3 100%
Clickjobs 1.3 100%
Naukri 1.2 91%
Jobstreet 1.0 79%
Timesjobs 0.9 68%
Base: 518

Table 15: Appeal index (website users only)

Brands Appeal Index Relative Index
Clickjobs 1.1 100%
Monster 1.0 94%
Naukri 1.0 88%
Jobstreet 0.9 76%
Timesjobs 0.7 66%
Base: 518

Table 16: Navigability index (website users only)

Brands Navigability Index Relative Index
Clickjobs 0.7 100%
Monster 0.6 86%
Naukri 0.5 74%
Jobstreet 0.5 62%
Timesjobs 0.4 56%
Base: 518

Table 17: Usage satisfaction index (website users only)

Brands Satisfaction Index Relative Index
Clickjobs 1.2 100%
Monster 1.1 98%
Naukri 1.1 92%
Jobstreet 0.9 81%
Timesjobs 0.8 69%
Base: 518

27

Job Portals

Perceptual Map – Website
Users
.2

Monster

Ease of Access
.1

Ease of Usage
0.0
Timesjobs
Naukri

Usage Satisfaction
Jobstreet Clickjobs

Design Appeal
-.1
Attribute

-.2

-.3 -.2 -.1 -.0 .1 .2 .3 .4

Brand

28


Average Ratings on the
Individual Parameters –
Website Users
Table 18: Summary table (website users only)

Ratings (on a 5 point qualitative scale) Monster Jobstreet Clickjobs Timesjobs Naukri
Browser Compatibility 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2
Download Time 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2
Accessibility Index 1.3 1.0 1.3 0.9 1.2
Distinctive in identity (branding) 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.4
Presentation layout of the home page 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.4
Presentation layout of the task page 4.1 4.3 4.5 4.2 4.4
Aesthetics of graphics on the homepage 3.1 3.2 3.0 3.0 2.8
User identification with the site 4.0 4.1 4.3 4.1 3.4
Ease of comprehension 4.0 4.2 4.2 4.4 3.9
Relevance of content 4.3 4.1 4.0 4.4 4.5
Relative quality of content 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.5
Appeal Index 1.1 0.9 1.1 0.7 1.0
Ease of locating task info 4.1 4.5 4.6 4.1 4.3
Ease of conducting the task 4.1 3.9 3.8 3.9 4.1
Navigation flow between pages 4.1 4.3 4.5 4.1 4.4
Navigational cues and helps 4.1 4.3 4.5 4.1 4.4
Error recovery 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.1 4.1
Appropriateness of response to queries 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.9
Timeliness of response to queries 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.3
Satisfaction with query resolution 4.6 4.6 4.3 4.6 4.4
Navigability Index 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.5
Timeliness of task completion 3.8 4.1 4.3 3.7 4.0
Quality of the usage experience 4.0 4.4 4.2 4.1 3.7
Perceived sense of security during
usage 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.2
Creation of brand preference 4.4 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.6
Satisfaction Index 1.1 0.9 1.2 0.8 1.1
UFEX Index 2.3 1.9 2.4 1.6 2.2
UZEX Index 1.8 1.4 1.9 1.2 1.6
WUF Index 4.1 3.3 4.3 2.8 3.8

Base: 518

29

Job Portals

Rating Dispersions by
Individual Attributes
Chart 23: Download time (website users only)

JFM '08 Extremely slo w
0% 0%
2% 3%
100% 2% 8%
4% 0% 9%
2%
9% 18% 9% 22% 8% Fairly slo w
75%
23% 23%
32% 17%
29%
Neither fast no r
slo w
50%

Reaso nably fast
59% 58% 59%
54% 51%
25%
A dequately fast
0%

Base: 261

Chart 24: Distinctive in identity (website users only)

JFM '08 Didn't notice the lo go
0%
1% 1% at all'.
100% 6%
7% 1% 5% 5%
12% 8%
11%
8%
9%
I had to search fo r the
8%
9%
lo go
75% 26%
25%
29%
27%
24%
I spo tted it but o nly
after a while
50%

It was prominent and I
60% 60%
56% spo tted it easily
51% 50%
25%

It was the first thing
that I no ticed o n the
0%
page

Base: 261

30

Website User Friendliness Study of Job Portals

Website User Friendliness Study of Job Portals

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a Website User Friendliness Study of Job Portals

Semelhante a Website User Friendliness Study of Job Portals (20)

Mais de JuxtConsult

Mais de JuxtConsult (20)

Último

Último (20)

Website User Friendliness Study of Job Portals