Table 2

Main findings, sorted into the facets of the honeycomb user experience model


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


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


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


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


Site seemed off-putting, overwhelming

Site can be alienating (research/academic identity and language)


Felt Cochrane represented golden standard for systematic reviews

Site is too difficult, would go elsewhere


Not evaluated

Rosenbaum et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2008 8:34   doi:10.1186/1472-6947-8-34

Open Data