recommended that redundant labels, particularly those related to "getting involved," should be consolidated or clarified to streamline navigation. To improve the overall user experience, content should be structured more intentionally, with a clear distinction between elements for the home/main page and those for the menu or footer. Finally, creating a clearer separation between utility-focused and mission-driven content will help balance customer needs with organizational priorities, ultimately improving usability and user satisfaction.

Analysis of Responses:

• Common Themes: Participants identified overlapping and duplicate labels as areas for streamlining. A key concern was balancing uniquely descriptive language—such as "impact prospectus"—with clearer, more familiar terms such as “impact report”. One participant expressed confusion over similar terms, such as questioning whether "gift" and "donate" meant the same thing, highlighting the need for more differentiated language. Additionally, participants’ prior knowledge influenced their expectations, as they anticipated labels like those found on other more familiar websites.
• Contradictions and Anomalies: Any contradictions or unique viewpoints presented in the questionnaire responses were examined to ensure a comprehensive understanding of participant perspectives.
  1. One participant expressed difficulty understanding the survey due to unclear definitions (specifically the term "nonprofit social enterprise," which was defined in the study) but was still able to categorize items effectively using the provided categories. Despite this noted challenge, the respondent acknowledged that the categories offered a helpful frame of reference, allowing them to categorize the items successfully. This highlights a potential inconsistency in how categories and definitions were understood by users, which may have impacted the resulting categorizations.
  2. 52% of respondents had no specific expectations regarding labeling language, while 48% had expectations. This discrepancy in participant needs suggests that half of the respondents did not have strong opinions on how labels should be defined, while the other half had clear preferences, indicating that the labeling approach needed to address both perspectives.
  3. There was a contradiction in how the site was perceived and categorized. One participant viewed the site as a retail platform, categorizing items as if they were in a brick-and-mortar store rather than an online environment. They noted: “Ok, I do remember there is an overarching retail category, but some of the other categories could fit within that (clothing, accessories, maybe ‘art’? It’s a little unclear if there is fine art for sale, but there was something like ‘stationery’... this all sounds like a museum shop).” This highlights a mismatch between the site’s intended categorization and the participant’s perception, leading to confusion about where certain items should be placed.