AUGUST 2021 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

Acknowledgments

This paper is an independent, non-commissioned piece of academic work.

The authors of this report are:

Vankar Jayminbhai Kanubhai Shruthi Naik

Prof. Nomesh Bolia

This report would not have been possible without the support of Sandhya PR, Siddharth Mandrekar Rao, Soham Ghosh in collecting responses to the surveys conducted under this study.

The authors would like to thank and appreciate Maansi Gupta and Deepak Sharma for their support and inputs all through the data collection, study and the report. The authors would like to thank Surya Prakash B.S. for his guidance and review of this report. The authors would also like to thank Leah Verghese for reviewing the report and sharing valuable feedback.

2 Table of Contents Acknowledgments 2 Executive summary 4 I. Introduction 8 II. User experience test 12

a) Methodology 14

b) Findings 15 III. Task-based usability test 20

a) Methodology 22

b) Findings 23 IV. Heuristic evaluation 38

a) Methodology 40

b) Findings 42 V. Suggestions and Recommendations 54 Appendix 60 A.1. User experience test 61 A.2. Task-based usability test 72 A.3. Heuristic evaluation 107 A.4. Detailed suggestions for High Courts under study 120

3 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

Executive Summary n increasing number of court cases The evaluation consists of three elements: a and the country’s advancement in user experience test; a task-based usability technologyA make it imperative for the test; and a heuristic evaluation of the websites. public to easily access information The first element determines whether the regarding the judiciary. The current websites are structured ‘intuitively’ enough work analyses the accessibility and for users, the second element tests the availability of this information by usability of the websites, and the third element conducting a detailed study on the User determines whether the websites are in Interface (UI) and User Experience accordance with standard Interaction Design (UX) of select High Court websites. The Principles (IDPs). Surveys were conducted for study evaluates the websites of six High evaluating the first two elements and the third Courts of India: Bombay, Calcutta, element was evaluated by assessing each Delhi, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, website against standard IDPs. Key findings and Madras. from each element are provided below:

USABILITY

4 User Experience Test

81%Most respondents (81%) said that the 82%Most respondents (82%) felt that the speed of the website accessibility of the websites met their for the High Court of Delhi either met or exceeded their expectations. expectations. A large portion of respondents did not feel that the speed of the websites for the High Court of Bombay (35%) and High Court of Karnataka (36%) met their expectations.

Most users felt that the quantity and In terms of architecture, lack of user-friendly and variety of information provided on these advanced search tools on the website, multiple pieces of websites met their expectations. scrolling content, and cluttered navigation bars made users dissatisfied with website structures.

USER EXPERIENCE

5 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

Task-based usability test: usability. However, none of the wesbites 1. Most respondents were able to provide clickable explainers for technical successfully complete tasks related to words, and most of them do not provide finding information on court notices, the option to change the language used circulars, and notifications. They were also on the website. able to complete tasks associated with 2. All the websites contain features that finding information about the court, barring aid in recognition (rather than recall). difficulties faced in finding information However, only two of the six websites related to the Right to Information Act, provide a navigation path to indicate 2005 (RTI). how users reached a particular page, 2. Fewer respondents successfully completed and none of them provide auto-filled tasks related to finding information about suggestions for users searching for any cases in the High Courts. Not all websites information on the website. provided abbreviations and full forms of 3. Some of the areas where all the High case types which made it difficult for users Court websites performed well include to find details of particular cases. assisting users who forgot their 3. Websites with multiple navigation bars and passwords, alerting users about an complex non-intuitive structures made it incorrect CAPTCHA, notifying users difficult for users to perform certain tasks that no cases were found based on the as they were unable to effectively identify information they submitted, and not relevant sections of the website for the using technical jargon while pointing out tasks. errors. 4. Not all websites clearly laid out the names, 4. While 5 out of the 6 websites provided designations, and contact details of Public a sitemap, the High Court of Calcutta’s Information Officers. Similarly, users found website did not provide one. Barring the it difficult to obtain contact details of the website for the High Court of Delhi, none court on some High Court websites. of the other 5 websites provide a search function on every page. Heuristic evaluation: The results of these elements have been 1. Understanding the language used on the analysed separately as well as together websites plays a vital role in improving its to suggest improvements and make

6 recommendations for each High Court. These findings can help the courts improve their websites and enhance the experience of users.

7 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

1Introduction

8 hase III of the eCourts Project is about that can be undertaken to improve their Pto be launched soon, and the Supreme respective websites. Court is currently reviewing its earlier The study was conducted in the months of phases and seeking inputs regarding the January and February 2021 and evaluates way forward . This provides an opportunity the websites of six High Courts: Bombay, to review how technology can enable Calcutta, Delhi, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, access to justice and improve access to and Madras. These courts were selected as information. High Court websites cater to they broadly represent two categories, the multiple stakeholders, including litigants, presidency courts (Bombay, Calcutta, Madras) lawyers, judges, law students, researchers, and newer courts that have undertaken people applying for tenders or contracts, technological initiatives (Delhi, Karnataka, and citizens. These stakeholders use Madhya Pradesh). The evaluation consists of these websites to access various types of three elements: information, including:

1. Information regarding cases; User experience test This test evaluates how intuitively the 2. General information (e.g., court history, websites are structured for users. photographs, contact information)

3. Notifications and circulars (e.g., roster Task-based usability test changes); and This test evaluates how users completed the tasks on the website. 4. Court business (e.g., recruitment, tenders). Heuristic evaluation The accessibility of information and user- This evaluation determines whether the friendliness of each High Court website varies websites are in accordance with standard Interaction Design Principles (IDPs). with its design and content. This study is aimed at improving access to information through a detailed study of the User Interface (UI) The user experience test was conducted and User Experience (UX) of six select High through a survey of citizens on their Court websites, and suggests improvements experience of using the High Court websites. to ensure transparency and accessibility of The respondents ranked each website on information for various stakeholders. The key factors such as ease of use, website findings from the study highlight specific aesthetics, speed of loading, the quantity of improvements that can be made by the select information, and variety of information. To High Courts to improve their websites, and build on the results from the user experience also help inform other High Courts of steps

9 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

test, a detailed survey was conducted in the form of a task-based usability test. The respondents for the detailed survey were given specific tasks to be performed on each court website. The ease of completing the task and their overall experience with the website was recorded for further analysis. In the heuristic evaluation, each website was assessed by researchers from the DAKSH Centre of Excellence for Law and Technology according to standard IDPs and specific issues were identified. Finally, improvements have been suggested for all the websites based on the results of each element of the evaluation separately as well as together. The structure of the report is as follows: chapter 2 presents the methodology and findings of the user experience test; chapter 3 describes and presents results from the task-based usability test; chapter 4 describes and provides findings from the heuristic evaluation, and the report concludes with suggestions and recommendations in chapter 5.

10 11 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

User 2experience test

12 The user experience test determines if websites are structured intuitively for users.

A survey of 652 respondents was conducted which captured 652 information regarding accessibility, aesthetics, usability, and help available.

Respondents said that the accessibility of the websites met their 81% expectations.

Respondents felt that the speed of the website for the High Court 82% of Delhi either met or exceeded their expectations. large number of respondents did not feel that the speed of the websites for the High Court of Bombay (35%) and High Court of Karnataka (36%) met their expectations.

In terms of architecture, the lack of user-friendly and advanced search tools on the website, multiple pieces of scrolling content, and cluttered navigation bars made users dissatisfied with website structures.

Most users felt that the quantity and variety of information provided on these websites met their expectations.

13 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

his chapter presents an evaluation of 2. aesthetics in terms of colour, visuals, Tthe six High Court websites through white space allocation, readability, design a user experience test. The objective of architecture, and clarity of the content. this test was to determine whether the 3. usability in terms of ease of finding the websites are structured intuitively enough required information, ease of use of the that users with different levels of comfort interface, loading speed of the content, with technology are able to navigate and quantity and variety of information use the website comfortably. UX evaluation present. methods can be classified into four broad 4. help provided in terms of documentation, categories: surveys, lab studies, field studies, a site map, and contact information and expert evaluations. Amongst these, (email address, phone number, postal surveys, specifically online surveys are an address). effective way to test website experiences, especially from a large audience. As High The survey also captured the socio- Court websites must be accessible to users demographic characteristics of the irrespective of whether they are first-time respondents such as gender, age, state, region users or frequent users of the website, the (rural-urban), education, and profession. The survey collected responses from both questionnaire was built on Google Forms (six categories of users. forms for six high courts) and linked to the email addresses provided by the respondent. As the purpose of the survey was to A. Methodology receive inputs from people belonging to diverse backgrounds, 642 respondents The experience of users was captured by were surveyed across the six High Courts surveying citizens from diverse backgrounds. with representation from male and female The survey was designed to capture respondents, respondents residing in urban information regarding prior experience of the and rural areas, and respondents below and respondents in accessing websites of the above the age of 40 years. A detailed breakup Indian judiciary, and more particularly, to gain of the number of respondents in each of these a granular understanding of the experience categories is provided in Appendix A.1. of users in accessing one specific High Court website with respect to the following factors: The survey was conducted through a snowball sampling method with the link to the survey 1. accessibility through different media (computer and mobile phone), and questionnaire being circulated through social different web browsers (Google Chrome, media platforms such as WhatsApp, LinkedIn, Safari, and Microsoft Edge). Twitter, and Facebook to reach a wide audience. In order to ensure that the survey

14 received valid responses, a random sample they visited the most, responses showed that of 10-12% of the respondents were chosen users used the websites to access judgments for verification calls. During these calls, and orders, or case information. Almost all responses to 4 or 5 questions of the survey of the 371 respondents who had used such were verified to ensure the authenticity of a website before, said they could access the the data filled by users. information they sought, with a mere 6% who said they could not get the information they B. Findings were looking for. This indicates that users were To understand the respondents’ experiences largely able to access the information they in using the select High Court websites, it is needed. However, what is equally important also useful to know if they are familiar with to understand is the ease with which users using websites related to the Indian judiciary. could access the information and whether Of the respondents surveyed, 43% of the there are any improvements that can be made respondents (281 respondents) were first to make the websites more intuitive and user- -time users, while 57% of the respondents friendly. (371 respondents) had visited such a website The accessibility of a website can be assessed in the past. Amongst those who had visited by understanding whether a person’s such a website before, the highest number of expectation of a website is met. Therefore, respondents had visited the website of a High respondents to the survey were asked to open Court (73%) or the website of the Supreme the website of one of the six select High Courts Court (62%). The number of respondents and browse the website before responding to who had used the National Judicial Data questions on how the website measured up Grid (NJDG) was the lowest, with only 51 against their expectations. The respondents respondents saying they had done so. While were questioned about whether the High over half the respondents had accessed a Court website met their expectations on five website related to the Indian judiciary, only broad parameters: overall accessibility, speed 26% of them said that they had used the in making content available, visibility and website frequently. readability of content, nature of the information Most users (72%) who had visited a website provided, and availability of support. of the Indian judiciary in the past stated that To assess the overall accessibility of the they used the websites to access judgments High Court websites, respondents were or orders passed by the courts. This was asked to indicate whether the websites followed by a large number of respondents were accessible from the browser they (64%) who visited these websites to access used. Most respondents (81%) said that information regarding particular cases. When the accessibility of the websites met their asked about which sections of the websites expectations; however, a lower proportion

15 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

Delhi High Court 93 Figure 1: 82 Website speed comparison Madhya Pradesh High Court 83 Overall performance score (out of 100) 60 Bombay High Court 43 18

karnataka High Court 83 58

66 Calcutta High Court 58

84 Madras High Court 74

Facebook 99 82

100 Google 80

of respondents (56%) felt that the ease with friendly. The number of respondents who which they could use the website interface responded positively regarding the High met their expectations. Significantly, 48% of Court of Madhya Pradesh, however, was the the respondents who answered the survey highest amongst the six High Courts, with with respect to the High Court of Bombay 82% of the respondents feeling that the ease found that the ease with which they could use with which they could use the interface met the interface did not meet their expectations. or exceeded their expectations. Particularly, respondents felt that the website An important aspect of access is also the was not easy to navigate on mobile phones speed with which the content of the websites and stated that the requirement of entering loads and whether all the content is visible CAPTCHAs made the interface less user- once the website has loaded. On this criterion

16 as well, the High Court of Bombay’s website the website on a desktop versus using it on was found to be lacking, with 35% of the a mobile phone, suggesting that the Court respondents who rated the website feeling should optimise its website design for mobile that the loading speed of the website did not phones. meet their expectations. Similarly, 36% of the When questioned about whether all the respondents who rated the website of the High content (text, images, and buttons) loaded Court of Karnataka felt that its loading speed completely, the highest proportion of did not meet their expectations. Respondents respondents (across all six High Courts), felt that the website for the High Court of 40%, said that the website of the High Court Delhi performed the best on this metric, of Karnataka did not meet their expectations. with 82% of the respondents feeling that the The visibility and readability of content on a loading speed either met or exceeded their website are also important to understand its expectations. In order to assess the speed of accessibility. For example, buttons that are these six websites, the researchers monitored too small or a large proportion of white space at the DAKSH Centre of Excellence for Law on a webpage can make it difficult for users and Technology monitored their speed at three to identify and find relevant sections of the time intervals over two days and compared website to locate information they are looking them to the loading speeds of the websites for. Similarly, adequate font sizes and an for Google and Facebook. The websites were intuitive structure to categorise information tested using Google PageSpeed Insights and on the websites can help users quickly access overall performance scores (out of 100) were the information they require. When questioned recorded. The results from the speed test about whether the architecture of the High (conducted separately on a desktop as well Court websites met their expectations, the as a mobile phone) are presented in Figure 1. highest number of respondents across all the As seen in Figure 1, the website for the High High Courts to say that the website exceeded Court of Delhi had the highest loading speeds, their expectations said so with respect to the comparable to the websites of Google and website of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Facebook, while the website for the High (17%). This is perhaps also indicative of why Court of Bombay had the lowest loading respondents who assessed the website of the speeds (less than half of Delhi’s speed on High Court of Madhya Pradesh felt positively desktops and less than one fourth of Delhi’s about the ease of using the interface. Close speed on mobile phones). This is in line to half the respondents who assessed the with the findings from the user experience website of the High Court of Bombay (48%), test. Further, the website of the High Court however, felt that the architecture of the of Karnataka is seen to have the highest website did not meet their expectations, this difference in speed when it comes to using was the highest percentage of respondents

17 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

who felt so when compared to responses for In assessing the accessibility of any services, the other five High Courts. Responses showed such as those provided on the High Court that some of the grievances of users included websites, it is imperative to also assess the the lack of user-friendly and advanced search support provided to users who may have tools on the website, the notice banner at the questions regarding the information provided. top of the home page being cluttered and In this regard, the survey also sought to difficult to read, and lack of categories for understand whether respondents felt there notifications which made it hard for users to was adequate documentation available on locate what they are looking for. the website to help them navigate through Regarding the readability of content on the the website and whether adequate contact websites, many respondents (43%) felt that information was provided in the event they the website of the High Court of Karnataka did sought to reach out to someone from the High not meet their expectations. While the reasons Court for assistance. for the respondents feeling so may vary from The highest proportion of respondents person to person, it is possible that having who felt the websites did not meet their multiple pieces of content auto-scrolling on expectations on these fronts were those the screen or the colours displayed in the relating to the website of the High Court of dark theme being unclear make the content Bombay and High Court of Madras, with 47% difficult to read. Many respondents, however, and 46% of the respondents respectively felt the website of the High Court of Madhya stating that the availability of documentation Pradesh fared well on this point, with 20% and contact information did not meet their of the respondents feeling the readability expectations. For example, one of the types of of content on their website exceeded their documentation that the High Court of Bombay expectations. could provide to make their website more On being asked about the nature of information accessible is a step-by-step guide on finding available on the High Court websites, i.e. the status of a case - by providing information the quantity of information (e.g., in terms of regarding case types (abbreviations and information from past years) and the variety full forms), how to determine which side a of information, respondents for the websites person should choose (whether original, civil, of all the High Courts maintained a largely or criminal) and whether a person should neutral stance, with the majority stating that select register or stamp. Similarly, if the the websites met their expectations. However, website of the High Court of Karnataka could about 20% of them felt that the websites did provide documentation that would indicate not meet their expectations on quantity and the difference in finding the status of a case variety. through the “Case Status” tab as opposed

18 to the “NJDG Case Status” tab, or when a fewer distractive components scrolling on the person should use each such tab, users will pages, and better mobile responsiveness. find it easier to use. For further information and detailed findings The respondents were also asked about their from the user experience test, please refer to overall experience in using the High Court Appendix A.1. websites and whether the websites met their expectations. Many respondents who assessed the website of the High Court of Karnataka felt that the website did not meet their expectations (37%). Further, 41% of them also said that it is likely that they would not use the website in the future. These were the highest proportion of respondents who felt so when compared t o those dissatisfied with the other five High Court websites. Respondents were also provided with an optional feedback question to provide inputs regarding what they would want to change in the High Court websites. These responses helped throw light on the nature of changes respondents seek. Many respondents felt that the design of the website of the High Court of Karnataka seemed outdated in terms of the style and layout and suggested that a more appealing interface be used with less cluttered content, more whitespace,

19 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

Task-based 3usability test

20 A task-based usability test helps demonstrate how effectively users can use the website to perform certain tasks.

An in-depth survey was conducted on all 22 respondents who were asked to perform 10 tasks on all six select High Court websites to assess their usability.

Most respondents were able to successfully complete tasks related to finding information on court notices, circulars, and notifications. They were also able to complete tasks associated with finding information about the court, barring difficulties faced in finding information related to RTIs.

Fewer respondents successfully completed tasks related to finding information about cases in the High Courts. Not all websites provided abbreviations and full forms of case types which made it difficult for users to find details of particular cases.

Websites with multiple navigation bars and complex non- intuitive structures made it difficult for users to perform certain tasks as they were unable to effectively identify relevant sections of the website for the tasks.

Not all websites clearly laid out the names, designations, and contact details for Public Information Officers. Similarly, users found it difficult to obtain contact details of the court on some High Court websites.

21 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

his chapter presents the evaluation of or orders for a month (say November Tthe select High Court websites through 2019) or given date (say 11/11/2019) and task-based usability tests. Usability tests use download one judgment of any case. objective measures such as task completion 4. Find the ten latest notifications regarding time and number of clicks to perform recruitments/results/exams related to a task to evaluate the UX for a website. the court and download the latest file. The objective of this element is to test the usability of the websites through tests done 5. Find the ten latest circulars/tenders uploaded on the website and download by users on the website. The results are the latest file. then evaluated to determine specific areas that the users had trouble with and where 6. Count the total number of sitting judges. improvements can be made. 7. Retrieve the contact information of the Methodology Right to Information (RTI) officer. The experience of users while performing 8. Download the court calendar for the tasks was captured by conducting an in- current year. depth survey among users from different 9. Get the contact information of the court: backgrounds. The survey contained a telephone number, email ID, and address. list of ten tasks to be completed by the respondents on each of the six select High 10. Find the latest ten general notices uploaded on the website and download Court websites. Their experience with each the latest file. task was captured in terms of whether they were able to complete the task, the time taken The questionnaire was built on Google Forms to complete it, the number of clicks the task (six forms for six high courts) and linked to the required, how they viewed the presentation respondent’s email address. As the survey of information, and the ease with which they under this element was time-consuming and were able to complete the task. The tasks that required respondents to undertake ten tasks the respondents needed to carry out in the for each of the six High Court websites, a survey are as follows: purposive sampling approach was used to 1. Determine the number of cases of a identify 22 respondents belonging to various given type in a given year (say criminal backgrounds. The sample for this survey appeal cases in the year 2019). Download consisted of legal practitioners, researchers, the case information of any single case. tech-savvy citizens, and non-tech savvy 2. Find the cause list of any court room on a citizens. given date and download the file. In order to ensure that the respondents to the 3. Find the total number of judgments survey understood the purpose of the survey

22 and the method of evaluating the websites, an Findings introductory session was conducted virtually The tasks that were to be completed by the for the respondents to explain the survey. The respondents to this survey can be grouped questionnaires were then circulated to the into three broad categories: tasks related identified respondents through emails. The to cases, tasks related to court information, researchers were available to engage with and tasks related to notices, circulars, and the respondents to help with any issues they notifications. Figures 2, 3, and 4 show the faced and ensure that the survey received number of respondents who successfully valid responses. The process of validating the completed each task. survey responses also included two phone calls to every respondent, one during the survey and one after the survey.

Figure 2: Task completion on case data/ information retrieval Number of respondents who completed the task at least partially (out of 22)

Case information 19 15 Delhi High Court 16 16 12 Madhya Pradesh High Court 10

Bombay High Court Cause list 7 17 Karnataka High Court 6 18 Calcutta High Court 19 14

Madras High Court Judgements/Orders 18 17 18 19 12 11

23 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

Figure 3: Figure 4: Task completion on court Task completion on court notices, information circulars, and notifications Number of respondents who completed the Number of respondents who completed the task at least partially (out of 22) task at least partially (out of 22)

Number of Judges Recruitment notifications 22 21 21 20 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 18

RTI officer information Circulars/tenders 12 22 4 21 16 21 15 21 2 20 16 16

Court calender General notices 21 22 20 19 21 21 22 22 21 21 16 19

Court contact information 15 Delhi High Court Madhya Pradesh High Court 21 20 Bombay High Court Karnataka High Court 22 20 22 Calcutta High Court Madras High Court

24 25 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

As seen in Figure 4, most respondents were who could complete the task shows that 10 able to successfully complete tasks related to to 19 respondents (out of 22) could at least finding information on court notices, circulars, partially complete the task in each of the six and notifications. Similarly, most respondents websites. There were 19 respondents who 10 to 19 respondents (out of 22) were able to complete tasks associated with could do so on the website of the High Court could at least partially complete finding information about the court, barring of Delhi, and 16 each on the websites of the task 1 in each of the six websites. the difficulty they faced in finding information High Courts of Karnataka and Bombay. This related to RTIs. However, a smaller number is followed by the High Courts of Madhya of respondents successfully completed tasks Pradesh, Calcutta, and Madras for which 15, related to finding information about cases in 12, and 10 respondents respectively could the High Courts. complete the task at least partially. Half the While detailed findings from responses to the respondents could only complete the task task-based usability tests are presented in partially because respondents were unable to Appendix A.2, the following sections provide count the number of cases of a specific case insights into findings from each of the ten type. This is probably because the websites tasks. of the High Courts of Delhi, Calcutta, and Madras contain functionalities that enable TASK 1: users to find out the number of cases that Download case information of a case of were filed under any given case type, however given case type and year (e.g., criminal the websites of the High Courts of Bombay, appeal in 2019), and count the number of Karnataka, and Madhya Pradesh do not allow cases of that case type. for such searches. A look at the overall number of respondents

26 who could complete the task shows that 10 it was for them to complete this task. Most to 19 respondents (out of 22) could at least users across all the websites, barring that of partially complete the task in each of the six the High Court of Delhi, were able to locate websites. There were 19 respondents who 10 to 19 respondents (out of 22) the relevant section with ease. However, could do so on the website of the High Court could at least partially complete most respondents felt that the section with of Delhi, and 16 each on the websites of the task 1 in each of the six websites. the status of a case was a bit tough to locate High Courts of Karnataka and Bombay. This on the website of the High Court of Delhi. is followed by the High Courts of Madhya A possible reason for this could be that the Pradesh, Calcutta, and Madras for which 15, Among those who were able to retrieve other websites contain a link to “case status” 12, and 10 respondents respectively could information regarding specific cases, most or “services” on the main banner at the top complete the task at least partially. Half the users took longer than 3 minutes and more of the website, while the High Court of Delhi respondents could only complete the task than 10 clicks to find the information on the has the same on the left-side panel buried in partially because respondents were unable to websites of the High Courts of Bombay, the midst of other links. A more prominent count the number of cases of a specific case Karnataka, and Madras. On the websites of location on the website or highlighting the type. This is probably because the websites the High Courts of Calcutta and Delhi, most link in some form may help users locate the of the High Courts of Delhi, Calcutta, and users took 1-3 minutes and 6-10 clicks to find link with greater ease. the information. Further, although Madhya Madras contain functionalities that enable Most users also felt that finding the details of a Pradesh had an equal split of users who took users to find out the number of cases that criminal appeal case in Delhi was more difficult 1-3 minutes and more than three minutes were filed under any given case type, however when compared to doing so on the websites of to find information regarding a case, most the websites of the High Courts of Bombay, the other five High Courts. This could possibly users took 1-5 clicks to find the information Karnataka, and Madhya Pradesh do not allow be attributed to the fact that the other websites they were looking for. The time and number for such searches. provide the full forms of the case types while of clicks needed to find information are Delhi only contains abbreviations of the case important because they demonstrate the types. While frequent users of the court intuitiveness of a website and the ease with system may not find abbreviations difficult which people can navigate a system and to decode, ordinary citizens or users who are find what they are looking for. While different unfamiliar with the case types used in different people may take varying amounts of time and courts are unlikely to find the information with clicks to reach a specific piece of information ease. In this regard, it must also be noted that based on their comfort and knowledge of merely providing search features with full the system, surveying the experiences of forms (without abbreviations of case types) multiple people can help demonstrate what also makes it difficult for new users to find most people are likely to experience. out details of their case. For example, a new Users were also asked how easy they felt it user at the High Court of Bombay would find was to find the section of the website that it difficult to locate the status of a case under provided case information and how easy the case type ‘SAST’ without knowing what it

27 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

stands for. Therefore, it is ideal that websites unable to retrieve a cause list in the specified provide abbreviations along with full forms date range from the High Court of Delhi. It to make the search options as user friendly must be noted that while the High Court of as possible. Further, when asked about the Delhi provides older cause lists under their format of the search engine that users would “PDF Cause List” option where users have prefer, a majority of the users felt that having to pass through several pages showing 10 a drop-down menu of case types coupled documents per page to reach an older date. with an auto-filling feature that suggests case The “Customised Cause List” option on the types as people enter the first few letters website did not provide any information of the case type would make the search when an old date was selected, possibly functionality more effective. leading many users to believe that they were TASK 2 not available. Download the cause list of a courtroom for any date between 1 December 2020 and 8 In terms of the ease with which users could December 2020. locate the information they sought, most users could do so in under 10 clicks across Most respondents were able to locate a cause all the courts and found it easy or moderately list in this date range on the websites of the easy to find the relevant section on the High Courts of Calcutta, Madhya Pradesh, websites and complete the task. When asked and Karnataka. The High Court of Madras about the preferred format for a cause list, only provides access to cause lists that are most users stated that they would prefer if a maximum of 14 days old, and although all entries of the cause list were displayed on the High Court of Bombay does provide a a single page, rather than have it split over link to archived cause lists, the functionality multiple pages that users would then need to appears faulty and does not provide results navigate through. for searches. Further, most respondents were

Most respondents were able to locate a cause list in this date range on the websites of the High Courts of Calcutta, Madhya Pradesh, and Karnataka.

28 TASK 3 Find the total number of judgments/orders for a given month or a day. Around 80% of the respondents were able the website for the High Court of Madras to complete this task at least partially for the provides search functionalities based on case High Courts of Bombay, Delhi, Karnataka, number, party, judge name, and free text but and Madhya Pradesh. The lowest number does not explicitly contain a search feature of respondents, 50%, were able to complete based on dates. While a person can find a the task for the High Court of Madras. A particular judgment using the combination possible explanation for this may be that of a date and judge name, for those unaware

29 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

of the name of the judge, merely knowing TASK 4 the date of judgment would be insufficient Download the latest notification regarding to effectively search for a judgment. It may recruitment/careers/exams on the website. therefore be useful for users to be provided More than 90% of the respondents were able with a date search for judgments as provided to complete the task for all the High Courts on the websites of the other High Courts. except the High Court of Madras, where 81% Most of the respondents who were able to of the respondents were able to complete the complete the task did so in less than 3 minutes task at least partially. A possible reason for across all the courts and said they required a lower number of respondents completing about 6 to 10 clicks to find the information the task on the website of the High Court of they needed, the only exception being that Madras could be because the website has most respondents said they could find the multiple navigation bars with links at the top information under 5 clicks for the High Court of the webpage, in the middle, on the left, of Delhi. In terms of the ease of accessing the on the right, and at the bottom (the link to relevant section, most respondents across all the recruitments page was on the second the courts found it easy to access the section navigation bar on the right side and on the and found it moderately easy to complete the lower end of the webpage). Such a website task. structure makes it difficult for users to efficiently find what they are looking for. Most respondents across the High Courts were able to complete the task in less than a minute, except for the High Court of Delhi Around 80% of the respondents and High Court of Madras. For Delhi, an were able to complete task 43 at equal number of respondents took less least partially for the High Courts than a minute and 1 to 3 minutes, while for of Bombay, Delhi, Karnataka, and Madras, 27% took over 3 minutes. However, Madhya Pradesh. most respondents across all the High Courts were able to complete the task in under 5

30 clicks. This shows that though users do not recruitment/careers section on the website, have to go through multiple webpages to find 48% of the respondents felt that its placement what they are looking for, the structure of the on the website of the High Court of Delhi did websites play a large role in determining how not meet their expectations - this was the long users take to find the relevant section for highest proportion of respondents who felt the information they need. so across all the High Courts. A possible When the respondents were asked about the reason for this could be that information ease with which they could find the relevant regarding recruitments is placed as a second- section of the websites and complete the level link on the tab for “Public Notices”, as task, more than 90% of the respondents felt opposed to the other websites that have the it was easy to find the relevant section and information under a separate dedicated tab or complete the task for the High Courts of under the broader umbrella of notifications. Calcutta and Karnataka. More than 70% of The usage of such terminology may have the respondents found it easy for the High caused respondents to find the placement Court of Bombay, and while 80% of the non-intuitive. A significant proportion of respondents found it easy to complete the respondents, 27%, also felt the placement of task for the High Court of Delhi, only 62% felt the section did not meet their expectations for it was easy to find the relevant section on the the High Court of Madras. However, less than website. Only 55%, found it easy to find the 15% of the respondents felt the placement did relevant section for the High Court of Madras. not meet their expectations for the other four High Courts. With respect to the placement of the

31 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

TASK 5 or easy to complete the task (62%). This Download the latest circular/tender reiterates the difficulty in navigating through uploaded on the website. the website and finding information with ease. More than 90% of the respondents were able TASK 6 to complete this task at least partially across Count the total number of sitting judges in all the High Courts, except the High Court of the High Court. Madras, where only 73% of the respondents This task saw a near 100% completion rate could complete the task. across all six High Courts. Respondents were able to count the number of judges very quickly for the High Court of Bombay, A majority of the respondents with 81% doing so in less than a minute. The across all the High Courts took 1 other High Courts had a lower proportion of to 5 clicks to complete task 5 respondents who could count the number of judges in less than a minute (27%-45%). The reason respondents would have been able to count the judges in the High Court of Bombay A majority of the respondents across all the easily is because the website provides a High Courts took 1 to 5 clicks to complete the numbered list of the judges, unlike the other task, and the largest number of respondents High Courts where respondents would have across all the High Courts, except Delhi and to count the number of judges manually. A Madras, could complete the task in less than large proportion of respondents (36%) also a minute. The largest number of respondents took between 1 and 3 minutes to complete the task for the High Courts of Delhi and Madras, with 25% even taking more than 3 minutes for Respondents were able to count the High Court of Madras. the number of judges very quickly Similar to experiences for other tasks on the for the High Court of Bombay, website of the High Court of Madras, a low with 81% doing so in less than a proportion of respondents found it easy to minute. find the relevant section on the website (56%)

32 required more than 6 clicks to complete the The largest proportion of respondents (73%) task, and only 55% of the respondents found could at least partially complete this task it easy to complete the task for the High Court for the High Courts of Bombay and Madras. of Delhi. The reason for this could be that the There were fewer respondents who could website does not provide the list of judges in at least partially complete this task for the a single webpage, and users will have to go High Courts of Karnataka (68%) and Delhi through multiple pages with 9 judge profiles (55%). In comparison, only 18% and 9% of the per page in order to count the number of respondents could do so for the High Courts judges. of Madhya Pradesh and Calcutta, respectively. It must be noted here that the reason for fewer TASK 7 respondents feeling like they could complete Retrieve contact information of the RTI the task for the High Court of Madhya Pradesh officer(s) and find out the date on which the information was last updated. could be because its website provides an

33 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

e-RTI service, unlike the traditional model easy or difficult to find the relevant section of providing complete contact details of the (83%) and to complete the task (92%). In order Public Information Officers. Further, for the to strengthen the mechanism of providing High Court of Calcutta, the reason that few citizens with the right to information, every respondents felt that they completed the task High Court website must ideally contain an could be the fact that the website contains a easy to access link that provides the names, gazette notification containing the designation designations, and contact details for Public of judges in various establishments who Information Officers. are Public Information Officers but does not provide any contact information for them. TASK 8 Download the court calendar for the current While most respondents were able to year. complete the task in under 3 minutes, 42% Respondents found this task relatively simple of the respondents took over 3 minutes to to complete compared to the other tasks, complete the task for the High Court of Delhi. with over 90% of the respondents completing This could be due to the High Court of Delhi this task for each High Court, except the providing particulars of the Public Information High Court of Madras, where 73% of the Officers under one of the 20 links supplied with respondents were able to complete the task. respect to RTIs. The location of the contact The reason for fewer respondents being able information would also explain why a large to find the court calendar for the High Court number of respondents found it moderately of Madras could be due to the website’s

34 to find the telephone number for the High Courts of Bombay and Delhi, however, a large Most respondents across all majority of the respondents could find the courts were able to complete Task relevant details for the other four High Courts. 8 in under 1 minute and less than Most respondents across all the High Courts 5 clicks. felt that they could find the information in less than a minute and under 5 clicks. Most respondents across all High Courts, complex structure, as mentioned for earlier except the High Court of Delhi, also felt that tasks as well. they could find the relevant section of the Most respondents across all courts were website and complete the task with ease. able to complete this task in under 1 minute However, over 67% of the respondents found and less than 5 clicks. Further, amongst all it moderately easy to difficult to find the the respondents who were able to complete relevant section and 80% found it moderately the task, most of them felt that it was easy to easy to difficult to complete the task for the locate the relevant section on the website and High Court of Delhi. This could be because complete the task. respondents mentioned the webpage with the email details often crashed when they TASK 9 tried to access it. Further, as the website does Get the contact information of the court: not contain a standard “Contact Us” section, telephone number, email id, address. users will see the address of the High Court Respondents to the survey were unable mentioned separately from the email address.

35 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

TASK 10 complete the task. As indicated earlier, a Download the latest general notice more intuitive and easy-to-navigate website uploaded on the website. structure for the High Court of Madras can significantly improve users’ experiences in Respondents across all the six High Courts locating the information they need. found this task relatively simple to complete. Nearly all respondents were able to complete the task across the six High Courts and many were able to do so in less than 1 minute and less than 5 clicks. The majority of the respondents also felt that it was easy to find the relevant section on the website and complete the task. However, 36% and 47% of the respondents for the High Court of Karnataka and Madras respectively felt it was moderately easy to difficult to locate the relevant section and

36 37 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

Heuristic 4evaluation

38 A heuristic evaluation measures the compliance of an interface with recognised standard usability principles.

The select High Court websites were evaluated on 10 standard Interaction Design Principles with each having multiple attributes against which the websites were measured.

Understanding the language used on the websites plays a vital role in improving its usability, however, none of the six websites provide clickable explainers for technical words, and many of them do not provide the option to change the language used on the website.

All the websites contain features that aid in recognition (rather than recall). However, only two of the six websites provide a navigation path to indicate how users reached a particular page, and none of them provide auto-filled suggestions for users searching for any information on the website.

Some of the areas where all the High Court websites performed well include assisting users who forgot their passwords, alerting users about an incorrect CAPTCHA, notifying users that no cases were found based on the information they submitted, and not using technical jargon while pointing out errors.

While 5 out of the 6 websites provided a sitemap, the High Court of Calcutta’s website does not contain a sitemap. With respect to the ‘search’ function, barring the website for the High Court of Delhi, none of the other 5 websites provide a search function on every page of the website.

39 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

heuristic evaluation is a method used through different graphics and explainers. Ato identify usability problems with By allowing users to understand the status any user interface design. The evaluation is of a system, the website can allow users to conducted by a small group of people who proceed to the next step to reach their goal measure the compliance of an interface without wasting any effort. Examples of a few with recognized standard usability attributes considered are indicators to locate principles, i.e., heuristics. Jakob Nielsen the user’s navigation position, indicators and Rolf Molich originally developed the to differentiate clickable and non-clickable heuristics for the evaluation in 1990, after content, and indicators to show that the which Nielsen then refined the heuristics website is loading. in 1994 to arrive at the standard followed today. This chapter presents a heuristic 2. MATCH BETWEEN SYSTEM AND THE REAL WORLD evaluation of the six High Court websites This principle evaluates the website with under study. The heuristic evaluation aims respect to three criteria: (i) whether the to determine whether the websites are website presents information in the user’s in accordance with standard Interaction language, (ii) whether it follows real-world Design Principles (IDPs) as developed by conventions, and (iii) whether the information Jakob Nielsen, as well as to identify specific and content appear in a natural and logical areas of the website that can be improved. order. All of these factors are evaluated in the context of evaluating High Court websites in Methodology India. Examples of a few attributes considered are: availability of the site in multiple In order to carry out a comprehensive languages, provision of a zoom in and zoom evaluation of the six High Court websites out feature, provision of different menu bars, based on each of the 10 standard IDPs, and explanations for legal jargon. a variety of attributes were analysed to ascertain how the websites measure up for each IDP. The 10 IDPs, along with examples of the attributes used for each IDP, are provided below : The heuristic evaluation aims to 1. VISIBILITY OF SYSTEM STATUS determine whether the websites This principle evaluates how well the state are in accordance with standard of the website is conveyed to the users. It Interaction Design Principles checks whether appropriate feedback about (IDPs) the website is provided within a reasonable time and if it is communicated to users

40 3. USER CONTROL AND FREEDOM while entering data, and whether the website This principle evaluates whether the user is consistent across webpages. can undo and redo tasks on the website and whether there is an option to stop the 6. RECOGNITION RATHER THAN RECALL This principle evaluates whether the website’s ongoing process. It also evaluates the options interface, elements, and sections help users provided on the website for the user to control recognise things they tend to forget and navigation and surf freely. Examples of a thereby help minimize their cognitive efforts. few attributes considered are: availability of Recognition is more straightforward than various buttons (e.g., back, next, and refresh), recall. Examples of a few attributes considered availability of links to other court websites, are: whether last dates are highlighted for and different options to search for case recruitment and tender notices, provision to information. highlight certain sections on the website, and 4. CONSISTENCY AND STANDARDS options to see recent history on the website. This principle evaluates whether internal and external consistency are maintained within 7. FLEXIBILITY AND EFFICIENCY OF USE This principle evaluates whether users can the website. Users are likely to be more quickly move from one page to another. satisfied if consistency in functionality and It evaluates whether suitable shortcuts, certain design standards are maintained on mouse gestures, step-by-step wizards, the website. Examples of a few attributes clearly labelled menus, accelerators, and considered are: similarity between mobile personalisation of the content are features and desktop versions of the website, use that are provided to speed up task completion. of CAPTCHAs, and variety and standard of It also evaluates whether the system is flexible information provided on the website (case and efficient for new and experienced users, information, notices, tenders, court history). and whether they can access the required 5. ERROR PREVENTION (MISTAKE- information using a minimum number of clicks. PROOFING) Examples of a few attributes considered are: This principle evaluates whether proper availability of a list of shortcuts, shortcut to go rectification methods and suggestions are to the home page such as clicking on the High provided to resolve possible errors by the Court logo, and availability of touch gestures users or whether the system can prevent on the mobile version. users from making errors in the first place. It also checks whether the system provides 8. OVERALL AESTHETICS AND MINIMALIST any warning messages. Examples of a DESIGN This principle evaluates whether the website’s few attributes considered are: provision of interface contains relevant and essential suggestions through auto-fill, provision of information or focuses more on irrelevant and default dates, availability of sample formats

41 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

rarely needed information. It also evaluates six select High Court websites with respect the aesthetics and visual effects on the to every IDP (and the attributes therein) is website and whether they appeal to the users. provided in Appendix A.3. Examples of a few attributes considered are: colour combinations of the website, font sizes PRINCIPLE 1: VISIBILITY OF SYSTEM STATUS (USABILITY HEURISTIC) of different content, white space allocation, This principle was used to evaluate the and balance of content on the website. websites using 18 attributes. The High Court 9. HELP USERS RECOGNIZE, DIAGNOSE, of Madhya Pradesh scored the highest under AND RECOVER FROM ERRORS this IDP with a score of 14 out of 18, while the This principle evaluates whether error High Court of Calcutta scored the lowest with messages are expressed in simple and precise a score of 9 out of 18. The High Courts of Delhi, terms. It also assesses whether the website Bombay, and Karnataka each scored 13 out of explains the errors without any technical 18, and the High Court of Madras scored 11 out jargon, and provides constructive solutions of 18. to the user with shortcuts. Examples of a As the name of the IDP states, an important few attributes considered are: availability of feature that websites must provide is an a custom message when the server is down, indication of the system status. One way to do error messages displayed when incorrect that is by communicating to users information CAPTCHAs or user credentials are entered, regarding whether the system has loaded and availability of instructions for resolving completely or is still loading (and if so, how errors in simple language. much of the system has loaded). However, 10. HELP AND DOCUMENTATION all six High Court websites failed to provide This principle evaluates whether the ‘help and a feature to indicate the status of loading. documentation’ section can be easily found Without such a feature, users will not be well on the website. It also assesses whether informed to make the right decision about help is provided in concrete steps or not. whether they should wait for more time on the Examples of a few attributes considered are: website, proceed with the understanding that availability of a search function, availability of the information they need is unavailable, or an e-library, publication of court newsletters refresh their page, believing more information and annual reports, and information related will appear. Similarly, another feature that the to RTI rules and officers. websites must provide is an option to know the status of a case (e.g., whether pending or Findings disposed) as soon as they search for a case This section of the report presents key number on the case status page, without findings for each of the 10 IDPs. A detailed having to click on the case to view more details. report analysing the interface for each of the While four of the six High Court websites do

42 43 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

meet this standard, the websites for the High concepts. This is an area that all six High Courts of Calcutta and Madras require users Court websites were found to be lacking. to drill down further into the case before they It was found that there were no clickable can find out the status. explainers that were easily accessible against However, it must be noted that all the six technical words. Words such as IA, caveat, websites do well in meeting some of the and roster are used without explaining to new other attributes under this IDP. For example, users or lay persons what these terms mean. all of them provide indicators to differentiate This can hinder how these websites are used between clickable and non-clickable content; by citizens and litigants or anyone unfamiliar they provide indicators such as “more” to view with such jargon. Similarly, the non-availability more details or entries and provide indicators of options to change the website’s language for the new or latest content. Each of these is another functionality that can restrict these greatly assist users in effectively navigating websites’ use. is the non-availability of options through the websites by minimising the time to change the website’s language. Apart from spent on clicking on content or links that are the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and not relevant to them. Calcutta, none of the other four High Courts provides an option to change the language on PRINCIPLE 2: MATCH BETWEEN SYSTEM the website from English. AND THE REAL WORLD Some of the areas where all six High Court There were 15 attributes under this IDP that websites meet expected standards relate were used to evaluate the six High Court to the use of real-life images and following websites. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh standard conventions in helping users scored that highest under this IDP with a effectively identify information. As this IDP score of 12 out of 15, followed closely by the helps evaluate whether images used on the High Court of Delhi, which scored 11 out of website are clear and unambiguous, the use of 15. The High Court of Madras and the High photos of the High Courts on their respective Courts of Karnataka and Calcutta scored websites enables users to associate the nearly the same, with the former scoring 9 system and the real world more effectively. out of 15 while the latter two scored 8.75 and Further, by following conventions such as 10.75, respectively. The High Court of Bombay using navigation bars or highlighting holidays scored the least of the six, with a score of 7.75 of the court calendars, users can effectively out of 15. identify information based on methods that An important aspect of websites that this they are used to, which in turn can help them IDP looks to assess is whether users can make effective use of their time on these understand what something means without websites. having to go elsewhere to look up terms or

44 45 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

46 PRINCIPLE 3: USER CONTROL AND consistency with respect to attributes such FREEDOM as the design, colours, and font sizes used This IDP was used to evaluate the websites in pages across the websites, providing based on 9 attributes. The website that certain core functionalities, and providing a scored the highest, with a score of 8.25 out standard list of information regarding cases, of 9, is that of the High Court of Bombay. It etc. However, there were some attributes was followed closely by the other High Court where some websites met the standards websites, scoring in the range of 7 to 7.5 out while others did not. For E.g., as one of the of 9. functionalities used more frequently by users The fairly high scores of all the High Court is the case status page, it is crucial that the wesbites on this IDP indicate that all of them page be accessible on the primary navigation are user-friendly in terms of allowing users bar, however not all websites adhered to that to rectify any errors they make or allowing standard, thereby making it difficult for users them to exit pages they do not want to stay to find it on each website. on. This gives users the freedom to do as they PRINCIPLE 5: ERROR PREVENTION wish. The websites were found to be lacking (MISTAKE-PROOFING) in providing users options in performing There were 12 attributes used to evaluate certain actions. For example, webpages did the High Court websites under this IDP. The not always provide users with the option to performance of all six was mediocre at best download or print files, nor did they always for this IDP, with the High Court of Bombay give users the control and freedom to search scoring the highest at 7 out of 12, and the for cases through multiple ways (such as by High Court of Calcutta scoring the lowest using the first information report number, or with a score of 5.25 out of 12. the legislation under which the case was filed, This IDP was meant to understand whether etc.). the system prevented users from making PRINCIPLE 4: CONSISTENCY AND errors and whether there existed ways to STANDARDS rectify their errors by providing suggestions. This principle consisted of 20 attributes One of the attributes on which nearly every that were used to evaluate the High Court website did well (barring that of the High websites. All of the six High Court websites Court of Delhi) was in providing an alert received similar scores within a range of informing users of an error when they tried to 15.16 to 17.5 out of 20, with the High Court of click on submit without filling in mandatory Calcutta scoring the least and the High Court fields. In terms of attributes where it was rare of Bombay scoring the highest. to see a website fulfil the standard, the High All the six websites were seen to maintain Court of Calcutta was the only one to indicate

47 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

which part of the login credential (username such a feature. or password) was incorrect. Similarly, only All the websites contain other important the High Court of Madras provided users with features that aid in recognition - drop-down an alert that a PDF would open in a new tab menus where possible, dates of notifications or or print window when they tried to access a circulars, and mentioning which notifications document. Providing such alerts or warnings or circulars are new. Each of these features can help users confirm their actions before on the website enables users to recognise the going ahead and can minimise the number of information they are looking for with minimal errors they make while using the websites. effort, thereby enhancing the efficiency with which users can use it. PRINCIPLE 6: RECOGNITION RATHER THAN RECALL PRINCIPLE 7: FLEXIBILITY AND The websites were evaluated against this EFFICIENCY OF USE principle using 11 attributes. The High Court This principle was used as a means to evaluate of Calcutta scored the lowest (4 out of 11), the the websites through 8 attributes. None of the High Courts of Bombay, Madras, and Madhya websites scored high on this principle, with Pradesh each scored 5 out of 11, and the High scores varying from 2 to 2.75 out of 8. Courts of Delhi and Karnataka scored 6 out of All six websites provided certain features 11 for this IDP. to enhance their efficiency, e.g., providing a The provision of a navigation path for a homepage logo and allowing users to save website’s users helps understand if the website a HTML page using a ‘ctrl + s’ shortcut. helps reduce the amount of information a user However, the broad areas of improvement for has to remember. A navigation path displays these websites under this IDP are to allow for at the top of the page the links that users more accessible shortcuts and some level of clicked on to reach the page they are on, e.g., personalisation to see specific content based a navigation path can say “Home > Judges > on their login credentials (e.g., a user who CJ and Sitting Judges”, this explains to users frequently checks information related to four the path they used to reach the page about cases can be provided shortcuts that directly sitting judges, in case they want to go there link to information on those cases) - these can in the future. Currently, only the websites for help users maximise returns from their time the High Courts of Bombay and Karnataka spent on the website by showing them what provide such a navigation path. Another they need to know efficiently. feature that could greatly assist users in not having to memorise information is by providing PRINCIPLE 8: OVERALL AESTHETICS AND suggestions through auto-filled information MINIMALIST DESIGN while searching for information on a website. This IDP contained 10 attributes that were None of the six websites currently provide for used to evaluate the interface of the High

48 Court websites. The High Court of Delhi technical jargon while pointing out errors. scored the highest for this IDP with 6.5 out There were two areas where the website of 10, while the website for the High Court of for the High Court of Delhi fell behind the Calcutta scored the least with 4.75 out of 10. other websites. First, the website did not The overarching aim of this IDP is to provide a voice CAPTCHA option, and understand whether the website displays up- second, while retrieving information about front the most relevant information without a case, the website did not notify users that distracting users with information they may information was incorrectly entered. However, not require. An evaluation of the interface of in indicating that login IDs and passwords are websites in terms of highlighting clickable case sensitive, it was the only website that content, scaling the format of headings and provided such a mechanism to prevent errors. sub-headings, and providing an aesthetic PRINCIPLE 10: HELP AND DOCUMENTATION contrast of elements such as the text to This IDP consisted of 22 attributes that were the background helps users access the used to evaluate the websites. The website information they require effectively. Each of with the highest score was that of the High the six High Court websites either fulfil or Court of Delhi with 13 out of 22, while the do not fulfil similar attributes under this IDP, website for the High Court of Calcutta scored thereby providing all of them scores within a the lowest with 4.75 out of 22. small range. The only attribute where all the High Courts PRINCIPLE 9: HELP USERS RECOGNIZE, scored well was providing the RTI rules on DIAGNOSE, AND RECOVER FROM ERRORS their respective websites. Users of these This principle consisted of 14 attributes that High Court websites visit them to access were used to evaluate the websites. The High information about the court or cases. However, Court of Madras had the highest score under in a situation where users do not find what this IDP (9.5 out of 14), followed by the High they are looking for, they may be able to Courts of Calcutta and Madhya Pradesh with obtain the information they seek by filing an 9 out of 14, then the High Courts of Bombay RTI application. Therefore, providing a copy of and Karnataka with 8.5 out of 14, and lastly the the RTI rules on the website can provide users High Court of Delhi with 8 out of 14. with the help they need to access information. Some of the areas where all the High Court While all the websites were uniform in websites performed well include assisting fulfilling only one attribute, they were uniform users who forgot their passwords, alerting in not fulfilling many other attributes. For users about an incorrect CAPTCHA, notifying example, none of the six websites provided users that no cases were found based on the search functions that could accommodate information they submitted, and not using any query. None of them provided advanced

49 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

search functions, and none of them provided High Court Calcutta ranked last (6th) for 7 periodically up-to-date annual reports (for IDPs, which was the highest frequency of any even every year for the past ten years). website ranking last. Further, the websites Websites must also follow specific for the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and conventions that enable users to navigate Madras have not been ranked in the last two through the website efficiently. Two of such positions (5th and 6th) for any of the 10 IDPs. important conventions are providing a sitemap and a ‘search’ function. While 5 out of the 6 websites provided a sitemap, the High Court of Calcutta’s website does not provide it, making it difficult for users to directly get to the section they want without having to browse through every navigation bar. With respect to the ‘search’ function. However, barring the website for the High Court of Delhi, none of the other 5 websites provide a search function on every page of the website which would help users effectively search for what they are looking for.

OVERALL SCORES Table 1 summarises the total score of each of the six High Court websites on the 10 IDPs. The websites for the High Courts of Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, and Bombay take the 1st or 2nd ranks in 6 IDPs, followed by the High Courts of Karnataka and Madras, which place 1st or 2nd in 5 IDPs, and then the High Court of Calcutta, which places 1st or 2nd in 2 IDPs. Figure 5 represents how the six High Court websites performed on each of the IDPs on a percentage scale. The websites for the High Courts of Bombay and Delhi ranked 1st for 4 IDPs each, followed by the websites for the High Courts of Madras and Karnataka, which ranked 1st for 1 IDP each. The website for the

50 Table 1: Overall scores of the six High Court websites for the heuristic evaluation Table 1: Overall scores of the six High Court websites for the heuristic evaluation

Maximum Madhya st nd IDP Delhi Bombay Karnataka Calcutta Madras Note: Red indicates the 1 and 2 highest score Pradesh score, yellow indicates the 3rd and 4th scores, and Table 2: Percentage scores per IDP 1. Visibility of 18.00 13.00 14.00 13.00 13.00 9.00 11.00 system status Note: Red indicates the 1st and 2nd highest rd th 2. Match Between score, yellow indicates the 3 and 4 user and real 15.00 11.00 12.00 7.75 8.75 10.75 9.00 scores, and green indicates the last two worlds scores, i.e., 5th and 6th. The colour blue has been used to indicate the average score for each IDP and each website. 3. User control 9.00 7.25 7.50 8.25 7.00 7.50 7.50 and freedom Table 2 shows that many improvements can be made to each of the six High Court 4. Consistency 20.00 15.56 15.75 17.5 17.21 15.16 16.41 and standard websites. All the High Courts could particularly focus on three areas where

5. Error 12.00 6.25 6.75 7.00 5.50 5.25 6.00 the average score for the IDPs was below prevention 50%: error prevention, recognition rather than recall, and help and documentation. 6. Recognition rather than 11.00 6.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 4.00 5.00 The next section of the report provides recall key recommendations that can help 7. Flexibility and improve the UI/UX of the select High efficiency of 8.00 2.75 2.25 2.75 2.75 2.00 2.50 use Court websites.

8. Aesthetic and minimalist 10.00 6.50 5.25 5.50 5.00 4.75 6.00 design

9. Help users recognize, diagnose and 14.00 8.00 9.00 8.50 8.50 9.00 9.50 recover from an error

10. Help and 22.00 13.00 10.25 7.00 10.50 4.75 9.75 documentation

Note: Red indicates the 1st and 2nd highest score, yellow indicates the 3rd and 4th scores, and green indicates the last two scores, i.e., 5th and 6th. The colour blue has been used to indicate the maximum possible score in each IDP.

51

1

Note: Red indicates the 1st and 2nd highest score, yellow indicates the 3rd and 4th scores, and green indicates the last two scores, i.e., 5th and 6th. The colour blue has been used to indicate the maximum possible score in each IDP.

DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites Figure 5: Percentage-wise score for each IDP Figure 5: Percentage-wise score for each IDP

100%

90%

80%

70%

Delhi 60% MP 50% Bombay Karnataka 40% Calcutta Madras 30%

20%

10%

0% IDP 1 IDP 2 IDP 3 IDP 4 IDP 5 IDP 6 IDP 7 IDP 8 IDP 9 IDP 10

Bad Average Good

FigureFigure 5 represents 5 represents how how the the six six High High Court Court websitesand consistency performed on and each standards. of the IDPs on Similarly, a websitespercentage performed scale. on The each websites of the for IDPs the Highon a Courts all ofof Bombaythem performed and Delhi rankedpoorly 1 withst for 4respect IDPs to percentage scale. The websites for the High flexibility and efficiency of use. each, followed by the websites for the High Courts of Madras and Karnataka, which ranked Courts of Bombay and Delhi ranked 1st for 4 Table 2 provides the percentage scores for 1st for 1 IDP each. The website for the High Court Calcutta ranked last (6th) for 7 IDPs, which IDPs each, followed by the websites for the each of the six High Court websites with High Courtswas the of highest Madras frequency and Karnataka, of any website which ranking respect last . toFurther, each IDP.the websitesFurther, forit alsothe Highprovides rankedCourts 1st for of 1 Madhya IDP each. Pradesh The websiteand Madras for thehave notthe been average ranked score in the for last each two IDP positions across (5 thall the High Court Calcutta ranked last (6th) for 7 and 6th) for any of the 10 IDPs. six websites. IDPs, which was the highest frequency of any Table 2 shows that many improvements can be website ranking last. Further, the websites made to each of the six High Court websites.40 for the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and All the High Courts could particularly focus Madras have not been ranked in the last two on three areas where the average score for positions (5th and 6th) for any of the 10 IDPs. the IDPs was below 50%: error prevention, A point to note from Figure 5 is that there recognition rather than recall, and help and are clear IDPs where the websites uniformly documentation. The next section of the report perform better when compared to their scores provides key recommendations that can help on other IDPs. It is clear that all websites have improve the UI/UX of the select High Court high scores on user control and freedom, websites.

52

Table 2: Percentage scores per IDP

Percentage score (%100)

Average Madhya IDP Delhi Bombay Karnataka Calcutta Madras Percentage Pradesh Score

1. Visibility of 72.2 77.7 72.2 72.2 50.0 61.1 67.6 system status

2. Match Between user 73.3 80.0 51.6 58.3 71.7 60.0 65.8 and real worlds

3. User control 80.5 83.3 91.6 77.7 83.3 83.3 83.3 and freedom

4. Consistency 77.8 78.7 87.5 86.0 75.8 82.0 81.3 and standard

5. Error 52.0 56.2 58.3 45.8 43.7 50 51.0 prevention

6. Recognition rather than 54.5 45.4 45.4 54.5 36.3 45.4 49.9 recall

7. Flexibility and efficiency of 34.3 28.1 34.3 34.3 25.0 31.2 31.2 use

8. Aesthetic and minimalist 65.0 52.5 55.0 50.0 47.5 60.0 55.0 design 9. Help users recognize, diagnose and 57.1 64.2 60.7 60.7 64.2 67.8 62.4 recover from an error

10. Help and 59.1 46.6 31.8 47.7 21.6 44.3 41.9 documentation

58.9

Average 62.6 61.3 58.9 58.7 51.9 58.5 58.7

Note: Red indicates the 1st and 2nd highest score, yellow indicates the 3rd and 4th scores, and green indicates the last two scores, i.e., 5th and 6th. The colour blue has been used to indicate the average score for each IDP and each website.

53 2

DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

Suggestions and 5Recommendations

54 ased on our findings from the user experience test, the task-based usability test, Band the heuristic evaluation, this section of the report contains suggestions to help improve the UI/UX of the six select High Court websites. While detailed suggestions regarding the websites of each High Court have been provided in Appendix A.4, key suggestions that apply to all six websites are given below:

Information about cases As demonstrated by the user experience test, sections with judgments/orders and case information are most used by users of the High Court websites. However, the task-based usability test showed that some users find it difficult to effectively use them to retrieve the information they want. This finding was supported by the heuristic evaluation, which showed that the average percentage score of all the websites for IDP 7 (efficiency and flexibility to use) and IDP 9 (help and documentation) are less than or near to 40%. The following suggestions can help improve the ease of retrieval of information: Suggestions and

Recommendations The placement of these sections should be clearly visible on 1 the website with simple and 2 straightforward names. Considering these as the main sections/ functionalities of the website, links for this information should be provided on the primary navigation bar of the home page. The websites of the High Courts The design and structure of the of Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh have website must be optimised by done so. 3 providing clear and easy to use search options that minimize Further, websites must ensure that there the number of times a user are shortcuts to these sections from needs to click in order to find other sections of the website. the information they want.

55 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

4 5 There should be several search options Auto-filling suggestion features should provided to retrieve case information, be provided while searching for including party name, judge name, information with respect to case types. case act, case type, FIR number, CNR This feature is currently lacking on all six number, and advocate name. websites.

6 7 Case types in search features across all Information regarding cases, cause the websites must be provided in full lists and judgments/orders should form together with abbreviations. This be available on the same portal (with will help users effectively search for their necessary changes), or at least with cases irrespective of whether they know similar UIs. This will improve consistency only the abbreviation or the full form. across these sections and allow users to search for these details efficiently. 8 9 Step-by-step instructions on using Format of CNR number, diary sections such as case status, judgments, number and case number should orders, and cause list should be provided be given in light font colour or by in the respective sections. This can be clickable explainers so that users can done by providing a question mark at a understand what they represent. prominent place in the section, which, by clicking on it, can open a dialog box with the steps and examples.

56 Search features The user experience test revealed that around 20% of the respondents were unsatisfied with the quantity and variety of information available on the websites. Further, some respondents also found the architecture of the websites and the interface difficult to use. The task-based usability test also revealed that respondents were often unable to find the required information with ease. This makes it important to ensure that the structure of these websites is more intuitive and user-friendly. The heuristic evaluation through IDP 1 (visibility of system status), IDP 2 (match between user and real world), IDP 5 (error prevention), and IDP 6 (recognition rather than recall) also demonstrated that there is room for improvement in the design and structure of these websites. Some of the steps that can be taken to improve the structure of the websites are: 1 2 A search function with an auto-fill The navigation bars on the websites option should be provided at the must be clear and the websites top of every page of the website. An must not have numerous navigation ‘advanced’ search option should also bars. For example, websites could be provided for longer queries, as far as have 6 main sections such as case possible. information, cause list, notices, about the court, help and contact information, and miscellaneous. Other sub-sections can then be put under these as sub-categories.

57 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

Design and readability Responses in the user test showed that the loading speed, design architecture, readability of the content, and ease of use of interface need to be improved. The heuristic evaluation also showed that the websites received an overall average score of 55% on IDP 8, aesthetic and minimalist design. Some of the measures that can be taken to improve the look of the interface are: provide better visuals, ensure readability of content, provide white space as well as balance the content, and use appropriate font sizes with sharper colors.

58 Contact information The task-based usability test showed that respondents were able to easily find the court calendar, information related to judges, and notices. However, contact information of the RTI officers was not easily accessible to users. Even though some respondents in the task-based usability test were able to get this information, it took them longer as compared to other tasks. It is therefore recommended that the following steps be taken to make the information more accessible: 1 2 Information related to RTIs must be Contact information for the relevant accessible to users through a section authority at the High Court should be on the website that can be easily provided on the webpage and must found. include details such as telephone number, email id, address and a contact list of various administrative authorities. 3 Instructions on how to file RTI queries should be provided under the ‘RTI information’ section. A separate portal pertaining to the same can also be provided on the website.

For a more detailed list of suggestions pertaining to each of the six High Court websites, please refer to Appendix A.4.

59 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

6 Appendix

60 Appendix

Appendix

A.1.Note: Numbers User written on the bars represent experience the actual number of responses and the coloured testsub- barsA.1. represent the percentages.User experience test A.1. User experience test COURT-WISE RESPONDENTS COURT-WISE RESPONDENTS NUMBERS OF RESPONDENTS NUMBERS OF RESPONDENTS 124 124 119 119 112 112 102 102 100 100 95 95

DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT DELHI HIGH MADHYACOURT BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT GENDER DIVERSITY OF RESPONDENTS GENDER DIVERSITYMale FemaleOF RESPONDENTS 100% 32 28 Male Female 44 80% 63 53 51 60% 32 40% 28 44 80 67 63 53 80 51 20% 56 44 49

0% 80DELHI HIGH 67MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT80 COURT COURT 56 44 49

DELHI HIGH REGIONMADHYA -WISE(URBANBOMBAY HIGH -KARNATAKARURAL) RESPONSESCALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT Urban Rural

100% 18 18 36 23 80% 40 40

60%

40% 101 84 88 77 72 55 20%

0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH 48 COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

61

AGE-WISE DIVERSITY OF RESPONDENTS 48 Young (<=40) Old(>40)

5 17 8 15 16 18

119 95 87 104 86 82

DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

Responses on use of court related websites 1. Websites used before.

49

REGION-WISE(URBAN-RURAL) RESPONSES

Urban Rural

18 18 36 23 40 40

101 84 88 77 72 55

DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

AGE-WISE DIVERSITY OF RESPONDENTS

Young (<=40) Old(>40)

5 100% 17 8 15 16 18 80%

60% 87 119 40% 95 104 86 82

20%

0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

Responses on use of court related websites Responses1. Websites used on before.use of court related website 1. WEBSITES USED BEFORE.

TOTAL RESPONSES ON USE OF DIFFERENT COURT RELATED WEBSITES

233, 20% 281, 25%

51, 4% 274, 24%

137, 12%

173, 15%

49

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INDIA HIGH COURT OF INDIA E-COURTS OF INDIA DISTRICT COURTS OF INDIA

NJDG (NATIONAL JUDICIAL DATA GRID) NONE OF THEM

62 2. Use of websites of Indian high courts.

50 2. USE OF WEBSITES OF INDIAN HIGH COURTS.

RESPONSES ON HOW OFTEN RESPONDENTS HAVE USED INDIAN HIGH COURT WEBSITES BEFORE

Frequently Occasionally Never

100% 16

35 80% 54 53 61 73 61 60% 66

42 40% 58 27 36 27 20% 36 37 23 14 6 14 12 0% 3 6 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

3. Use of different sections of the website (excludes respondents who have not used the ( 3. USEwebsites OF DIFFERENT before). SECTIONS OF THE WEBSITE EXCLUDES RESPONDENTS WHOwebsites HAVE NOT before) USED. THE WEBSITES BEFORE).

RESPONSES ON USE OF DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE WEBSITE

Recruitment notifications Judgements/orders General notices E-filling of case Circulars/tenders Cause list Case data information

100% 20 21 35 20 79 29 51 80% 9 26 9 15 7 56 15 60% 4 56 11 34 3 5 4 11 3 11 14 11 12 18 15 12 40% 17 18 24 9 34 9 34 23 15 20% 18 25 18 25 55 93 54 27 0% 11 12 9 3 12 7 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

63

51 DAKSH4. Most | UI/UX Evaluation visited of Indian section High Court Websitesof the website (excludes respondents who have not used the websites before). 4. Most visited section of the website (excludes respondents who have not used the 4. MOSTwebsites VISITED before) SECTION. OF THE WEBSITE (EXCLUDES RESPONDENTS WHO HAVE NOT USED THERESPONDENTS WEBSITES BEFORE). ON MOST VISITED SECTIONS OF THE WEBSITE RESPONDENTS ON MOST VISITED SECTIONS OF THE WEBSITE Case data information Judgements/orders Cause list Circulars/tenders General notices Other

2 1 3 2 1 1 Case data information Judgements/orders9 Cause list Circulars/tenders 7 General notices 5Other 1 8 4 12 1 1 100% 122 1 193 2 7 14 9 7 5 1 1 8 4 212 9 80% 312 19 7 14 4 1 132 50 9 41 27 60% 3 4 12 15 13 50 41 27 40% 12 13 15 21 9 16 5 12 20% 13 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY21 HIGH KARNATAKA9 CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS16 HIGH COURT5 PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT12 COURT 0% COURT DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT 5. Whether respondentsCOURT could get the expected information on website or not (excludes 5. WHETHERrespondents RESPONDENTS who have not COULD used theGET websites THE EXPECTED before) .INFORMATION ON WEBSITE OR5. NOTWhether (EXCLUDES respondents RESPONDENTS could get WHO the expected HAVE NOT information USED THE onWEBSITES website BEFOREor not (excludes). respondents who have not used the websites before). COULD RESPONDENTS GET EXPECTED INFORMATION OR NOT COULD RESPONDENTS GET EXPECTED INFORMATIONYes Maybe ORNo NOT 100% 3 1 6 3 Yes Maybe 5No 8

1 80% 3 19 6 8 243 23 5 48 33 18 60% 19 24 23 48 33 18 40%

32 42 30 44 20% 52 20 32 42 30 44 52 20 0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT64 HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT 52

52 6. RESPONDENTS’6. Respondents’ EXPECTATIONS expectations on different ON DIFFERENT aspects of ASPECTS the website. OF THE WEBSITE. Accessible or not

RESPONSES ON WEBSITE WAS ACCESSIBILE OR NOT

Exceeded Expectations Met Expectations Didn’t meet Expectations

100% 7 13 16 10 21 20

80%

60% 93 71 100 98 86 40% 77

20%

12 11 0% 3 4 6 4 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

Website loading speed

RESPONSES ON WEBSITE LOADING SPEED

Exceeded Expectations Met Expectations Didn’t meet Expectations

100% 20 18 34 29 42 37 80%

60%

75 60 40% 81 61 68 59

20%

17 17 10 0% 9 6 9 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

53

65 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites Availability of content

RESPONSES ON AVAILABILITY OF CONTENT

Exceeded Expectations Met Expectations Didn’t meet Expectations

100%

23 18 35 26 40 80% 41

60%

62 76 40% 81 68 73 57

20%

15 0% 13 6 4 8 6 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

Architecture

RESPONSES ON ARCHITECTURE OF WEBSITE

Exceeded Expectations Met Expectations Didn’t meet Expectations

100%

28 22 33 80% 51 40 57

60%

57 40% 77 67 54 59 72 20%

16 0% 7 3 4 1 6 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

66

54 Readability

RESPONSES ON READABILITY OF CONTENT ON WEBSITE

Exceeded Expectations Met Expectations Didn’t meet Expectations

100%

21 21 33 33 31 60% 44

40% 55 82 80 85 62 20% 57

19 0% 9 6 1 6 7 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

Quantity of Information

RESPONSES ON QUANTITY OF INFORMATION ON WEBSITE

Exceeded Expectations Met Expectations Didn’t meet Expectations

100% 14 21 23 32 31 31 80%

60%

79 72 40% 71 82 66 87

20%

12 9 0% 5 5 6 6 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

67 55 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites Variety of information

RESPONSES ON VARIETY OF INFORMATION PRESENT ON WEBSITE

Exceeded Expectations Met Expectations Didn’t meet Expectations

100% 20 15 20 26 26 27 80%

60%

69 40% 84 71 86 71 90

20%

11 0% 8 7 5 7 9 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

Ease of use of interface

RESPONSES ON EASE OF USE OF WEBSITE INTERFACE

Exceeded Expectations Met Expectations Didn’t meet Expectations

100%

17 29 80% 40 35 42 57

60%

64 40% 67 74 58 58 20% 58

0% 16 14 4 2 10 7 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

68

56 Availability of documentation

RESPONSES ON AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTATION

Exceeded Expectations Met Expectations Didn’t meet Expectations

100% 21 31 35 80% 40 56 48

60%

40% 68 72 82 61 60 49 20%

0% 9 6 3 1 7 7 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

Availability of contact information

RESPONSES ON AVAILABILITY OF CONTACT INFORMATION

Exceeded Expectations Met Expectations Didn’t meet Expectations 100%

19 80% 30 46 56 44 47

60%

40% 71 75 51 74 20% 60 48

0% 7 5 3 7 4 5 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

69

57 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites 7. Respondents on meeting overall expectations.

7. Respondents on meeting overall expectations. 7. RESPONDENTS ONRESPONSES MEETING OVERALL ON EXPECTATIONS. MEETING EXPECTATION RESPONSESExceeded Expectations ON MEETINGMet Expectations EXPECTATIONDidn’t meet Expectations

7 Exceeded 6Expectations Met Expectations Didn’t meet Expectations 20 19 20 100% 7 6 38 20 19 20

80% 38 64 91 60% 91 64 87 70 91 55 91 87 70 40% 55

25 20% 14 12 9 14 10 25 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH 14 12 9 14 10 0% COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT DELHI HIGH MADHYACOURT BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

8.8. USEUse OF ofWEBSITE website IN in FUTURE future for FOR required REQUIRED information. INFORMATION. 8. Use of website in future for required information. RESPONSES ON USE OF WEBSITE IN FUTURE

RESPONSES ONLess USE likely OFNeutral WEBSITEMore likely IN FUTURE

100% Less likely Neutral More likely 19 22 32 22 80% 42 31 19 22 32 22 42 31 60% 41

41 40% 59 81 45 66 55 59 81 45 66 55 20% 42

22 42 24 0% 14 14 12 22 24 DELHI14 HIGH MADHYA14 BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA12 HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT DELHI HIGH MADHYACOURT BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

70

58 58 9. Respondents on overall experience with the website. 9. Respondents on overall experience with the website. 9. RESPONDENTS ON OVERALL EXPERIENCE WITH THE WEBSITE RESPONSES ON OVERALL EXPERIENCE WITH RESPONSES ON THEOVERALL WEBSITE EXPERIENCE WITH Exceeded ExpectationsTHEMet WEBSITE Expectations Didn’t meet Expectations

6 Exceeded7 Expectations Met Expectations Didn’t meet Expectations 15 21 26 23 100% 6 7 15 21 26 23

80% 88 66 92 87 60% 65 88 66 67 92 87 65 40% 67

22 18 20% 12 9 16 12 22 DELHI18 HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH 12 16 12 0% COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH9 COURT COURT COURT COURT DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

10.10. WHETHERWhether ORor not NOT this THIS website WEBSITE gives GIVES feel FEELof Indian OF INDIAN high court HIGH website. COURT WEBSITE. 10. Whether or not this website gives feel of Indian high court website. RESPONSES ON GIVING FEEL OF INDIAN HIGH RESPONSES ONCOURT GIVING WEBSITE FEEL OF INDIAN HIGH Exceeded ExpectationsCOURTMet ExpectationsWEBSITEDidn’t meet Expectations

100% Exceeded Expectations Met Expectations Didn’t meet Expectations 12 8 24 28 25 80% 12 8 42 24 28 25 42 60% 58 78 75 58 81 59 40% 78 75 48 81 59 20% 48 29 22 20 12 15 16 0% 29 DELHI22 HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH 20 12 15 16 COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT 71

59

59 A.2.DAKSHA.2. | UI/UX Evaluation Task ofTask Indian High Court Websites-based-based usability usability test test TaskA.2. Task-based 1: Download usability case test information of a Task 1: Download case information of a caseTask 1: of Download given case case information type of anda case year.of given case type andcase year. of given case type and year. 1.1.Whether WHETHER respondents RESPONDENTS could COULD complete COMPLETE the task orTHE not. TASK OR NOT. 1. Whether respondents could complete the task or not. 1.1 RESPONDENTS COULD COMPLETE THE 1.1 RESPONDENTSTASK OR COULD NOT COMPLETE THE TASK OR NOT

Yes No Partially Didn't understand Yes No Partially Didn't understand 1 1 1 1 1 100% 3 1 1 1 5 1 1 7 10 9 3 80% 10 5 10 7 10 9 11 60% 5 9 2 5 11 7 5 9 40% 2 5 7 9 9 20% 7 7 7 9 5 9 7 7 7 5 0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT 2.2.Time TIME to TO complete COMPLETE the THEtask. TASK. (Data ( DATAincluded INCLUDED of only OF those ONLY who THOSE were WHO able WEREto complete ABLE the TOtask2. COMPLETETime fully to or complete partially THE TASK) the FULLY task. (DataOR PARTIALLY included )of only those who were able to complete the task fully or partially1.2) TIME TO COMPLETE THE TASK

Less than 1 min 1-3 mins More than 3 mins Others

100% 1 2 2 2 1

2 80% 6 7 6

60% 8 8

6

40% 6 9 4 4 3 20%

3 2 2 2 1 0% 1 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT 60 COURT 72 60

3. Number of clicks to complete the task. (Data included of only those who were able to complete the task fully or partially)

1.3 NUMBER OF CLICKS TO COMPLETE THE TASK

1-5 clicks 6-10 clicks More than 10 clicks Others

2 2 2 2 1 2 5 4 5 5 6

2 6 6 5 6 4 7 6 4 3 2 1 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

4. Difficulty in finding relevant section for the task on the website.

61 1.2 TIME TO COMPLETE THE TASK

Less than 1 min 1-3 mins More than 3 mins Others

1 2 2 2 1

2

6 7 6 8 8

6

6 9 4 4 3

3 2 2 2 1 1 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

3. Number of clicks to complete the task. (Data included of only those who were able to 3. NUMBER OF CLICKS TO COMPLETE THE TASK. (DATA INCLUDED OF ONLY THOSE WHO WEREcomplete ABLE TO the COMPLETE task fully THE or partially TASK FULLY) OR PARTIALLY)

1.3 NUMBER OF CLICKS TO COMPLETE THE TASK

1-5 clicks 6-10 clicks More than 10 clicks Others

100% 2 2 2 2 1 80% 2 5 4 5 5 6 60% 2 6 6 40% 5 6 4 20% 7 6 4 3 0% 2 1 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

4. DIFFICULTY IN FINDING RELEVANT SECTION FOR THE TASK ON THE WEBSITE. 4. Difficulty in finding1.4 DIFFICULTY relevant section for ON the FINDINGtask on the webs RELEVANTite. SECTION FOR THE TASK

Easy Medium Difficult

100% 1 1 3 2 4 61 7 80% 5 3 4 4 4 60%

6

40%

9 10 8 6 5 20% 6

0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

5. Difficulty in completing the task. 73 1.5 DIFFICULTY IN COMPLETING THE TASK

Easy Medium Difficult

2 4 4 3 8 6

6 7 8 5 6 8

6 5 3 3 2 2

DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

62 1.4 DIFFICULTY ON FINDING RELEVANT SECTION FOR THE TASK

Easy Medium Difficult

1 1 3 2 4 7 5 3 4 4 4

6

9 10 8 6 5

6

DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH DAKSH | UI/UXCOURT Evaluation of Indian HighPRADESH Court Websites HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

5. Difficulty in completing the task. 5. DIFFICULTY IN COMPLETING THE TASK. 1.5 DIFFICULTY IN COMPLETING THE TASK

Easy Medium Difficult

100% 2 4 4 3 6 80% 8

60% 6 7 8 5 40% 6 8

20% 6 5 3 3 2 2 0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

6.6. RATERate THE the presentationPRESENTATION of the OF downloaded THE DOWNLOADED case information CASE INFORMATIONof a case. (Data includedOF A CASE. of only (DATAthose INCLUDED who were OF able ONLY to THOSEcomplete WHO the taskWERE fully ABLE or partially) TO COMPLETE THE TASK FULLY ) OR PARTIALLY 62 1.6 PRESENTATION OF THE CASE INFORMATION

Exceeded Expectations Met Expectations Didn’t meet Expectations

100% 2 2 5 4 4 80%

7 60% 10 6 7 9 40% 12

20% 5 4 3 3 3 2 0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

7. Rate the case information in terms of details74 provided in it.

1.7 RESPONDENTS ON DETAILS PROVIDED IN THE CASE INFORMATION

Exceeded Expectations Met Expectations Didn’t meet Expectations

3 2 5 3

9 5 7 6 9 11

7 7 4 4 3 3

DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

8. Which is preferred out of 3 while searching for case types on the website?

63 6. Rate the presentation of the downloaded case information of a case. (Data included of only those who were able to complete the task fully or partially)

1.6 PRESENTATION OF THE CASE INFORMATION

Exceeded Expectations Met Expectations Didn’t meet Expectations

2 2 5 4 4

7 10 6 7 9 12

5 4 3 3 3 2

DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

7. Rate the case information in terms of details provided in it. 7. RATE THE CASE INFORMATION IN TERMS OF DETAILS PROVIDED IN IT. 1.7 RESPONDENTS ON DETAILS PROVIDED IN THE CASE INFORMATION

Exceeded Expectations Met Expectations Didn’t meet Expectations

100% 3 2 5 3 80% 9 5 7 60% 6 9 40% 11

20% 7 7 4 4 3 3 0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

8. WHICH IS PREFERRED OUT OF 3 WHILE SEARCHING FOR CASE TYPES ON THE WEBSITE?8. Which is preferred out of 3 while searching for case types on the website? 1.8 PREFERENCE OF RESPONDENTS ON DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR CASE-TYPES SEARCH

Drop-down menu of case types Auto-filling while searching for case types 63 Drop-down menu combined with auto-filling Others

100% 1 1 1 1 1 3

80%

11 14 14 13 60% 15 13

40% 4 2 2 2 20% 3 3

6 5 5 6 3 3 0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

75 Task 2: Download cause list of a court for the given date. 1. Whether respondents could complete the task or not.

64 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

Task 2: Download cause list of a court for the given date.

1. WHETHER RESPONDENTS COULD COMPLETE THE TASK OR NOT. 2.1 RESPONDENTS COULD COMPLETE THE 2.1 RESPONDENTSTASK COULD OR NOT COMPLETE THE

Yes TASKNo Partially OR NOTDidn’t understand

Yes No Partially Didn’t understand 2 3 4 100% 2 2 7 7 7 3 4 3 2 7 7 7 80% 3 5 4 13 60% 16 8 5 4 13 16 8 15 40% 11 10 15 7 5 10 11 20% 3 7 5 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY3 HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH 0% COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT DELHI HIGH MADHYACOURT BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT Note: Respondents whoCOURT said they were able to complete the task for the High Court of Madras Note:Note:answered Respondents Respondents in the whoaffirmative who said said they theywith were wererespect able able to to complete to being complete able the taskto the find for task thea forcause High the list,Court High though Courtof Madras ofit wasMadras not answered in the affirmative with respect to being able to find a cause list, though it was not of answeredof the older in datesthe affirmative as sought within the respect survey .to being able to find a cause list, though it was not the older dates as sought in the survey. of the older dates as sought in the survey. 2. Time to complete the task. (Data included of only those who were able to complete the 2.2. TIMETimetask TO fully to COMPLETE complete or partially THEthe) task. TASK. (Data (DATA included INCLUDED of only OF ONLY those THOSE who were WHO able WERE to completeABLE the TO COMPLETEtask fully or THE partially TASK) FULLY OR PARTIALLY) 2.2 TIME TO COMPLETE THE TASK

2.2Less TIME than 1 min TO1-3 COMPLETE mins More than THE3 mins TASKOthers

Less than 1 min 1-3 mins More than 3 mins Others 100% 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 2 80% 3 5 2 2 3 4 5 3 60% 4 8 9

8 7 9 40% 3 7 8 2 3 8 20% 4 2 7 4 5 1 2 1 7 0% 5 1 1 1 DELHI HIGH MADHYA2 BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS1 HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT 76 DELHI HIGH MADHYACOURT BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT 3. Number of clicks to complete the task. (Data included of only those who were able to 3. Numbercomplete of the clicks task to fully complete or partially the) task. (Data included of only those who were able to complete the task fully or partially) 65 65 2.3 NUMBER OF CLICKS TO COMPLETE THE 3. NUMBER OF CLICKS TO COMPLETE THE TASK.TASK (DATA INCLUDED OF ONLY THOSE WHO WERE ABLE TO COMPLETE THE TASK FULLY OR PARTIALLY) 2.3 NUMBER OF CLICKS TO COMPLETE THE 1-5 clicks 6-10 clicks TASKMore than 10 clicks Others 2 1 3 1 6 1-5 clicks 6-10 clicks More than 10 clicks Others 5 10 5 9 100% 2 1 3 14 80% 4 65 5 10 5 9 60% 7 8 2 5 41 3 40% 4 5 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT 20% COURT 7 8 2 5 1 3 0%

DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT 4. Difficulty in findingCOURT relevant section for the task. 4. DIFFICULTY IN FINDING RELEVANT SECTION FOR THE TASK 2.4 DIFFICULTY IN FINDING RELEVANT 4. Difficulty in finding relevantSECTION section for theFOR task. THE TASK

Easy Medium Difficult 100% 2.4 DIFFICULTY IN FINDING RELEVANT 1 2 3 SECTION FOR THE TASK 2 80% 3 Easy Medium Difficult 6 3 6 60% 1 6 7 2 3 2

3 6 40% 2 3 1 6 7 12 6 20% 10 7 6 2 2 2 1 0% 12 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA10 CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH7 HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT6 2 COURT 2

5. DifficultyDELHI HIGH in completingMADHYA the task.BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT77 HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

66 5. Difficulty in completing the task.

66 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

5. DIFFICULTY IN2.5 COMPLETING DIFFICULTY THE TASK. IN COMPLETING THE TASK 2.5 DIFFICULTYEasy IN COMPLETINGMedium Difficult THE TASK

Easy Medium Difficult 2 2

100% 2 2 2 3 7 7 2 80% 3 7 7 12 12

60% 12 2 3 12 8 4 2 40% 3 8 4

2 5 4 3 20% 1 2 2 5 4 3 1 DELHI HIGH MADHYA2 BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH 0% COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

6. 6.RATERate THE the PRESENTATION presentation of OF the THE cause CAUSE list. LIST. 6. Rate the presentation of the cause list. 2.6 PRESENTATION OF THE CAUSE LIST 2.6Didn’t PRESENTATION meet Expectations Met Expectations OF THE CAUSEExceeded Expectations LIST

100% Didn’t meet Expectations Met Expectations1 Exceeded Expectations 3 2 1 5 80% 3 3 2 3 5 9 3 6 3 60% 9 6 11 40% 12 11 4 12 8 3 20% 8 4 3 8 8 2 0% 1 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA2 HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT1 COURT DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT 78 7. Rate the cause list in terms of details provided in it. 7. Rate the cause list in terms of details provided in it. 67

67 2.7 RESPONDENTS ON DETAILS PROVIDED IN 7. RATE THE CAUSE LIST IN TERMS OF DETAILS PROVIDED IN IT. THE CAUSE LIST 2.7 RESPONDENTS ON DETAILS PROVIDED IN Didn’t meet Expectations Met Expectations Exceeded Expectations THE CAUSE LIST 1 Didn’t meet2 Expectations Met Expectations2 Exceeded Expectations3

100% 1 2 2 3 4 8 80% 6 10 11 4 8 14 60% 6 10 11 14 40% 8 5 2 1 2 2 20% 8 2 DELHI HIGH MADHYA5 BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT1 PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT2 COURT2 0% COURT DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

8.8. WHICHWhich IS is PREFERRED preferred out OUT of 2OF for 2 FORpresenting PRESENTING entries ENTRIES in the cause IN THE list? CAUSE LIST?

8. Which is preferred2.8 PREFERENCE out of 2 for presenting OF RESPONDENTS entries in the cause list? ON THE ENTRIES PRESENTED IN THE CAUSE LIST 2.8 PREFERENCE OF RESPONDENTS ON THE All the entries on singe page Entries in page-wise format others ENTRIES PRESENTED IN THE CAUSE LIST 100% 1 All the3 entries on singe page Entries in page-wise2 format others 2 5 5 80% 1 3 2 2 5 6 5 8 10 9

60% 7 7 6 8 10 9

40% 7 7

13 12 11 11 20% 10 10

13 12 11 11 0% 10 10

DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT 79

68

68 Task-3: Find out total number of DAKSHjudgments/orders | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites for a given month or Task-3:day. Find out total number of judgments/orders for a given month or day. 1. Whether respondents could complete the task or not. 1. WHETHER RESPONDENTS COULD COMPLETE THE TASK OR NOT. 3.1 RESPONDENTS COULD COMPLETE THE TASK OR NOT

Yes No Partially Didn’t understand

100% 1 2 3 1 5 4 5 4 80% 3 4 9 5 60% 11

40% 16 16 14 12 11 20% 6

0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

2. 2. TIMETime to TO complete COMPLETE the THEtask. TASK.(Data included(DATA INCLUDED of only those OF ONLYwho were THOSE able WHO to complete WERE the ) ABLEtask fully TO orCOMPLETE partially) THE TASK FULLY OR PARTIALLY

3.2 TIME TO COMPLETE THE TASK

Less than 1 min 1-3 mins More than 3 mins Others

100% 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 80% 3 2 6

60%

6 15 6 40% 10 15

9 20%

3 69 3 2 0% 1 1 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

80 3. Number of clicks to complete the task.

3.3 NUMBER OF CLICKS TO COMPLETE THE TASK

1-5 clicks 6-10 clicks More than 10 clicks Others

1 1 3 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 6

9 13 8 5 8

9 5 4 4 3 1 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

4. Difficulty in finding relevant section for the task.

70 3.2 TIME TO COMPLETE THE TASK

Less than 1 min 1-3 mins More than 3 mins Others

1 1 2 2 2 3

3 2 2 6

6 15 10 15 6

9

3 3 2 1 1 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

3.3. NumberNUMBER of OFclicks CLICKS to complete TO COMPLETE the task. THE TASK.

3.3 NUMBER OF CLICKS TO COMPLETE THE TASK

1-5 clicks 6-10 clicks More than 10 clicks Others

100% 1 1 3 2 2 2 1 80% 2 3 3

60% 6

9 13 40% 8 5 8

20% 9

4 5 3 0% 4 1 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

4. DIFFICULTY IN FINDING RELEVANT SECTION FOR THE TASK.

4. Difficulty in finding3.4 DIFFICULTYrelevant section for IN the FINDING task. RELEVANT SECTION FOR THE TASK

Easy Medium Difficult 70

100% 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 80% 6 7 6 6 60% 8

40% 10

11 9 11 20% 7 4

0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

5. Difficulty in completing the task. 81

3.5 DIFFICULTY IN COMPLETING THE TASK

Easy Medium Difficult

1 1 2 1 2 6 3 9 11 10 5

8

8

8 7 4 5 4

DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

6. Rate the presentation of the judgments/orders.

71 3.4 DIFFICULTY IN FINDING RELEVANT SECTION FOR THE TASK

Easy Medium Difficult

1 1 1 1 2 3 1

6 7 6 8 6

10

11 9 11 7 4

DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH DAKSH | UI/UXCOURT Evaluation of Indian HighPRADESH Court Websites HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

5.5. DifficultyDIFFICULTY in completing IN COMPLETING the task. THE TASK.

3.5 DIFFICULTY IN COMPLETING THE TASK

Easy Medium Difficult

100% 1 1 2 1 2 6 80% 3 9 11 60% 10 5

8 40% 8

20% 8 7 4 5 4

0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT 6. RATE THE PRESENTATION OF THE JUDGMENTS/ORDERS.

6. Rate the presentation 3.6of the PRESENTATION judgments/orders. OF THE JUDGEMENTS/ORDERS 71 Didn’t meet Expectations Met Expectations Exceeded Expectations

100% 2 2 2 1 3 2

80%

60% 13 12 14 13 10 40% 9

20%

3 3 2 3 0% 1 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

82 Task 4: Download latest notification regarding recruitment or careers or exams on the website. 1. Whether respondents could complete the task or not.

72 Task 4: Download latest notification regarding recruitment or careers or exams4.1 RESPONDENTS on the website. COULD COMPLETE THE 1. WHETHER RESPONDENTS COULDTASK COMPLETE OR NOT THE TASK OR NOT.

4.1 RESPONDENTSYes No Partially COULDDidn’t COMPLETE understand THE TASK OR NOT 1 2 1 Yes No Partially Didn’t understand 4

100% 1 2 1 4 80% 22 22 22 21 20 17 60% 22 22 22 21 20 40% 17

20% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT 0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT 2. Time to complete the task. (Data included of only those who were able to complete the 2. taskTIME fully TO orCOMPLETE partially) THE TASK. (DATA INCLUDED OF ONLY THOSE WHO WERE ABLE TO COMPLETE THE TASK FULLY OR PARTIALLY) 2. Time to complete the task. (Data included of only those who were able to complete the task fully or partially)4.2 TIME TO COMPLETE THE TASK

4.2Less TIME than 1 min TO1-3 COMPLETE mins More than 3THE mins TASKOthers

100% 1 1 1 Less than 1 min 1-3 mins More than 3 mins Others 6 5 80% 7 8 1 1 1 10 10 5 60% 6 7 8 5 10 10 40% 14 5 14 14 11 20% 10 8 14 14 14 11 0% 10 8 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH 3. NumberCOURT of clicksPRADESH to complete HIGH theCOURT task. (DataHIGH included COURT of onlyCOURT those who wereCOURT able to COURT complete the task fully or partially) 83 3. Number of clicks to complete the task. (Data included of only those who were able to complete the task fully or partially) 73

73 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

3. NUMBER OF CLICKS TO COMPLETE THE TASK. (DATA INCLUDED OF ONLY THOSE WHO WERE4.3 ABLE NUMBER TO COMPLETE OF THE CLICKS TASK FULLY TO OR COMPLETE PARTIALLY) THE 4.3 NUMBER OF CLICKSTASK TO COMPLETE THE TASK 1-5 clicks 6-10 clicks More than 10 Others

1 1 1-5 clicks 6-101 clicks More than 10 Others 1 4 3 3 4 100% 1 1 1 61 4 3 3 4 80% 6 19 60% 17 18 18 18 11 19 40% 17 18 18 18 11 20% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT 0% COURT DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

4.4. DifficultyDIFFICULTY in finding IN FINDING relevant RELEVANT section for SECTION the task. FOR THE TASK.

4. Difficulty in finding relevant section for the task. 4.4 DIFFICULTY IN FINDING RELEVANT 4.4 DIFFICULTYSECTION IN FOR FINDING THE TASK RELEVANT SECTION FOR THE TASK Easy Medium Difficult

100% 1 2 Easy Medium Difficult2 2 2 6 1 80% 7 2 2 2 2 6 6

60% 7 6

18 20 20 40% 16 13 18 20 20 10 20% 16 13 10

0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT 5. Difficulty in completingCOURT the task. 84

5. Difficulty in completing the task. 74

74 5. DIFFICULTY IN COMPLETING THE TASK. 4.5 DIFFICULTY IN COMPLETING THE TASK 4.5 DIFFICULTYEasy IN COMPLETINGMedium Difficult THE TASK

Easy Medium Difficult1 2 4 100% 6 1 5 2 4 6 5 80%

60% 20 21 20 17 20 16 13 21 20 40% 17 16 13

20%

DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH 0% COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT DELHI HIGH MADHYACOURT BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

6. RATE THE PLACEMENT OF THE RECRUITMENT/CAREER SECTION ON THE 6. RateWEBSITE. the placement of the recruitment/career section on the website. 6. Rate the placement of the recruitment/career section on the website. 4.6 PLACEMENT OF RECRUITMENT/CAREER 4.6 PLACEMENTSECTION OF ON RECRUITMENT/CAREER THE WEBSITE Didn’t meetSECTION Expectations ONMet ExpectationsTHE WEBSITEExceeded Expectations

100% Didn’t meet Expectations Met Expectations Exceeded Expectations 2 5 7 6 80% 2 7 8 5 7 9 7 8 6 60% 9

14 7 40% 11 13 11 14 7 11 13 11 20% 10

10 5 2 2 3 3 0% 5 DELHI HIGH MADHYA2 BOMBAY2 HIGH KARNATAKA3 CALCUTTA3 HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT DELHI HIGH MADHYACOURT BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT 85

75 75 DAKSHTask | UI/UX Evaluation-5: of Indian HighDownload Court Websites latest circular/tender

Task-5:uploaded Download on latest the circular/tender website. uploaded on the website.

1. 1. WhetherWHETHER respondents RESPONDENTS could complete COULD COMPLETE the task or THE not. TASK OR NOT.

5.1 RESPONDENTS COULD COMPLETE THE TASK OR NOT

Yes No Partially Didn’t understand

100% 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 80% 5

60% 21 21 21 21 40% 18 15

20%

0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

2. TIME TO COMPLETE THE TASK. (DATA INCLUDED OF ONLY THOSE WHO WERE ABLE TO COMPLETE THE TASK FULLY OR PARTIALLY) 2. Time to complete the task. (Data included of only those who were able to complete the task fully or partially5.2) TIME TO COMPLETE THE TASK

Less than 1 min 1-3 mins More than 3 mins Others

100% 1 2 4 6 80% 9 12 8

60%

20 8 40% 15 12 10 20% 10 4

0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

3. Number of clicks to complete the task. (Data included of only those who were able to 76 complete the task) 86

5.3 NUMBER OF CLICKS TO COMPLETE THE TASK

1-5 clicks 6-10 clicks More than 10 Others

1 1 1 1 4 7 5 5

20 20 17 15 14 10

DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

77 5.2 TIME TO COMPLETE THE TASK 5.2 TIME TO COMPLETE THE TASK Less than 1 min 1-3 mins More than 3 mins Others

Less than 1 min 1-3 mins More than 3 mins Others 1 2 4 1 6 2 9 4 12 6 8 9 12 8 20 8

20 15 8 12 10 10 15 12 4 10 10 4 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT DELHI HIGH MADHYACOURT BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT 3. Number of clicks to complete the task. (Data included of only those who were able to 3. Numbercomplete of clicks the task) to complete the task. (Data included of only those who were able to

3.complete NUMBER the OF task) CLICKS TO COMPLETE THE TASK. (DATA INCLUDED OF ONLY THOSE WHO WERE5.3 ABLE NUMBER TO COMPLETE OF THE CLICKS TASK) TO COMPLETE THE 5.3 NUMBER OF CLICKSTASK TO COMPLETE THE TASK 1-5 clicks 6-10 clicks More than 10 Others

100% 11-5 clicks 6-10 clicks More than1 10 Others 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 7 5 80% 4 5 7 5 5 60%

20 20 40% 17 15 20 20 14 17 10 15 14 20% 10

0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT DELHI HIGH MADHYACOURT BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH 4. DIFFICULTYCOURT PRADESH IN FINDING HIGH RELEVANTCOURT SECTIONHIGH FOR COURT THE TASK.COURT COURT 4. Difficulty in findingCOURT relevant section for the task. 77 5.4 DIFFICULTY IN FINDING RELEVANT 77 SECTION FOR THE TASK

Easy Medium Difficult

100% 1 2 3 3 2 3 6 80% 5 5 5

60%

40% 17 18 15 15 12 9 20%

0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

5. Difficulty in completing the task. 87

5.5 DIFFICULTY IN COMPLETING THE TASK

Easy Medium Difficult

2 2 3 2 2 5 4 4

19 19 18 17 14 10

DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

6. Rate the placement of the circulars/tenders section on the website.

78 4. Difficulty in finding relevant section for the task.

5.4 DIFFICULTY IN FINDING RELEVANT SECTION FOR THE TASK

Easy Medium Difficult

2 1 3 3 2 3 6 5 5 5

17 18 15 15 12 9

DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

5. Difficulty in completing the task. 5. DIFFICULTY IN COMPLETING THE TASK. 5.5 DIFFICULTY IN COMPLETING THE TASK

Easy Medium Difficult

100% 2 2 3 2 2 5

80% 4 4

60%

19 19 18 40% 17 14 10

20%

0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT 6. RATE THE PLACEMENT OF THE CIRCULARS/TENDERS SECTION ON THE WEBSITE.

6. Rate the 5.6placement PLACEMENT of the circulars/tenders OF THE section CIRCULARS/TENDERS on the website. SECTION ON THE WEBSITE 78 Didn’t meet Expectations Met Expectations Exceeded Expectations

100% 3 3 3 4 5 7 80%

60% 12 11 7 11

14 40% 11

20% 6 7 6 6 3 2 0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

88 Task-6: Count the total number of judges of high court. 1. Whether respondents could complete the task or not.

6.1 RESPONDENTS COULD COMPLETE THE TASK OR NOT

Yes No Partially Didn’t understand

2 1 1 1 1

22 22 20 20 21 21

DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

79 5.6 PLACEMENT OF THE CIRCULARS/TENDERS SECTION ON THE WEBSITE

Didn’t meet Expectations Met Expectations Exceeded Expectations

3 3 3 4 5 7

12 11 7 11

11 14

6 7 6 6 3 2

DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

Task-6: Count the total number of judges

Task-6:of high Count court. the total number of judges of high court.

1.1. WheWHETHERther respondents RESPONDENTS could complete COULD COMPLETE the task or THE not. TASK OR NOT.

6.1 RESPONDENTS COULD COMPLETE THE TASK OR NOT

Yes No Partially Didn’t understand

100% 2 1 1 1 1

80%

60% 22 22 20 20 21 21 40%

20%

0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT 2. Time to complete the task. (Data included of only those who were able to complete the 2. TIME TO COMPLETE THE TASK. (DATA INCLUDED OF ONLY THOSE WHO WERE task fully or partially) ABLE TO COMPLETE THE TASK FULLY OR PARTIALLY) 79

6.2 TIME TO COMPLETE THE TASK

Less than 1 min 1-3 mins More than 3 mins Others

100% 1 1 2 4 4 4 5

80%

11 11 60% 7 11 12

40% 18

20% 10 8 9 7 6

0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

3. No. of clicks to complete the task. (Data89 included of only those who were able to complete the task fully or partially)

6.3 NUMBER OF CLICKS TO COMPLETE THE TASK

1-5 clicks 6-10 clicks More than 10 Others

1 1 1 3 1 3 1

5

22 21 19 19 20 14

DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

80 2. Time to complete the task. (Data included of only those who were able to complete the task fully or partially)

6.2 TIME TO COMPLETE THE TASK

Less than 1 min 1-3 mins More than 3 mins Others

1 1 2 4 4 4 5

11 11 7 11 12

18

10 8 9 7 6

DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

3. No. of clicks to complete the task. (Data included of only those who were able to complete 3. NO. OF CLICKS TO COMPLETE THE TASK. (DATA INCLUDED OF ONLY THOSE WHO the task fully or partially) WERE ABLE TO COMPLETE THE TASK FULLY OR PARTIALLY)

6.3 NUMBER OF CLICKS TO COMPLETE THE TASK

1-5 clicks 6-10 clicks More than 10 Others

100% 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 80% 5

60%

22 21 40% 19 19 20 14 20%

0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

4.4. DifficultyDIFFICULTY in finding IN FINDING relevant RELEVANT section for SECTION the task. FOR THE TASK.

6.4 DIFFICULTY IN FINDING RELEVANT 80 SECTION FOR THE TASK

Easy Medium Difficult

100% 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 80% 7

60%

20 21 22 40% 18 16 14

20%

0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

90

5. Difficulty in completing the task.

6.5 DIFFICULTY IN COMPLETING THE TASK

Easy Medium Difficult

1 1 1 2 2 6 5 9 8

21 20 15 15 12 13

DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

81 4. Difficulty in finding relevant section for the task.

6.4 DIFFICULTY IN FINDING RELEVANT SECTION FOR THE TASK

Easy Medium Difficult

1 1 1 1 1 3 5 7

20 21 22 18 16 14

DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

5.5. DifficultyDIFFICULTY in completing IN COMPLETING the task. THE TASK.

6.5 DIFFICULTY IN COMPLETING THE TASK

Easy Medium Difficult

100% 1 1 1 2 2 6 80% 5 9 8

60%

21 20 40% 15 15 12 13 20%

0%

TaskDELHI HIGH-7: RetrieveMADHYA BOMBAY information HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA of HIGHRTI MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT officer(s).COURT Task-7:1. Whether Retrieve respondents information could complete of RTI the officer(s).task or not. 81 1. WHETHER RESPONDENTS COULD COMPLETE THE TASK OR NOT. 7.1 RESPONDENTS COULD COMPLETE THE TASK OR NOT

Yes No Partially Didn’t understand

2 1 2 3 3 4 1

100% 7 6 6 10 80%

18 19 60% 14 12 13 40% 9

20% 1 1 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH 0% COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

2. Time to complete the task. (Data included of only those who were able to complete the task fully or partially) 91

82 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites 7.2 TIME TO COMPLETE THE TASK 2. TIME TO COMPLETE THE TASK. (DATA INCLUDED OF ONLY THOSE WHO WERE ABLE TO COMPLETE THE TASK FULLY OR PARTIALLY) 7.2Less TIME than 1 min TO1-3 COMPLETE mins More than 3THE mins TASKOthers

1 1 1 1 Less than 1 min 1-3 mins More2 than 3 mins Others 3 5 2 1 100% 1 1 1 17 2 36 80% 5 8 2 1 1 7 60% 7 6 8 1 7 6 40% 4 1 7 0 1 7 20% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS6 HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT 1 4 COURT 0% 0 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT 3. Number of clicks to complete the task. (Data included of only those who were able to 3. NUMBER OF CLICKS TO COMPLETE THE TASK. (DATA INCLUDED OF ONLY THOSE completeWHO WERE the ABLE task fullyTO COMPLETE or partially THE) TASK FULLY OR PARTIALLY) 3. Number of clicks to complete the task. (Data included of only those who were able to complete the7.3 task NUMBER fully or partially OF) CLICKS TO COMPLETE THE TASK 7.3 NUMBER OF CLICKS TO COMPLETE THE 1-5 clicks 6-10 clicksTASKMore than 10 Others

100% 1 1 1 2 1 2 80% 1-5 clicks 6-10 clicks More than 10 Others 5 5 1 2 1 1 1 60% 52 3 1 2 5 1 2 40% 5 11 5 3 9 9 1 20% 5 1 0% 11 9 9 1 DELHI5 HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT1

DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH 4. DifficultyCOURT in findingPRADESH relevant HIGH sectionCOURT for the task.HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT 92

83 4. Difficulty in finding relevant section for the task.

83 4. DIFFICULTY IN FINDING RELEVANT SECTION FOR THE TASK. 7.4 DIFFICULTY IN FINDING RELEVANT SECTION FOR THE TASK

Easy Medium Difficult Easy Medium Difficult

100% 1 1 2 3 2 3 5 80% 5 2 1 4 2 7 1 4 7 60%

13 40% 5 1 13 5 1 10 10 7 1 1 20% 7 1 2 1 2 0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH DELHICOURT HIGH PRADESHMADHYA HIGH BOMBAYCOURT HIGH HIGHKARNATAKA COURT CALCUTTACOURT HIGH MADRASCOURT HIGH COURT PRADESHCOURT HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT 5. DIFFICULTY IN COMPLETING THE TASK. 5. Difficulty in completing the task. 5. Difficulty in completing the task.

7.5 DIFFICULTY IN COMPLETING THE TASK

Easy Medium Difficult Easy Medium Difficult 100% 2 2 2 3 2 3 80% 3 2 3 1 7 2 1 5 7 5 60% 6 6

40% 11 11 9 20% 4 2 1 9 4 2 6 1 6

0% 1 1 DELHI HIGH M A D H Y A BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH DELHICOURT HIGH P R AM D A E D S H YH A I G H BOMBAYCOURT HIGH HIGHKARNATAKA COURT CALCUTTACOURT HIGH MADRASCOURT HIGH COURT P R A DC OE SU H R TH I G H COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT C O U R T

93

83 83 Task-8: Downloading court calendar of DAKSHthe | UI/UX Evaluationcurrent of Indian High Court Websites year. Task-8:1. Whether Downloading respondents could court complete calendar the task of orthe not. current year. 1. WHETHER RESPONDENTS COULD COMPLETE THE TASK OR NOT. 8.1 RESPONDENTS COULD COMPLETE THE TASK OR NOT

Yes No Partially Didn’t understand

100% 1 1 1 1 2 1 3

80% 6

60% 22 21 21 20 40% 19

13 20%

0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

2. 2. TimeTIME to TO complete COMPLETE the THE task. TASK. (Data (DATA included INCLUDED of only OF those ONLY who THOSE were WHO able WEREto complete the ABLE TO COMPLETE THE TASK FULLY OR PARTIALLY) task fully or partially) 8.2 TIME TO COMPLETE THE TASK

Less than 1 min 1-3 mins More than 3 mins Others

100% 1 1 1 3 2 1 6 80% 8 6 7

60%

20 40% 18 14 12 13 8 20%

0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

84

94 3. Number of clicks to complete the task. (Data included of only those who were able to complete the task fully or partially)

8.3 NUMBER OF CLICKS TO COMPLETE THE TASK

1-5 clicks 6-10 clicks More than 10 Others

1 1 3 2 2 3 3

22 18 18 18 17 13

DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

4. Difficulty in finding relevant section for the task.

85 3. NUMBER OF CLICKS TO COMPLETE THE TASK. (DATA INCLUDED OF ONLY THOSE WHO WERE ABLE TO COMPLETE THE TASK FULLY OR PARTIALLY) 8.2 TIME TO COMPLETE THE TASK

Less than 1 min 1-3 mins More than 3 mins Others

100% 1 1 1 3 2 1 6 80% 8 6 7

60%

20 40% 18 14 12 13 8 20%

0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

4. DIFFICULTY IN FINDING RELEVANT SECTION FOR THE TASK.

3. Number of clicks8.4 toDIFFICULTY complete the task. IN (Data FINDING included ofRELEVANT only those who were able to complete the task fully orSECTION partially) FOR THE TASK

8.3 NUMBER OFEasy CLICKSMedium TODifficult COMPLETE THE

100% TASK 2 2 1 3 3 2

1 1 80% 1-5 clicks 6-105 clicks More than 10 Others

1 1 3 2 60% 2 3 3

21 19 18 40% 16 13 14 22 18 20% 18 18 17 13

0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT DELHI HIGH MADHYACOURT BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT 95 COURT

4.5. Difficulty in findingcompleting relevant the task.section for the task.

8.5 DIFFICULTY IN COMPLETING THE TASK 85

Easy Medium Difficult

1 1 1 2 1 3 4 4 6

20 21 17 12 14 14

DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

86 8.4 DIFFICULTY IN FINDING RELEVANT SECTION FOR THE TASK

Easy Medium Difficult

2 2 1 3 3 2

1 1 5

21 19 18 16 13 14

DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

5. Difficulty in completing the task. 5. DIFFICULTY IN COMPLETING THE TASK. 8.5 DIFFICULTY IN COMPLETING THE TASK

Easy Medium Difficult

100% 1 1 1 2 1 3 4 80% 4 6

60%

20 21 40% 17 12 14 14

20%

0%Task-9: Get the contact information of DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT the court:COURT Telephone No, Email id, Task-9: Get the contact information of the court: Telephone No, Emailaddress. id, address.

1. 1. WhetherWHETHER respondents RESPONDENTS could complete COULD COMPLETE the task or THE not. TASK OR NOT. 86

9.1 COMPLETION OF THE TASK

Yes No Partially Didn’t understand

100% 2 1 3 2 1 6 1 80%

13 2

60%

22 20 40% 18 18 14 7 20%

2 0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

2. Time to complete the task. (Data included96 of only those who were able to complete the task fully or partially)

87 2. TIME TO COMPLETE THE TASK. (DATA INCLUDED OF ONLY THOSE WHO WERE ABLE TO COMPLETE9.2 THE TIME TASK TOFULLY COMPLETE OR PARTIALLY) THE TASK 9.2 TIME TO COMPLETE THE TASK

Less than 1 min 1-3 mins More than 3 mins Others Less than 1 min 1-3 mins More than 3 mins Others 1 1 1 2 2 4 1 100% 1 1 5 2 5 2 9 4 5 80% 5 9

60% 3 18 20 3 18 14 18 20 40% 11 18 14 6 11 20% 6

0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT DELHI HIGH MADHYACOURT BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT 3. Number of clicks to complete the task. (Data included of only those who were able to 3. NUMBER OF CLICKS TO COMPLETE THE TASK. (DATA INCLUDED OF ONLY THOSE 3. NumbercompleteWHO WERE of the clicks ABLE task to fullyTO complete COMPLETE or partially the THE) task. TASK (Data FULLY included OR PARTIALLY of only those) who were able to complete the task fully or partially) 9.3 NUMBER OF CLICKS TO COMPLETE THE 9.3 NUMBER OF CLICKSTASK TO COMPLETE THE TASK

1-5 clicks 6-10 clicks More than 10 Others 1-5 clicks 6-10 clicks More than 10 Others 100% 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 80% 4 4 4

60% 3 22 22 3 20 18 40% 22 16 22 20 18 16 20% 7 7

0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT DELHI HIGH MADHYACOURT BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

97

4. Difficulty in finding relevant section for the task. 4. Difficulty in finding relevant section for the task. 88 88 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

4. DIFFICULTY9.4 IN FINDING DIFFICULTY RELEVANT INSECTION FINDING FOR THE RELEVANTTASK. SECTION FOR THE TASK 9.4 DIFFICULTY IN FINDING RELEVANT SECTION FOR THE TASK Easy Medium Difficult

1 1 3 Easy Medium Difficult2 3 2 4 100% 1 1 3 2 3 2 4

80% 7

20 21 60% 18 7 17 16

20 21 18 17 40% 16 5

20% 5 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT 0% COURT DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT 5. Difficulty in completingCOURT the task. 5. DIFFICULTY IN COMPLETING THE TASK. 5. Difficulty in completing the task. 9.5 DIFFICULTY IN COMPLETING THE TASK 9.5 DIFFICULTYEasy IN COMPLETINGMedium Difficult THE TASK 100% 1 1 2 Easy Medium Difficult2 2 1 1 1 5 2 2 2 80% 1

5

60%

21 20 7 19 18 18 40% 21 7 19 18 20 18

20%

3

0% DELHI3 HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT 98

89

89 Task-10: Download latest general notices uploaded on the website. Task-10:1. Whether Download respondents latest could complete general the notices task or not. uploaded on the website. 1. WHETHER RESPONDENTS COULD COMPLETE THE TASK OR NOT. 10.1 COMPLETION OF THE TASK

Yes No Partially Didn’t understand

100% 1 1 3 1 2 3

80% 3

60%

22 21 19 20 20 40% 16

20%

0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

2. TIME TO COMPLETE THE TASK. (DATA INCLUDED OF ONLY THOSE WHO WERE 2. Time to complete the task. (Data included of only those who were able to complete the ABLE TO COMPLETE THE TASK FULLY OR PARTIALLY) task fully or partially) 10.2 TIME TO COMPLETE THE TASK

Less than 1 min 1-3 mins More than 3 mins Others

100% 1 1 2 4 6 4 80% 8 3 10

60% 5

40% 17 16 14 13 11 20% 9

0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT 90 3. Number of clicks to complete the task. (Data included of only those who were able to 99 complete the task fully or partially)

10.3 NUMBER OF CLICKS TO COMPLETE THE TASK

1-5 clicks 6-10 clicks More than 10 Others

1 1 1 3 2 2 5 5

21 18 18 19 16 12

DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

4. Difficulty in finding relevant section for the task.

91 10.2 TIME TO COMPLETE THE TASK

Less than 1 min 1-3 mins More than 3 mins Others

1 1 2 4 6 4 8 3 10

5

17 16 14 13 11 9

DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

3. Number of clicks to complete the task. (Data included of only those who were able to 3. completeNUMBER OFthe CLICKS task fully TO or COMPLETE partially) THE TASK. (DATA INCLUDED OF ONLY THOSE WHO WERE ABLE TO COMPLETE THE TASK FULLY OR PARTIALLY) 10.3 NUMBER OF CLICKS TO COMPLETE THE TASK

1-5 clicks 6-10 clicks More than 10 Others

100% 1 1 1 3 2 2 5 80% 5

60%

21 18 19 40% 18 16 12 20%

0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

4. DIFFICULTY IN FINDING RELEVANT SECTION FOR THE TASK.

4. Difficulty in 10.4finding relevantDIFFICULTY section for IN the FINDING task. RELEVANT SECTION FOR THE TASK

Easy Medium Difficult 91 100% 2 2 1 4 3 3 1 80% 7 6 60%

19 18 40% 18 16 14 10 20%

0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

5. Difficulty in completing the task. 100 10.5 DIFFICULTY IN COMPLETING THE TASK

Easy Medium Difficult

1 3 2 2 2 2

7 7

19 17 19 19

14 10

DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

92 5. DIFFICULTY IN COMPLETING THE TASK. 10.4 DIFFICULTY IN FINDING RELEVANT SECTION FOR THE TASK

Easy Medium Difficult

100% 2 2 1 4 3 3 1 80% 7 6 60%

19 40% 18 16 18 14 10 20%

0% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT Overall experienceCOURT on tasks-based Overallusability experience test on tasks-based usability test 5. Difficulty in completing the task. NAVIGATION EFFICIENCY Navigation efficiency

RESPONDENTS10.5 DIFFICULTY ON IN NAVIGATION COMPLETING EFFICIENCY THE TASK

Exceeded Expectations EasyMet MediumExpectationsDifficultDidn’t meet Expectations

1 100% 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 5 4 7 8 80% 7

60% 13 14 19 17 19 1519 14 15 40% 14 1110

20% 6 6 DELHI3 HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA3 CALCUTTA4 HIGH MADRAS3 HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT 0% COURT DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

101 Rate the website in terms of successfully finding required information

92

93 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

RESPONDENTS ON SUCCESSFULLY FINDING RATE THE WEBSITE IN TERMS OF SUCCESSFULLY FINDING REQUIRED INFORMATION REQUIRED INFORMATION ON THE WEBSITE RESPONDENTSExceeded Expectations ONMet SUCCESSFULLY Expectations Didn’t meet FINDING Expectations

REQUIRED INFORMATION 2ON THE WEBSITE 4 7 Exceeded6 Expectations 6 Met Expectations Didn’t meet Expectations

100% 12 2 4 7 6 6 80% 16 10 11 17 12 60% 14 16 8 10 11 40% 6 17 14 5 4 2 1 1 8 20% DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT 6 5 COURT 4 0% 1 1 2 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT Rate the websites in terms of error recognition and rectification RATE THE WEBSITES IN TERMS OF ERROR RECOGNITION AND RECTIFICATION RESPONDENTS ON ERROR RECOGNITION AND Rate the websites in terms of error recognition and rectification RECTIFICATION METHODS PROVIDED ON THE RESPONDENTS ON WEBSITEERROR RECOGNITION AND RECTIFICATIONExceeded Expectations METHODSMet Expectations PROVIDEDDidn’t meet Expectations ON THE 100% WEBSITE 2 5 4 80% Exceeded7 Expectations Met Expectations Didn’t meet Expectations 9 11 2 60% 5 4 7 9 11 18 40% 15 15 13 11 20% 10 18 15 15 13 0% 11 2 2 2 3 2 101 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT 3 1 2 2 2 2 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH DocumentationCOURT HIGH provided COURT COURT COURT COURT 102

Documentation provided 94

94 DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED RESPONDENTS ON DOCUMENTATION RESPONDENTS ON DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED ON THE WEBSITE PROVIDED ON THE WEBSITE Exceeded Expectations Met Expectations Didn’t meet Expectations Exceeded Expectations Met Expectations Didn’t meet Expectations

100% 5 7 5 8 8 9 8 7 8 10 80% 9 10

60%

15 10 14 15 40% 10 11 14 14 10 14 11 10

20% 4 1 2 4 2 2 0 2 2 2 0% DELHI0 HIGH MADHYA1 BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH DELHICOURT HIGH PRADESHMADHYA HIGH BOMBAYCOURT HIGH HIGHKARNATAKA COURT CALCUTTACOURT HIGH MADRASCOURT HIGH COURT PRADESHCOURT HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

OVERALL, EASE/DIFFICULTY IN FINDING RELEVANT SECTION FOR THE TASKS

Overall, ease/difficulty in finding relevant section for the tasks Overall, ease/difficulty in finding relevant section for the tasks OVERALL, DIFFICULTY IN FINDING RELEVANT OVERALL, DIFFICULTY IN FINDING RELEVANT SECTIONS FOR THE TASKS SECTIONS FOR THE TASKS Exceeded Expectations Met Expectations Didn’t meet Expectations Exceeded Expectations Met Expectations Didn’t meet Expectations 100% 3 3 3 4 6 3 3 3 4 80% 6 9 9

60%

16 15 15 14 16 15 15 14 40% 16 11 16 11 20%

4 4 4 3 2 0% 4 4 4 0 3 2 DELHI0 HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH DELHICOURT HIGH PRADESHMADHYA HIGH BOMBAYCOURT HIGH HIGHKARNATAKA COURT CALCUTTACOURT HIGH MADRASCOURT HIGH COURT PRADESHCOURT HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

Overall, ease/difficulty103 in completing the tasks Overall, ease/difficulty in completing the tasks

95 95

DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

OVERALL, EASE/DIFFICULTY IN COMPLETING THE TASKS OVERALL, DIFFICULTY IN COMPLETING THE OVERALL, DIFFICULTYTASKS IN COMPLETING THE Didn’t meet Expectations TASKSMet Expectations Exceeded Expectations

1 Didn’t meet Expectations Met Expectations Exceeded Expectations2 3 3 4

100% 1 2 3 3 4

80% 16 18 15 17 16 15 16 60% 18 15 17 16 15 40%

6 20% 3 4 3 3 3 6 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH 3 4 3 3 3 0% COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

OVERALL EXPERIENCE PERFORMING TASKS Overall experience performing tasks

Overall experience performing tasks OVERALL EXPERIENCE WHILE PERFORMING OVERALL EXPERIENCETHE TASKS WHILE PERFORMING Didn’t meet Expectations THEMet TASKSExpectations Exceeded Expectations 100% 1 Didn’t meet Expectations Met Expectations Exceeded Expectations2 3 3 4 80% 1 2 3 3 4

60% 16 18 15 16 17 40% 15 16 18 15 17 16 15 20%

6 0% 3 4 3 3 3 6 DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH 3 4 3 3 3 COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT DELHI HIGH MADHYA BOMBAY HIGH KARNATAKA CALCUTTA HIGH MADRAS HIGH COURT PRADESH HIGH COURT HIGH COURT COURT COURT COURT

104

96

96 CLUSTER 1: CASE-DATA RETRIEVAL SYSTEM OF THE COURT CLUSTER 1: CASE-DATA RETRIEVAL SYSTEM OF THE COURT Delhi High Court Madhya Pradesh High Court Bombay High Court Karnataka High Court Calcutta High Court Madras High Court Delhi High Court Madhya Pradesh High Court Bombay High Court 19 19 19

Karnataka High Court Calcutta High Court 18 Madras High18 Court 18 17 17 16 16 19 19 19 15 18 18 18 14 17 17 16 16 12 12 15 11 14 10 12 12 11 7 10 LEAST PARTIALLY (OUT 22) OF (OUT PARTIALLY LEAST 6 7 LEAST PARTIALLY (OUT 22) OF (OUT PARTIALLY LEAST 6 NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WHO COMPLETED THE TASK AT AT TASK THE COMPLETED WHO RESPONDENTS OF NUMBER

CASE INFORMATION CAUSE LIST JUDGEMENTS/ORDERS NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WHO COMPLETED THE TASK AT AT TASK THE COMPLETED WHO RESPONDENTS OF NUMBER

CASE INFORMATION CAUSE LIST JUDGEMENTS/ORDERS

CLUSTER 2: COURT CONTACT INFORMATION AND RTI RELATED QUERIES CLUSTER 2: COURT CONTACT INFORMATION AND RTI RELATED QUERIES Delhi High Court Madhya Pradesh High Court Bombay High Court Karnataka High Court Calcutta High Court Madras High Court Delhi High Court Madhya Pradesh High Court Bombay High Court 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 21 21 21 21 Karnataka High Court Calcutta High Court Madras High Court 21 20 20 20 16 16 16 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 15 15 21 21 21 21 21 20 20 20 12 16 16 16 15 15 12 TASK AT LEAST PARTIALLY (OUT OF (OUT 22) PARTIALLY LEAST AT TASK 4 2 NUMBER OF RESPONDETNS WHO COMPLETED THE THE COMPLETED WHO RESPONDETNS OF NUMBER TASK AT LEAST PARTIALLY (OUT OF (OUT 22) PARTIALLY LEAST AT TASK 4

NUMBER OF JUDGES RTI OFFICER2 COURT CALENDER COURT CONTACT INFORMATION INFORMATION NUMBER OF RESPONDETNS WHO COMPLETED THE THE COMPLETED WHO RESPONDETNS OF NUMBER

NUMBER OF JUDGES RTI OFFICER COURT CALENDER COURT CONTACT INFORMATION INFORMATION 97 105 97 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites CLUSTER 3: COURT NOTICES/NOTIFICATIONS/CIRCULARS

Delhi High Court Madhya Pradesh High Court Bombay High Court Karnataka High Court Calcutta High Court Madras High Court 22 22 22 22 22 22 21 21 21 21 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 16 TASK AT LEAST PARTIALLY OF 22) (OUT PARTIALLY LEAST AT TASK NUMBER OF RESPONDETNS WHO COMPLETED THE THE COMPLETED WHO RESPONDETNS OF NUMBER

RECRUITMENT NOTIFICATIONS CIRCULARS/TENDERS GENERAL NOTICES

106 98 A.3. Heuristic evaluation Note on scoring pattern in each table: In every table, 1 score is given for ‘Yes’ and 0 for ‘No’. For some questions scoring is done on 1-3 or 1-5 scale, 1 for being the worst and 3 or 5 for being the best. Also, normalised score out of 1 is given for scale-based questions. Principle 1: Visibility of system status (Usability heuristic)

COMPARISON TABLE 1 - Delhi, 2 - Madhya Pradesh, 3 - Bombay, 4 - Karnataka, 5 - Calcutta, 6 - Madras

No Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Is a site map given on the home page of the Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes website? 2. Does the calendar state on and off days of court? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 3. Are there any indicators for navigation? E.g., Yes Yes Yes Yes No No sections and sub-sections are displayed. 4. Are there any indicators to differentiate clickable Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes content from non-clickable? 5. Are there any indicators for more records than Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes currently visible? E.g., ‘more’ or ‘archive’ button? 6. Are the any indicators to differentiate latest Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes uploaded file? E.g., ‘new’ or ‘latest’ symbol against new entry. 7. Is ‘view/download/print’ symbol provided for files? Yes No No No No Yes 8. Are entries in A. 1 to N format on single page or B. B A A A A A page-wise entries. (Answer- A-1 or B-0) 9. Are total number entries in a particular section No No No No No No stated on the top? 10. Is there any information regarding e-case filing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes provided on the website? 11. In the e-case filing and recruitment sections, are Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes ‘login’ or ‘new registration’ options indicated? 12. In the case status section, is a drop-down menu or Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes auto-filling system provided while selecting case type or case year? 13. In the case status section, are there any indicators Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes to show no data? E.g., ‘No case found’ or ‘No data available’ 14. In the case status section, are there any indicators Yes Yes Yes Yes No No to show status of the case (pending/disposed off) without going into details of case summary? 15. In the case status section, are month-wise or year- No No No No No No wise summaries of number of registered, pending and disposed cases provided? 16. In judges/lawyers’ section, is tenure/time period of Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes different judges/lawyers given? 17. Are there any indicators shown while website is No No No No No No loading? Indicators must give clear feedback on status of loading. Looped or percent done indicator. 18. Is the administrative set up of high court given? No Yes No No No No Total score out of 18 (Yes-1, No-0) 13 14 13 13 9 11

107 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

Principle 2: Match between system and the real world

COMPARISON TABLE 1 - Delhi, 2 - Madhya Pradesh, 3 - Bombay, 4 - Karnataka, 5 - Calcutta, 6 - Madras

No Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Is there a provision for language change? No Yes No No Yes No 2. Is the website available in both Hindi and English No Yes No No Yes No languages? 3. Is the website available in the local state language? No Yes No No Yes No Delhi-Hindi, Madhya Pradesh- Hindi, Bombay- Marathi, Karnataka- Kannada, Calcutta- Bengali, Madras- Tamil. 4. Is there a provision for zoom in and zoom out? ‘+’ Yes No No Yes Yes Yes sign for zoom in and ‘-’ sign for zoom out should be present. 5. Are clickable explainers provided against technical No No No No No No words? Words such as roster, cause list, IA status, mediation, caveat, ILR, difference between registration date and filing date, etc. 6. Are benefits of using e-court over offline court Yes Yes No No No Yes given on the website? 7. Is the procedure for use of e-court explained via Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes video or text file? 8. Is contact information including address provided Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes at the bottom of the webpage? 9. Are menu bars (top, right and left) provided? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 10. Does PDF content on the website open up in A. A A A A A B new tab or B. same tab? (score: A-1, B-0) 11. In the case status, is the status of the case written Yes No No No No No in this specific colour format: ‘Green: pending’, ‘red: disposed off’ and ‘green/yellow/blue: fresh registered case’? 12. Are holidays in calendar shown is red colour? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 13. Are real photos of high courts provided on the front Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes page of website? 14. Is the language used on the website being 3 3 3 3 3 3 understood by laymen? (give score from 1-3) Normalised score out of 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15. Does the website feel like a high court website in 5 5 4 4 4 5 general? (give score from 1-5) Normalised score out of 1 1 1 0.75 0.75 0.75 1 Total score (out of 21) (Yes-1, No-0) 17 18 13 14 16 15 Total score (out of 15) 11 12 7.75 8.75 10.75 9

108 Principle 3: User control and freedom.

COMPARISON TABLE 1 - Delhi, 2 - Madhya Pradesh, 3 - Bombay, 4 - Karnataka, 5 - Calcutta, 6 - Madras

No Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Are back, next and refresh buttons is provided? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2. Are previous/next buttons or scroll down menus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes provided? 3. Does the PDF open up in new tab? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 4. Do important links (NJDG, Supreme Court of India, Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes e-court, etc.) provided on the website open in new tab? 5. Is there a way to cancel the registration process in Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes between on the login window? 6. Are there options to download or view or print 2 2 2 2 2 2 a file? (give score 1-3 based on which all are available) Normalised score out of 1 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 7. In case retrieval functionality, is there an option to 1 1 3 1 1 1 search cases year-wise, month-wise and day-wise? (give score 1-3 based on how many options are available) Normalised score out of 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 8. In case retrieval functionality, are there many ways 4 5 4 3 5 5 to search for a case? E.g., search by party name, crime no., case types, case acts, FIR number. (give score from 1-5) Normalised score out of 1 0.75 1 0.75 0.50 1 1 9. Does the back button lead the user to the previous 3 3 3 3 3 3 page? (Give score from 1-3) Normalised score out of 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Total score (out of 19) (Yes-1, No-0) 15 16 17 14 16 16 Total score (out of 9) 7. 25 7.5 8.25 7 7.5 7.5

Principle 4: Consistency and standards

COMPARISON TABLE 1 - Delhi, 2 - Madhya Pradesh, 3 - Bombay, 4 - Karnataka, 5 - Calcutta, 6 - Madras No Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Is the website layout same in mobile and desktop? No No Yes Yes No No 2. Is all the information provided on desktop version also Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes present on mobile version? 3. Does the website connect the user with other important Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes website links? 4. Does the website have a top menu and left and right Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes bars?

109 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

No Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. Is the contact information and copyright information Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes provided at the bottom of the website? 6. Are the announcements such as circulars/notifications/ Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes tenders provided on the right-side bar? 7. Is the general information (court history, judges, annual No Yes No Yes No Yes court report, rules, calendar, etc.) provided on the left- side bar? 8. Is the case data retrieval functionality provided on the top No Yes No Yes Yes No menu? 9. Is case data in the system updated regularly and on time? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 10. Are photographs of the court provided in the middle of Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes the front page? 11. Are design, colour and font size of the interconnected Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes webpages similar? 12. In case data retrieval, is CAPTCHA provided? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 13. Does the website offer the following core functionalities? 6 6 6 6 6 6 i) case data retrieval, (ii) general information (e.g., history, photographs), iii) notifications and circulars (e.g., roster changes), iv) court business (e.g., recruitment, tenders), and v) e-court vi) use of website for public notices (give score from 1-6) Normalised score out of 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14. Does the website offer i) case status ii) cause list iii) 3 4 4 3 3 3 judgments/orders iv) caveat information? (give score from 1-4) Normalised score out of 1 0.66 1 1 0.66 0.66 0.66 15. Are all the other important links provided? (E.g., NJDG, 5 2 5 5 3 4 supreme court of India, district court, Indian court, other high courts, e-courts, and other court related links)(give score from 1-5) Normalised score out of 1 1 0.25 1 1 0.50 0.75 16. In case data retrieval, is there a ‘standard’ maintained for 4 4 5 2 4 4 CAPTCHA? CAPTCHA should not impede the speed of operation and must provide security against malicious attack. (rate CAPTCHA from 1-5). Standards for score 5 includes CAPTCHA of combination of 0-9, A-Z with 5-6 letters. Normalised score out of 1 0.75 0.75 1 0.25 0.75 0.75 17. Does the case summary include all information the user 5.5 6 6 5 6 6 may want: viz., case number, case status, filing date, registration date, litigants, advocates, hearing dates, filing dates, hearing details, filing details, judge(s), next hearing date, etc. (give score from 1-6) (6 means all points above are included, 0.5 point for each point) Normalised score out of 1 0.9 1 1 0.80 1 1 18. How is the standard of the cause list provided? Does it 3 2 4 4 4 4 include all information the user might want: viz., case number, litigants, advocates, date, court number, name of judge(s), bench of HC, VC or physical hearing, fresh and supplementary matters separated, and stage of case. (give score from 1-5) (5 means all points above are included, 0.5 point for each point) Normalised score out of 1 0.50 0.25 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75

110 No Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 19. How is the display of the judgments/orders provided? 5 4 5 5 5 5 Does it include all information the user might want: viz., Date of order, upload date, view/download file, number of pages, and name of judge(s)/ Coram. (give score from 1-5) (5 means all points above are included, 1 point for each point) Normalised score out of 1 1 0.75 1 1 1 1 20. How do you rate the internal consistency and design 4 4 4 4 3 3 standard of the website? (give score: Very Bad-1, Bad-2, Good-3, Very Good-4, and Excellent-5) Normalised score out of 1 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.50 0.50 Total score (out of 53) (Yes-1, No-0) 43.5 42 49 45 43 45 Total score (out of 20) 15.56 15.75 17.5 17. 21 15.16 16.41

111 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

Principle 5: Error prevention

COMPARISON TABLE 1 - Delhi, 2 - Madhya Pradesh, 3 - Bombay, 4 - Karnataka, 5 - Calcutta, 6 - Madras

No Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. *Are suggestions provided through auto-fill while No No No No No No searching for anything on the website? 2. In case retrieval, are users restricted to selecting date/ Yes Yes Yes No No No year only up to present date/year? 3. In login window, when incorrect credentials are entered, No No No No Yes No is it clearly shown which one out of username and password is wrong? 4. In login window, is an alert provided when user tries to Yes No Yes No No No login without registration? 5. Is format of CNR No., diary No., and crime no. to be No No No Yes No Yes entered shown by clickable explainers or as e.g., in the background? 6. Is any warning/alert given when a PDF is going to open No No No No No Yes in new tab or print window? 7. In case retrieval, is an alert given when the user clicks on No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes the submit button without filing all the information? 8. Are judgments/orders, lower court details, etc. provided A A A A A A in the A. case summary or B. separate sections? (Give score A-1, B-0) 9. In the case retrieval section, is a default date/year Yes Yes Yes No No No provided? 10. Do user expectations of completing a task in certain of 4 5 3 5 5 4 number of clicks and in certain time match? (Give score from 1 to 5) Normalised score out of 1 0.75 1 0.50 1 1 0.75 11. Are different sections positioned according to user 4 5 4 4 4 4 expectations on the website interface? (give score from 1-5) Normalised score out of 1 0.75 1 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 12. Is the website consistent across its multiple webpages? 4 4 4 4 3 3 (Give score from 1 to 5) Normalised score out of 1 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.50 0.50 Total score (out of 24 ) (Yes-1, No-0) 16 18 16 16 15 15 Total score (out of 12) 6.25 6.75 7 5.5 5.25 6 * Repeated question as it’s relevant to more than one IDP

112 Principle 6: Recognition rather than recall

COMPARISON TABLE 1 - Delhi, 2 - Madhya Pradesh, 3 - Bombay, 4 - Karnataka, 5 - Calcutta, 6 - Madras

No Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. *Are suggestions provided through auto-fill while No No No No No No searching for anything on the website? 2. Is a drop-down menu provided whenever necessary? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3. Are names of different sections stated clearly on the front Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes page of the website? 4. In login window, is an option for password or username No No No No No No hint provided? 5. Is there a provision to mark some section(s) or content of No No No No No No the website as ‘important’ or ‘favourite’? 6. Is there a provision to see history of the recent activities No No No No No No performed on the website? 7. In recruitment section, is the deadline for applications or No No No No No No forms highlighted? 8. Is a navigation path provided on the top of the website? Yes No No Yes No No 9. Are dates mentioned against notifications, notices or Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes circulars? 10. Is ‘new/old’ mentioned against notifications, notices or Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes circulars? 11. Is a site map provided on the homepage? Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Total Score (out of 11) (Yes-1, No-0) 6 5 5 6 4 5 * Repeated question as it’s relevant to more than one IDP

Principle 7: Flexibility and efficiency of use

COMPARISON TABLE 1 - Delhi, 2 - Madhya Pradesh, 3 - Bombay, 4 - Karnataka, 5 - Calcutta, 6 - Madras

No Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Are shortcuts provided to go to the main sections of the No No No No No No website? (Main sections such as case status, cause list, judgments, notice, etc.) 2. Does ‘ctrl + s’ shortcut work for saving any html page Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes within the website? 3. Is the homepage logo clearly accessible from every web Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes page, and does clicking it take the user to the homepage? 4. Are shortcuts (if any) displayed beside the corresponding No No No No No No menu label? 5. Is a list of the shortcuts provided in the help and No No No No No No documentation section? 6. Is there any type of personalisation provided on the No No No No No No website? Here, personalisation means access to see more or less information as per user login credentials. 7. Is there an option to look for personalised content based No No No No No No on user’s background? E.g., judicial officials can choose to display different content on the website as compared to non-judicial people.

113 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

No Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 8. Is there more than one way to reach the section of court’s 4 2 4 4 1 3 main functionalities such as, e-filling, case status, virtual court, cause list, judgments, notices, etc.? (Give score from 1 to 5) Normalised score out of 1 0.75 0.25 0.75 0.75 0 0.50 Total score (out of 12) (Yes-1, No-0) 6 4 6 6 3 5 Total score (out of 8) 2.75 2.25 2.75 2.75 2 2.5

8: Aesthetic and minimalist design

COMPARISON TABLE 1 - Delhi, 2 - Madhya Pradesh, 3 - Bombay, 4 - Karnataka, 5 - Calcutta, 6 - Madras

No Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Are any pseudo three-dimensional effects (shadows, No No No No No No gradients and highlights) provided on the interface? 2. Are there any clues/signifiers (i.e., elements appear No No No No No No sunken or raised) provided for the clickable and to-be- filled elements? 3. Is clickable and non-clickable content clearly identified 3 4 4 3 4 3 via change of colour, underlining content, raised buttons, highlighting text, etc.? (Give score from 1 to 5, 1 point for each, top, bottom, left, right, centre) Normalised score out of 1 0.50 0.75 0.75 0.50 0.75 0.50 4. Is history section include information related to 3 3 4 3 3 3 court establishment, former judges, former registrar, constitution of India, and old photos/videos gallery? (Give score from 1 to 5) Normalised score out of 1 0.50 0.50 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.50 5. Is principle of scaling of content used properly on the 2 2 3 2 2 2 website? (I.e., different font sizes for different elements based on their importance - big, medium, small font size) (Give score from 1 to 3) Normalised score out of 1 0.50 0.50 1 0.50 0.50 0.50 6. How would you rate the colour (background and 3 2 2 2 2 3 foreground) combination of the website interface? (Give score from 1 to 3) Normalised score out of 1 1 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1 7. How would you rate the white space allocation of the 3 3 2 2 3 3 website interface? (Give score from 1 to 3) Normalised score out of 1 1 1 0.50 0.50 1 1 8. How would you rate the placement of the different 3 2 2 3 2 2 sections on the website interface? (Give score from 1 to 3) Normalised score out of 1 1 0.50 0.50 1 0.50 0.50 9. How would you rate the balance of the content 3 3 3 3 2 3 (horizontal and vertical axis) on the website interface? (Give score from 1 to 3) Normalised score out of 1 1 1 1 1 0.50 1

114 No Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 10. How would you rate the contrast between two sets of 3 2 2 2 2 3 elements as well as between text and background on the website interface? (Give score from 1 to 3) Normalised score out of 1 1 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1 Total score (out of 30) (Yes-1, No-0) 23 21 22 20 20 22 Total score (out of 10) 6.50 5.25 5.50 5.00 4.75 6.00

Principle 9: Help users recognize, diagnose and recover from an error

COMPARISON TABLE 1 - Delhi, 2 - Madhya Pradesh, 3 - Bombay, 4 - Karnataka, 5 - Calcutta, 6 - Madras

No Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. In the e-filing section, is it shown that a new user needs Yes No Yes Yes No Yes to register first before login? 2. In the e-filing section, when invalid credentials are No Yes No No No No entered, does it show which one out of login username and password was entered wrong? 3. Is it stated that login ID and password are case sensitive? Yes No No No No No Is there any provision for recollecting forgotten Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes password? Is there any custom message provided when website is No No No No No No not reachable or the server is down (other than general error 404)? Does the website alert users that the CAPTCHA entered Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes is wrong? Is voice CAPTCHA provided? No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Is there an option to remember login credentials for future No No No No Yes No use? In case data retrieval, does it specifically state the No Yes information that is not entered or incorrectly entered? Yes Yes Yes Yes In case data retrieval section, is it stated when no cases Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes are found in selected case type and case year? Are specific instructions on multiple computer logins, Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes password sharing guidelines and other data security policies (terms of use) provided at the start? Is simple language without technical jargon used for Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes stating any errors or giving instructions? Is ‘skip to main content’ option provided on the website? No No No No No Yes Is CAPTCHA easily readable and simple? (Give score 3 3 2 2 3 2 from 1 to 3) Normalised score out of 1 1 1 0.50 0.50 1 0.50 Total score (out of 16) (Yes-1, No-0) 10 11 10 10 11 11 Total score (out of 14) 8 9 8.5 8.5 9 9.5

115 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

Principle 10: Help and documentation

COMPARISON TABLE 1 - Delhi, 2 - Madhya Pradesh, 3 - Bombay, 4 - Karnataka, 5 - Calcutta, 6 - Madras

No Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Is a ‘search’ function provided on every page of the Yes No No No No No website for better user control navigation? 2. Is the ‘search’ function presented in a box format? Yes No No No No No 3. Is the ‘search’ function presented on the top right corner? Yes No No No No No 4. Is the ‘search’ function wide enough to accommodate any No No No No No No query? 5. Can the ‘search’ function handle short single word No No No No No No queries and still produce relevant results? 6. Is there an option provided for ‘advanced’ search? No No No No No No 7. Is the site map provided on any of four corners of the Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes website? 8. Does the website contain an E-library (explanation of Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No various law jargons, legal information and other related material)? 9. Does the website publish court newsletters (monthly/ Yes No No Yes Yes No yearly) or court related news? 10. Are annual reports of the court provided on the website? No No No No No No 11. Is the court address provided in the contact information Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes section? 12. Is the court phone number/fax number provided in the No Yes No Yes No Yes contact information section? 13. Is the court email ID for general queries provided in No Yes Yes Yes No Yes contact information section? 14. Is information related to the court’s RTI officers/authority Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes provided on the website? 15. Are RTI rules provided on the website? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 16. Are step-by-step instructions on how to use e-case filing Yes Yes No Yes No Yes provided? A kind of user manual of e-court. 17. Are step-by-step instructions provided on how to retrieve No No No No No No judgments, orders, and cause lists? 18. Is information related to various administrative officers No No No Yes No No provided on the website? (entire contact list with their email ID, phone number and office address) 19. Is a general ‘FAQs’ section provided on the website? Yes Yes No No No Yes 20. Is there a provision for feedback on the website? Yes Yes No No No Yes 21. How do you rate the ease of filing and locating 3 4 3 1 2 2 information regarding RTI on the website? (Give score from 1 to 5) Normalised score out of 1 0.50 0.75 0.50 0 0.25 0.25 22. Overall, how is the search and navigation of the website? 2 2 2 2 2 2 (Give score from 1 to 3) Normalised score out of 1 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Total score (out of 28) (Yes-1, No-0) 17 15 11 13 8 13 Total score (out of 22) 13 10.25 7 10.5 4.75 9.75

116 Score-wise table Score-wise table

IDP Maximum Delhi Madhya Bombay Karnataka Calcutta Madras score Pradesh 1. Visibility of 18 13 14 13 13 9 11 system status 2. Match 15 11 12 7.75 8.75 10.75 9 between user and real world 3. User control 9 7.25 7.5 8.25 7 7.5 7.5 and freedom 4. Consistency 20 15.56 15.75 17.5 17.21 15.16 16.41 and standard 5. Error 12 6.25 6.75 7 5.5 5.25 6 prevention 6. Recognition 11 6 5 5 6 4 5 rather than recall 7. Flexibility and 8 2.75 2.25 2.75 2.75 2 2.5 efficiency of use 8. Aesthetic and 10 6.50 5.25 5.50 5.00 4.75 6.00 minimalist design 9. Help users 14 8 9 8.5 8.5 9 9.5 recognize, diagnose and recover from an error 10. Help and 22 13 10.25 7 10.5 4.75 9.75 documentation

Rank-wise table Rank-wise table

Rank

IDP Delhi Madhya Bombay Karnataka Calcutta Madras Pradesh 1. Visibility of system 2 1 2 2 4 3 status 2. Match between 2 1 6 5 3 4 user and real world 3. User control and 3 2 1 4 2 2 freedom 4. Consistency and 5 4 1 2 6 3 standard 5. Error prevention 3 2 1 5 6 4 114 6. Recognition rather 1 2 2 1 3 2 than recall 7. Flexibility and 1 3 1 1 4 2 efficiency of use 8. Aesthetic and 1 4 3 6 5 2 minimalist design 9. Help users 4 2 3 3 2 1 recognize, diagnose and recover from an error 10. Help and 1 3 5 2 6 4 documentation

117

115

DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

Percentage-wise table Percentage-wise table

Percentage score (%100)

IDP Delhi Madhya Bombay Karnataka Calcutta Madras Average Pradesh 1. Visibility of 72.2 77.7 72.2 72.2 50.0 61.1 67.6 system status 2. Match between 73.3 80.0 51.6 58.3 71.7 60.0 65.8 user and real world 3. User control 80.5 83.3 91.6 77.7 83.3 83.3 83.3 and freedom 4. Consistency and 77.8 78.7 87.5 86.0 75.8 82.0 81.3 standard 5. Error 52.0 56.2 58.3 45.8 43.7 50.0 51.0 prevention 6. Recognition 54.5 45.4 45.4 54.5 36.3 45.4 49.9 rather than recall 7. Flexibility and 34.3 28.1 34.3 34.3 25.0 31.2 31.2 efficiency of use 8. Aesthetic and 65.0 52.5 55.0 50.0 47.5 60.0 55.0 minimalist design 9. Help users 57.1 64.2 60.7 60.7 64.2 67.8 62.4 recognize, diagnose and recover from an error 10. Help and 59.1 46.6 31.8 47.7 21.6 44.3 41.9 documentation Average 58.9 62.6 61.3 58.9 58.7 51.9 58.5 58.7

116

118

Percentage wise score of websites for different IDPs Percentage wise score of websites for different IDPs Percentage vs. IDP Percentage vs. IDP

100%

90%

80%

70%

Delhi 60% MP Bombay 50% Karnataka Calcutta 40% Madras

30%

20%

10%

0% IDP 1 IDP 2 IDP 3 IDP 4 IDP 5 IDP 6 IDP 7 IDP 8 IDP 9 IDP 10

Bad Average Good

117

119 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

A.4. Detailed suggestions for High Courts under study High Court of Delhi

S.No. IDP Suggestions 1. 1 Only ‘next’ and ‘previous’ buttons are The total number of pages, as well as the provided in many sections (e.g., judges) current page number should be shown which doesn’t give an idea about the to give the users an indication of their number of pages. position in the overall records. Source: heuristic evaluation, user experience test. 2. 1 The performance and load of the High Month or year-wise summaries of the Court for a given month or year is not number of pending, disposed, and provided. registered cases should be provided. Source: heuristic evaluation. 3. 1 Information regarding different Administrative setup of the court should departments within the court and their be provided stating hierarchy of court functioning is not known. officials and different sections. Source: heuristic evaluation. 4. 1 ‘View’ or ‘download’ or ‘print’ options are Sometimes the users might not want to not provided against each uploaded file. download but just view the file. However, It does not give a clear idea about how users are intimated about what happens the file will open on clicking the link. by clicking on it. Three options: ‘view’, ‘download’ and ‘print’ should be Source: heuristic evaluation. provided against each file. 5. 2 For a layperson, it might be difficult to Explanation of legal terminology such as comprehend legal terminology. roster, cause list, IA status, mediation, caveat, ILR, the difference between Source: heuristic evaluation, task-based registration date and filing date, etc. usability test. should be provided via clickable explainers. 6. 2 For users who do not know English, it is There should be a provision for language difficult to use the website. change on the website. The website can be made available in English, the local Source: heuristic evaluation, user state language, and Hindi. experience test. 7. 3 There are limited ways to retrieve case There should be numerous ways to information. retrieve case information (i.e., case status, judgments, orders, cause list, Source: heuristic evaluation, task-based case history, etc.) including through case usability test. number, case type, Act/section, CNR number, party name, advocate name, FIR number, judge name, etc. This can be improved on the website. 8. 4 The CAPTCHA provided is easy and Standard of the CAPTCHA should be includes only numeric characters. It such that it provides security against may not be sufficient to protect the data malicious attacks without impeding against malicious cyber-attacks. the speed of operation. It should not be too easy or too difficult to comprehend. Source: heuristic evaluation. CAPTCHA should include uppercase and lowercase characters and numbers.

120 S.No. IDP Suggestions 9. 4 Case data retrieval sections are the Case data retrieval sections (i.e., case most frequently used sections and are status, judgments, orders, cause list, not highlighted enough among other case history, etc.) should be provided on sections. the top bar and also be grouped so that they are highlighted enough. Source: heuristic evaluation, task-based usability test. 10. 4 General information sections are difficult General information sections (court to find as they are combined with other history, judges, annual reports, rules, sections. calendar, etc.) should be grouped together and provided on left or right Source: heuristic evaluation, user side bar. experience test, task-based usability test. 11. 4 In the mobile version, ‘+’ is provided on Website interface on the mobile should left side to open the navigation bar on be the same as the desktop version. the top. This ‘+’ sign is not visible clearly and difficult to click on. Source: heuristic evaluation, user experience test. 12. 5 It is difficult for users to search for cases In case data retrieval sections, format if they do not remember the correct of CNR number, diary number, case format of CNR number, diary number, or number, etc. should be given in light font case number. colour or by clickable explainers. Source: heuristic evaluation, task-based usability test. 13. 6 It is difficult for users to search for case In case data retrieval sections (i.e., case data based on the case type, if they do status, judgments, orders, cause list, not remember the abbreviation used for case history, etc.), case types must be the case type. provided in abbreviated and full forms. Further, suggestions should be provided Source: heuristic evaluation, task-based in an auto-fill manner while searching. usability test. This will help the user find and recognise the case type quickly. 14. 7 Case status, an important section of the All main sections/functionalities of the website is not provided at the centre of website should be provided at the centre the homepage like cause list, e-filing, of the home page apart from left/right/ and judgments. top bar. Source: heuristic evaluation, task-based usability test. 15. 8 People are not satisfied with the design, Aesthetics, readability, white space colour, architecture, font type, size, etc. allocation, balance of the content, font size, font type, etc. can be improved. Source: user experience test. 16. 9 In the e-filing section, when users are In case of invalid credentials, the website not able to login, it is difficult to know should specify which one out of the whether the password or username is username or password is incorrect. entered incorrectly. Source: heuristic evaluation. 17. 10 No instructions are provided on how Step-by-step instructions on how to use to use the case data retrieval sections case data retrieval sections (i.e., case which make it difficult for users to use status, judgments, orders, cause list, these sections effectively. case history, etc.) should be provided in the respective sections. Different Source: heuristic evaluation, task-based methods for case-data search can be usability test. explained for better usability.

121 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

S.No. IDP Suggestions 18. 10 No instructions on how to file and track Instructions on how to file RTI queries RTI queries are provided. (court RTI link, if any) should be provided under the ‘RTI information’ Source: heuristic evaluation, task-based section. Further, a mechanism to track usability test. the status of the RTI query should be provided. A separate portal pertaining to that can be provided on the website. 19. 10 No ‘contact us’ section is provided on Details of the court such as address, the website which makes it difficult email ID, phone number, fax number, for users to look for various contact and contact list of various administrative information. authorities should be provided on the website under ‘contact information’ Source: heuristic evaluation, user section. This section should be available experience test, task-based usability at the bottom of the homepage as users test. are more likely to look at that place for contact information. 20. 10 Only annual reports of 2006-07, 2007-08, Court newsletters and annual reports 20010-12 and newsletter of August 2020 should be available under a ‘reports and are provided on the website. No latest publication’ section of the website. This (and archived) reports and newsletters section must be updated on a timely are available on the website. basis. Source: heuristic evaluation, user experience test. 21. 10 ‘Search’ box is provided on the website ‘Search’ function should help users but it is not very effective in finding the to go to any section on the website. It relevant information on the website. would be highly effective with an auto- fill search option. An ‘advanced’ search Source: heuristic evaluation, task-based option should also be provided for usability test. longer queries.

High Court of Madhya Pradesh

S.No. IDP Suggestions 1. 1 ‘View’ or ‘download’ or ‘print’ options are Sometimes the users might not want to not provided against each uploaded file. download but just view the file. However, It does not give a clear idea about how users are intimidated about what the file will open on clicking the link. happens by clicking on it. Three options: ‘view’, ‘download’ and ‘print’ should be Source: heuristic evaluation. provided against each file. 2. 1 No information on the total number of There should be a provision to see the cases for a selected case type and year number of cases for a selected case type is provided. and year or between two selected dates. Source: heuristic evaluation, user experience test, task-based usability test. 3. 1 The performance and load of the High Month or year-wise summaries of the Court for a given month or year is not number of pending, disposed, and provided. registered cases should be provided. Also, these statistics should be Source: heuristic evaluation. highlighted. As of now, they are provided in six-monthly reports named ‘best practices’ which are available at lower right corner of the home page.

122 S.No. IDP Suggestions 4. 2 For a layperson, it might be difficult to Explanation of legal terminology such as comprehend legal terminology. roster, cause list, IA status, mediation, caveat, ILR, the difference between Source: heuristic evaluation, task-based registration date and filing date, etc. usability test. should be provided via clickable explainers. 5. 3 There are limited ways to retrieve case There should be several ways to retrieve information. There are no options to case information (i.e., case status, search for case information based on judgments, orders, cause list, case judge name, Act/section, etc. history, etc.) including through case number, case type, Act/section, CNR Source: heuristic evaluation, task-based number, party name, advocate name, usability test. FIR number, judge name, etc. This can be improved on the website. 6. 4 The CAPTCHA provided is easy and Standard of the CAPTCHA should be includes only numeric characters. It such that it provides security against may not be sufficient to protect the data malicious attacks without impeding against malicious cyber-attacks. the speed of operation. It should not be too easy or too difficult to comprehend. Source: heuristic evaluation. CAPTCHA should include uppercase and lowercase characters and numbers. 7. 4 Case data retrieval sections are the most Circulars/notifications/latest updates frequently used sections on Indian high should be provided on the right-side court websites and are not highlighted bar instead of the centre. Instead, the enough among other sections. main functionalities of the website: case status, judgments/orders, cause list, Source: heuristic evaluation, task-based e-filing should be in the centre of the usability test. home page apart from top menu bar. 8. 5 It is difficult for users to search for cases In case data retrieval sections, format if they don’t remember the correct of CNR number, diary number, case format of CNR number, diary number number, etc. should be given in light font and case number. colour or by clickable explainers. Source: heuristic evaluation, task-based usability test. 9. 6 It can be time consuming for users to In case data retrieval sections (i.e., case search for case data based on the case status, judgments, orders, cause list, type. case history, etc.), suggestions should be provided in an auto-fill manner while Source: heuristic evaluation, task-based searching. This will help the user find usability test. and recognise the case type quickly. 10. 6 When users click on any of the links Navigation path showing the user’s in the navigation bar, no indicators/ current position on the website should highlighted text is provided to locate the be provided on the top of the page. position of the users. This reduces their navigation efficiency. Source: heuristic evaluation. 11. 8 People are not satisfied with the design, Aesthetics, readability, white space colour, architecture, font type, size, etc. allocation, balancing of the content, font size, font type, etc. can be improved. Source: user experience test. 12. 9 Users are more likely to make errors It should be stated that the password while writing username and password and username are case sensitive. since it is not indicated that they are case sensitive. Source: heuristic evaluation.

123 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

S.No. IDP Suggestions 13. 9 In the e-filing section, when users are In case of invalid credentials, the not able to login, it is difficult to know website should specify which out of the whether the password or the username username and password is incorrect. is entered incorrectly. Source: heuristic evaluation. 14. 10 No instructions on how to use case data Step-by-step instructions on how to use retrieval sections are provided which case data retrieval sections (i.e., case makes it difficult for users to use these status, judgments, orders, cause list, sections effectively. case history, etc.) should be provided in the respective sections. Source: heuristic evaluation, task-based usability test. 15. 10 There is no defined section for court Court newsletters and annual reports newsletters and annual reports. should be available under a ‘reports and publication’ section of the website. This Source: heuristic evaluation, user section must be updated on a timely experience test. basis. 16. 10 There is no ‘search’ function to directly A search function should be provided on search for different sections. the top right corner on each webpage of the website. It should be a rectangular Source: heuristic evaluation, task-based box and wide enough to accommodate usability test. small and single word queries. It would be highly effective with an auto-fill search option. An ‘advanced’ search option should also be provided for longer queries. 17. 10 No contact details of court Details of the court such as address, administrators is provided on the email ID, phone number, fax number website. and contact list of various administrative authorities should be provided on the Source: heuristic evaluation, user website under ‘contact information’ experience test, task-based usability section. test. High Court of Bombay S.No. IDP Suggestions 1. 1 ‘View’ or ‘download’ or ‘print’ Sometimes the users might not want to options are not provided against download but just view the file. Three each uploaded file. It doesn’t give options: ‘view’, ‘download’ and ‘print’ should a clear idea about how the file will be provided against each file. open on clicking the link. Source: heuristic evaluation. 2. 1 No information on total number There should be a provision to see the of cases for selected case type number of cases for a selected case type and and year is provided. There is a year or between two selected dates. provision to get number of cases between two given dates but it is given as one long list and total entries are not stated. Source: heuristic evaluation. 3. 1 The performance and load of the Month or year-wise summaries of the number High Court for a given month or of pending, disposed, and registered cases year is not provided. should be provided. Source: heuristic evaluation.

124 S.No. IDP Suggestions 4. 1 Information regarding different Administrative setup of the court should be court departments and their provided stating hierarchy of court officials functioning is not known. and different sections. Source: heuristic evaluation. 5. 2 For a layman, it might be difficult to Explanation of legal terminology such as comprehend legal terminology. roster, cause list, IA status, mediation, caveat, ILR, the difference between registration date Source: heuristic evaluation, task- and filing date, etc. should be provided via based usability test. clickable explainers. 6. 2 Some users might want to increase There should be a provision for zoom in and the font size of the content. No zoom out on the website. provision for zoom in and zoom out is given. Source: heuristic evaluation, user experience test. 7. 2 For users who do not know English, There should be an option to change the it is difficult to use the website. language of the website. The website can be made available in English, the local state Source: heuristic evaluation, user language, and Hindi. experience test. 8. 3 There are limited ways to retrieve There should be several ways to retrieve case data. There is no option to case data (i.e., case status, judgments, search according to judge name orders, cause list, case history, etc.) including and Act/section. through case number, case type, Act/section, CNR number, party name, advocate name, Source: heuristic evaluation, task- FIR number, judge name, etc. This can be based usability test. improved on the website. 9. 4 Case data retrieval sections are the Case data retrieval sections (i.e., case status, most frequently used sections and judgments, orders, cause list, case history, are not highlighted enough among etc.) should be provided on the top bar kept other sections. separately on the centre of the homepage so that they are highlighted enough. Source: heuristic evaluation, task- based usability test. 10. 5 It is difficult for users to search for In case data retrieval sections, format of cases if they do not remember the CNR number, diary number, case number, correct format of CNR number, etc. should be given in light font colour or by diary number and case number. clickable explainers. Source: heuristic evaluation, task- based usability test. 11. 6 It would be difficult for users to In case data retrieval sections (i.e., case search for case data based on the status, judgments, orders, cause list, case case type, if they do not remember history, etc.), case types must be provided the abbreviation used for the case in abbreviated and full forms. Further, type. suggestions should be provided in an auto- fill manner while searching. This will help the Source: heuristic evaluation, task- user find and recognise the case type quickly. based usability test. 12. 6 No indicator/highlighted text is Navigation path showing the user’s current provided to locate the position position on the website should be provided of the users. This reduces their on the top of the page. navigation efficiency. Source: heuristic evaluation.

125 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

S.No. IDP Suggestions 13. 8 People are not satisfied with the Aesthetics, readability, white space design, colour, architecture, font allocation, balancing of the content, font size, type, size, etc. font type, etc. can be improved. Source: user experience test. 14. 9 Users are more likely to make It should be stated that the password and errors while writing username and username are case sensitive. password since it is not indicated that they are case sensitive. Source: heuristic evaluation. 15. 9 In the e-filing section, when users In case of invalid credentials, the website are not able to login, it is difficult to should specify which out of the username know whether the password or the and password is incorrect. username is entered incorrectly. Source: heuristic evaluation. 16. 10 No instructions are provided on Step-by-step instructions, starting from how to use the e-filing system. It registration and using the e-filing facility of decreases user efficiency. the court should be provided on the website. Source: heuristic evaluation. 17. 10 No instructions on how to use case Step-by-step instructions on how to use data retrieval sections are provided case data retrieval sections (i.e., case status, which makes it difficult for users to judgments, orders, cause list, case history, use these sections effectively. etc.) should be provided in the respective sections. Source: heuristic evaluation, task- based usability test. 18. 10 No provision for users to give ‘Feedback’ section to give feedback related feedback related to the website and to the website and court administration court administration. should be provided. Source: heuristic evaluation. 19. 10 No ‘FAQs’ section is provided on General ‘FAQs’ section containing important the website. This section would questions and answers should be provided provide the users with answers to on the website. general questions. Source: heuristic evaluation, task- based usability test. 20. 10 No instructions on how to file and Instructions on how to file RTI queries track RTI queries are provided. (court RTI link, if any) and other RTI related information, should be provided under Source: heuristic evaluation, task- the ‘RTI information’ section. Further, a based usability test. mechanism to track the status of the RTI query should be provided. A separate portal pertaining to that can be provided on the website. 21. 10 Phone number is not provided in Details of the court such as address, email ID, the contact information section. phone number, fax number and contact list Also, contact information of various of various administrative authorities should court administrators is not available be provided on the website under ‘contact on the website. information’ section. This section should be available at the bottom of the homepage as Source: heuristic evaluation, users are more likely to look at that place for user experience test, task-based contact information. usability test.

126 S.No. IDP Suggestions 22. 10 Annual reports and newsletters of Court newsletters and annual reports should the High Court are not available on be available under a ‘reports and publication’ the website. This information gives section of the website. This section must be an idea about various activities updated on timely basis. and initiatives of the High Court throughout the year. Source: heuristic evaluation, user experience test. 23. 10 There is no ‘search’ function to A search function should be provided on directly search for different sections. the top right corner on each webpage of It reduces navigation efficiency of the website. It should be a rectangular box users. and wide enough to accommodate small and single word queries. It would be highly Source: heuristic evaluation, task- effective with an auto-fill search option. An based usability test. ‘advanced’ search option should also be provided for longer queries.

High Court of Karnataka S.No. IDP Suggestions 1. 1 The performance and load Month or year-wise summaries of the number of of the High Court for a pending, disposed, and registered cases should be given month or year is not provided. provided. Source: heuristic evaluation. 2. 1 ‘View’ or ‘download’ or ‘print’ Sometimes the users might not want to download options are not provided but just view the file. Three options: ‘view’, against each uploaded file. ‘download’ and ‘print’ should be provided against It doesn’t give a clear idea each file. about how the file will open on clicking the link. Source: heuristic evaluation. 3. 1 Information regarding Administrative setup of the court should be provided different court departments stating hierarchy of court officials and different and their functioning is not sections. known. Source: heuristic evaluation. 4. 1 No information on total There should be a provision to see the number of number of cases for selected cases for a selected case type and year or between case type and year is two selected dates. provided. There is a provision to get number of cases between two given dates but it is in combination with the party name. Source: heuristic evaluation. 5. 2 For a layman, it might be Explanation of legal terminology such as roster, difficult to comprehend legal cause list, IA status, mediation, caveat, ILR, the terminology. difference between registration date and filing date, etc. should be provided via clickable explainers. Source: heuristic evaluation, task-based usability test.

127 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

S.No. IDP Suggestions 6. 2 For users who do not know There should be an option to change the language English, it is difficult to use of the website. The website can be made available in the website. English, the local state language, and Hindi. Source: heuristic evaluation, user experience test. 7. 3 There are limited ways to There should be several ways to retrieve case retrieve case information. information (i.e., case status, judgments, orders, There is no option to search cause list, case history, etc.) including through case according to judge name or number, case type, Act/section, CNR number, party Act/section. name, advocate name, FIR number, judge name, etc. This can be improved on the website. Source: heuristic evaluation, task-based usability test. 8. 4 The CAPTCHA provided In case-data retrieval section, CAPTCHA should is easy and includes only be provided and standard of the CAPTCHA numeric characters. It may should be such that it provides security against not be sufficient to protect malicious attacks without impeding the speed of the data against malicious operation. It should not be too easy or too difficult to cyber-attacks. comprehend. CAPTCHA should include uppercase and lowercase characters and numbers. Source: heuristic evaluation, user experience test. 9. 6 It can be time consuming for In case data retrieval sections (i.e., case status, users to search for case data judgments, orders, cause list, case history, etc.), based on the case type. suggestions should be provided in an auto-fill manner while searching. This would help the user Source: heuristic evaluation, in recognising case information and retrieving the task-based usability test. required information quickly. 10. 8 People are not satisfied Aesthetics, readability, white space allocation, with the design, colour, balancing of the content, font size, font type, etc. architecture, font type, size, can be improved. etc. Source: user experience test. 11. 9 Users are more likely to It should be stated that the password and username make errors while writing are case sensitive. username and password since it is not indicated that they are case sensitive. Source: heuristic evaluation. 12. 9 In the e-filing section, when In case of invalid credentials, the website should users are not able to login, it specify which out of username and password is is difficult to know whether incorrect. the password or username is entered incorrectly. Source: heuristic evaluation. 13. 10 No instructions are provided Step-by-step instructions on how to use case data on how to use case data retrieval sections (i.e., case status, judgments, retrieval sections which orders, cause list, case history, etc.) should be make it difficult for users provided in the respective sections. Different to use these sections methods for case-data search can be explained for effectively. better usability Source: heuristic evaluation, task-based usability test.

128 S.No. IDP Suggestions 14. 10 No provision for users ‘Feedback’ section to give feedback related to to give feedback related the website and court administration should be to the website and court provided. administration. Source: heuristic evaluation. 15. 10 No ‘FAQs’ section is General ‘FAQs’ section containing important provided on the website. questions and answers should be provided on the This section would provide website. the users with answers to general questions. Source: heuristic evaluation, task-based usability test. 16. 10 No instructions on how to RTI rules, details of the current RTI officer (such file and track RTI queries are as name, position, email ID, phone number, office provided. address, fax number), instructions on how to file RTI queries (court RTI link, if any) and other RTI related Source: heuristic evaluation, information, all should be provided under the ‘RTI task-based usability test. information’ section. Further, a mechanism to track the status of the RTI query should be provided. A separate portal pertaining to that can be provided on the website. 17. 10 Annual reports and Court newsletters and annual reports should be newsletters of the High available under a ‘reports and publication’ section Court are not available on of the website. This section must be updated on a the website. This information timely basis. gives an idea about various activities and initiatives of the High Court throughout the year. Source: heuristic evaluation, user experience test. 18 10 There is no ‘search’ function A ‘search’ function should be provided on the top to directly search for right corner on each webpage of the website. It different sections. It reduces should be a rectangular box and wide enough to the navigation efficiency of accommodate small and single word queries. It users. would be highly effective with an auto-fill search option. An ‘advanced’ search option should also be Source: heuristic evaluation, provided for longer queries. task-based usability test.

High Court of Calcutta

S.No. IDP Suggestions 1. 1 The performance and load Month or year-wise summaries of the number of of the High Court for a pending, disposed, and registered cases should be given month or year is not provided. provided. Source: heuristic evaluation. 2. 1 No indicator or highlighted There should be an indicator to show the current text is provided to locate the location of the user on the website. position of the users. This reduces their navigation efficiency. Source: heuristic evaluation, user experience test.

129 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

S.No. IDP Suggestions 3. 1 No site map is provided on A site map should be given on the website for better the website. It improves the usability. usability of the website. Source: heuristic evaluation, task-based usability test. 4. 1 ‘View’ or ‘download’ or ‘print’ Sometimes the users might not want to download options are not provided but just view the file. However, users are intimated against each uploaded file. about what happens by clicking on it. Three options: It does not give a clear idea ‘view’, ‘download’ and ‘print’ should be provided about how the file will open against each file. on clicking the link. Source: heuristic evaluation. 5. 1 Information regarding Administrative setup of the court should be provided different court departments stating hierarchy of court officials and different and their functioning is not sections. known. Source: heuristic evaluation. 6. 2 For a layman, it might be Explanation of legal terminology such as roster, difficult to comprehend legal cause list, IA status, mediation, caveat, ILR, the terminology. difference between registration date and filing date, etc. should be provided via clickable explainers. Source: heuristic evaluation, task-based usability test. 7. 2 ‘Our contacts’ sub-section A ‘Contact us’ section should be provided on the is provided on the top menu bottom of the website as users are more likely to bar under ‘About’ section. look at the bottom section of the website for it. The section should be given better placement where users can easily see it. Source: heuristic evaluation, user experience test, task- based usability test. 8. 4 In case data retrieval, there There should be a provision to see the number of is no provision to get the cases between two selected dates and also search number of registered cases for cases according to the judge. for a given judge or between two selected dates. Source: heuristic evaluation, task-based usability test. 9. 5 It is difficult for users to In case data retrieval sections, format of CNR search for cases if they do number, diary number, case number, etc. should be nt remember the correct given in light font colour or by clickable explainers. format of CNR number, diary number and case number. Source: heuristic evaluation, task-based usability test. 10. 6 It can be time consuming for In case data retrieval sections (i.e., case status, users to search for case data judgments, orders, cause list, case history, etc.), based on the case type. suggestions should be provided in an auto-fill manner while searching. This will help the user find Source: heuristic evaluation, and recognise the case type quickly. task-based usability test.

130 S.No. IDP Suggestions 11. 8 People are not satisfied Aesthetics, readability, white space allocation, with the design, colour, balancing of the content, font size, font type, etc. architecture, font type, size, can be improved. etc. Source: user experience test. 12. 9 Users are more likely to It should be stated that the password and username make errors while writing are case sensitive. the username and password since it is not indicated that they are case sensitive. Source: heuristic evaluation. 13. 9 In the e-filing section, when In case of invalid credentials, the website should users are not able to login, specify which one out of the username and it is difficult to know which password is incorrect. whether the password or the username is entered incorrectly. Source: heuristic evaluation. 14. 10 No instructions are provided Step-by-step instructions, starting from registration on how to use the e-filing and how to use e-filing facility of the court should be system. provided on the website. Source: heuristic evaluation. 15. 10 No instructions are provided Step-by-step instructions on how to use case data on how to use case data retrieval sections (i.e., case status, judgments, retrieval sections which orders, cause list, case history, etc.) should be makes it difficult for users provided in the respective sections. to use these sections effectively. Source: heuristic evaluation, task-based usability test. 16. 10 No provision for users ‘Feedback’ section to give feedback related to to give feedback related the website and court administration should be to the website and court provided. administration. Source: heuristic evaluation. 17. 10 No ‘FAQs’ section is General ‘FAQs’ section containing important provided on the website. questions and answers should be provided on the This section would provide website. the users with answers to general questions. Source: heuristic evaluation, task-based usability test. 18. 10 No instructions on how to RTI rules, details of the current RTI officer (such file and track RTI queries are as name, position, email ID, phone number, office provided. address, fax number), how to file RTI queries (court RTI link, if any) and other RTI related information, Source: heuristic evaluation, all should be provided under the ‘RTI information’ task-based usability test. section. Further, a mechanism to track the status of the RTI query should be provided. 19. 10 Only recent newsletters are Archives of the court newsletters and annual reports provided. Archives of the of past months/years should be available under a same and annual reports are ‘reports and publication’ section of the website. not available on the website. Source: heuristic evaluation, user experience test. 131 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

S.No. IDP Suggestions 20. 10 There is no ‘search’ function A ‘search’ function should be provided on the top to directly search for right corner on each webpage of the website. It different sections. It reduces should be a rectangular box and wide enough to navigation efficiency of accommodate small and single word queries. It users. would be highly effective with an auto-fill search option. An ‘advanced’ search option should also be Source: heuristic evaluation, provided for longer queries. task-based usability test.

High Court of Madras

S.No. IDP Suggestions 1. 1 The performance and load Month or year-wise summaries of the number of of the High Court for a pending, disposed, and registered cases should be given month or year is not provided. provided. Source: heuristic evaluation. 2. 1 No information on total There should be a provision to see the number of number of cases for a cases for a selected case type and year or between selected case type and year two selected dates. is provided. Source: heuristic evaluation, user experience test. 3. 1 No indicator or highlighted There should be an indicator to show the current text is provided to give the location of the user on the website. current position of the users. This reduces their navigation efficiency. Source: heuristic evaluation, user experience test. 4. 1 Court calendar is not There should be a calendar with non-working days available on the website. of the court highlighted on the website. Source: heuristic evaluation. 5. 1 ‘View’ or ‘download’ or ‘print’ Sometimes the users might not want to download options are not provided but just view the file. Three options: ‘view’, against each uploaded file. ‘download’ and ‘print’ should be provided against It does not give a clear idea each file. about how the file will open on clicking the link. Source: heuristic evaluation. 6. 2 For a layman, it might be Explanation of legal terminology such as roster, difficult to comprehend legal cause list, IA status, mediation, caveat, ILR, the terminology. difference between registration date and filing date, etc. should be provided via clickable explainers. Source: heuristic evaluation, user experience test. 7. 2 For users who do not know There should be an option to change the language English, it is difficult to use of the website. The website can be made available in the website. English, the local state language, and Hindi. Source: heuristic evaluation, user experience test.

132 S.No. IDP Suggestions 8. 4 In the case data retrieval There should be a provision to see the number of sections, there is no option cases between two selected dates and search for to search for registered cases according to the judge or bench. cases according to the judge or between two selected dates. Source: heuristic evaluation. 9. 4 The CAPTCHA provided Standard of the CAPTCHA should be such that it is easy and includes only provides security against malicious attacks without numeric characters. It may impeding the speed of operation. It should not be not be sufficient to protect too easy or too difficult to comprehend. CAPTCHA the data against malicious should include uppercase and lowercase characters cyber-attacks. and numbers. Source: heuristic evaluation, user experience test. 10. 6 It can be time consuming for In case data retrieval sections (i.e., case status, users to search for case data judgments, orders, cause list, case history, etc.), based on the case type. suggestions should be provided in an auto-fill manner while searching. This would help the user Source: heuristic evaluation, find and recognise the case type quickly. task-based usability test. 11. 8 People are not satisfied Aesthetics, readability, white space allocation, with the design, colour, balancing of the content, font size, font type, etc. architecture, font type, size, can be improved. etc. Source: user experience test. 12. 9 Users are more likely to It should be stated that the password and username make errors while writing are case sensitive. the username and password since it is not indicated that they are case sensitive. Source: heuristic evaluation. 13. 9 In the e-filing section, In case of invalid credentials, the website should when users are not able to specify which out of the username and password is login, it is difficult to know incorrect. whether the password or the username is entered incorrectly. Source: heuristic evaluation. 14. 10 No provision for users ‘Feedback’ section to give feedback related to to give feedback related the website and court administration should be to the website and court provided. administration. Source: heuristic evaluation. 15. 10 No ‘FAQs’ section is General ‘FAQs’ section containing important provided on the website. questions and answers should be provided on the This section would provide website. the users with answers to general questions. Source: heuristic evaluation, task-based usability test.

133 DAKSH | UI/UX Evaluation of Indian High Court Websites

S.No. IDP Suggestions 16. 10 No instructions on how to Instructions on how to file and track RTI queries file and track RTI queries are (court RTI link, if any) should be provided under the provided. ‘RTI information’ section. Separate portal pertaining to that can be provided on the website. Source: heuristic evaluation, task-based usability test. 17. 10 E-library, containing various An e-library containing various acts, e-journals, acts, e-journals, e-books, e-books, and other related material should be and other related material is provided on the website. not available. Source: heuristic evaluation. 18. 10 There is no ‘search’ function A search function should be provided on the top to directly search for right corner on each webpage of the website. It different sections. It reduces should be a rectangular box and wide enough to navigation efficiency of accommodate small and single word queries. It users. would be highly effective with an auto-fill search option. An ‘advanced’ search option should also be Source: heuristic evaluation, provided for longer queries. task-based usability test.

134