Comparison of Two Word

Processors
A Usability Test of Microsoft Word and Google Docs
 2

Table of Contents
Introduction............................................................................................................................................3
Methodology...........................................................................................................................................3
Equipment and Environment...........................................................................................................................3
Tasks................................................................................................................................................................ 3
Metrics .............................................................................................................................................................3
Likert Scale........................................................................................................................................................4
Results .....................................................................................................................................................4
Task 1.................................................................................................................................................................4
Task 2.................................................................................................................................................................6
Task 3.................................................................................................................................................................7
Task 4.................................................................................................................................................................8
Task 5.................................................................................................................................................................9
Task 6.................................................................................................................................................................10
Task 7.................................................................................................................................................................11
Task 8.................................................................................................................................................................12
Task 9................................................................................................................................................................ 13
Task 10 ............................................................................................................................................................. 14
Overview……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...15
Recommendations and Conclusions..........................................................................................................15
Second Choice: (Insert choice) ..........................................................................................................................15
First Choice: (Insert Choice) ..............................................................................................................................15
Bibliography ..............................................................................................................................................16
Appendix: Raw Data...................................................................................................................................17
 3

Introduction
Two popular and widely used word processors are Microsoft Word and Google Documents.
Both are used for both first-time and experienced audiences. This white paper reports the
results of a usability test between the two word processors. Ten specific tasks were
completed, and the performance of the processors was analyzed from the perspective of a
first-time user with average experience using computers but limited experience using any
form of word processor.
Methodology
Equipment and Environment
The equipment used for this usability test of Microsoft Word and Google Documents
consisted of Google Chrome version 78.0.3904.87, Microsoft Word version 1902, and an HP
Pavilion model 12-cc123cl running Windows 10 version 1903
A typical user of a word processor would likely be in an environment that promotes focus,
likely either alone or in an environment with few other people that are also focused on
their own tasks. Internal distractions would also likely be limited, so multitasking would
most likely not occur in this environment.
Due to these factors, the usability test was conducted in a quiet environment with several
other people working on independent tasks. There were as few internal distractions in the
environment as possible. The tasks were approached one by one in a progression through
the task list, first completing the tasks in Microsoft Word and then in Google Documents.
Each task was evaluated immediately after it was completed using five pre-determined
metrics.
Tasks
1. Create a new document
2. Select a layout or theme appropriate for a cover page
3. Access the header/footer
4. Insert page numbers
5. Insert an image
6. Create a table of contents
7. Change the font and size of the font
8. Highlight part of the text
9. Save document under custom title
10. Change from left justified to right justified text
Metrics
Effective: Goal for this task was fully realized
Efficient: Task could be completed in a reasonable number of actions
 4

Engaging: Style of the tool this task required enhanced the editing process
Error Tolerant: Errors were easy to correct, and thus not a major impediment
Easy to Learn: Tool this task required was intuitive and easily accessible
Likert Scale
Strongly Disagree Partially Agree Agree Strongly Agree
Disagree
1 2 3 4 5

Results
Task 1:
Create a new document
Microsoft Word:
To create a new document in
Microsoft word I simply launched
the application and saw the option
for a blank document. There was
also an option for creating a new
document further to the left, but I
saw the option for a blank
document first. This task was
entirely effective, efficient, error
tolerant, and easy to learn. The
tool was not entirely engaging, as Figure 1: Microsoft Office opening page with options.
I jumped straight past the tool to
simply create a new document and
instead chose the blank document option.
Google Documents:
For Google Documents I first had to
Google “google documents,” and I
then clicked on the first link
available. I continued on to click on
the personal option presented on the
next page, and then finally was able
to select the blank document option.
This task presented more issues with
efficiency but was more engaging Figure 2: Google search page for Documents.
stylistically than the Microsoft Word
 5

option. Errors were easy to

correct, and it was easy to follow
how to create a document after
finding the link. That being said, I
still had to select the appropriate
link. I also had the benefit of
already being signed in to my
account, which limited the amount
of effort I had to put in to open a
document. The processing system
was entirely efficient for this task. Figure 3: Page following the first link from the search.
Due to the inefficiency of Google
Documents for this particular task,
it only receives a 3/5 on the Likert
scale for efficiency. This lack of
efficiency limits overall usability as
it lowers the ability of the user to
easily open up a new document.
Comparison: Google Documents
had a higher score for engagement
on this task than Microsoft Word
due to it having visually appealing Figure 4: Page allowing for document creation.
graphics and descriptions to help
you navigate their website. Likert Scale Scoring: Task 1
However, Google Documents had 6
limited efficiency as you have to be 5
signed into your account, you have 4
Score

to find the documents page, you 3

have to select whether your work 2
will be personal or business, and 1
only then are you finally able to 0
Effective Efficient Engaging Error Easy to
open up a new blank document. Tolerant Learn
This lowers the efficiency score to a Metric
3. For Microsoft Word the tools
were not engaging stylistically, so Microsoft Word Google Documents
the score was lowered to a 3. These
are the only metrics between the Figure 5: Likert Scale comparison for Task 1.
two word processors that did not earn
full marks.
 6

Task 2:
Select a layout or theme appropriate for a cover page
In Microsoft Word it was unclear
what tab a cover page would be
under, so I first clicked on design,
then layout, and then I clicked on
insert. The tool exists under the
insert tab, but it was not intuitive
to me that it would be in that
location, so points were deducted
from both the efficient and easy to
learn categories. Otherwise, it was Figure 6: Cover page location for Microsoft Word
relatively simple to add a cover page
from the options available, as it only required me to click cover page and then allowed me
to insert a cover page from their collection of options.
In Google Documents, I spent several minutes attempting to insert a cover page, and
eventually gave up on the task altogether and googled how to do it. It turns out that Google
Documents does not have an option that easily creates a cover page, and rather you have to
create a drawing of what you want for your cover page. This task was not able to be
completed in a format that was anywhere near the process for Microsoft Word, so Google
Documents receives very low scores across the Likert scale. The task can be accomplished
but it is with extreme difficulty.
In comparing the two, Microsoft work
offers a much better system for inserting a Likert Scale Scoring: Task 2
cover page. The processor loses points in 6
efficiency as it was not intuitive as to 5

where the cover page option would be 4

Score

available, and it also loses points in the 3

easy to learn metric for this reason. Google 2

1
Documents does not have a tool to help
0
you build a cover page, so it had to be
Effective Efficient Engaging Error Easy to
made by inserting a drawing, which is not Tolerant Learn
intuitive, inefficient, and hard to learn. The Metric
process was made more difficult overall by
its lack of assistance in the tools. Microsoft Word Google Documents

Figure 7: Likert scale comparison for Task 2.

 7

Task 3:
Access the header/footer
For Microsoft Word, I had to click on
insert and then add a header. It was
simple to insert the header and made
sense as to which tab it would be under.
In Google Documents it was also easy to
find the header option as it was under
the same insert tab. There are less
options available to adjust the header in
a way that is simple and easy to do.
The two word processor were similar in
how difficult it was to insert a header, Figure 8: Microsoft Word header options.
but Microsoft Word had more options
for the header that made it simpler to
put together the desired header.

Figure 9: Google Document with header inserted

Likert Scale Scoring: Task 3

6
5
4
Score

3
2
1
0
Effective Efficient Engaging Error Easy to
Tolerant Learn
Metric

Microsoft Word Google Documents

Figure 10: Likert scale comparison for Task 3

 8

Task 4:
Insert page number
In Microsoft Word it was easy to insert page numbers as it only took two clicks. It was
located under the insert tab which intuitively made sense.

Figure 11: Location of the page number option in Microsoft Word

In Google documents it was easy to insert page numbers, but it took slightly more effort to
get to the specific options for page numbers. It was still located under the insert tab, but it
took several steps to get to the appropriate option for the page number. I was unable to
capture an image of this process, but there were several lists to reach the selection page.

Figure 12: Location of the page number option in Google Documents.

Likert Scale Scoring: Task 4

6
5
4
Score

3
2
1
0
Effective Efficient Engaging Error Easy to
Tolerant Learn
Metric

Microsoft Word Google Documents

Figure 13: Likert scale comparison for Task 4

 9

Task 5:
Insert an image
In Microsoft Word I simply hit insert and then picture. It then allowed me to select an
image from my stored images on my computer, and I inserted that image into the
document.

Figure 14: The location of the insert pictures option in Microsoft Word.
In Google Documents the process to insert an image is almost identical, but the stylistic
choices of the program are more engaging.

Figure 15: Location of the insert

Likert Scale Scoring: Task 5
pictures option in Google
Documents. 6
5
4
Score

3
2
1
0
Effective Efficient Engaging Error Easy to
Tolerant Learn
Figure 16: Likert scale comparison Metric
for Task 5.
Microsoft Word Google Documents
 10

Task 6:
Create a table of contents
In Microsoft Word, I had to check under the insert, draw, design, and layout tabs of the
processor before I was able to find the option for table of contents under the references tab.
In retrospect it makes perfect sense for this to be found under this tab, so points will not be
deducted for my inability to reason out where the option would be located. When the
references tab was selected the table of contents option was large and easy to find. When I
clicked on the button for table of contents it gave several options for what type of table I
would like. This was very convenient under every metric, and the fact that it lays out
options for table of contents for this particular task brings up it’s score for being engaging
as it becomes more pleasing stylistically under this tab.
In Google Documents the option
for a table of contents is in a
different location, with it being
located under the insert tab. I
intuitively thought it would be
here, which made it easy to
learn and efficient. It took very
minimal work for me to insert
the table of contents and the
style of the tool was engaging.
The two processes are very
similar in their usability here. Figure 17: The Google Documents process for Task 6

The two word processors are

Likert Scale Scoring: Task 6 equally usable for this task. The
engagement level for Microsoft
6
5 Word is higher than in previous
4 tasks because despite the fact that
Score

3 the style is not the more pleasing,

2
1
the options that are offered
0 improved the overall engagement
Effective Efficient Engaging Error Easy to for this task. Both word processors
Tolerant Learn
earned a perfect score due to
Metric
complete user-friendliness and
Microsoft Word Google Documents efficient use of the tab system on
each word processor.
Figure 18: Likert scale comparison for Task 6
 11

Task 7:
Change the font and the size of the font
This was the easiest task of all to complete in both word processors. It is easy to see exactly
where the font and size can be changed when you open up a document in either processor.
You simply select the desired font and desired size. The tools look similar but not exactly
the same, with Microsoft word having a slightly less stylistically pleasing tool. Both were
completely easy to learn, efficient, effective, and error tolerant, but Google Documents was
just slightly more engaging.

Likert Scale Scoring: Task 7

6
5
4

Score
3
2
1
0
Effective Efficient Engaging Error Easy to
Figure 19: Microsoft Word font section. Tolerant Learn
Metric

Microsoft Word Google Documents

Figure 21: Likert scale comparison for Task 7

Figure 20: Google Documents font section.
 12

Task 8:
Highlight part of the text
This task was almost as simple as the last task. It is easy to see exactly where the highlight
choices can be changed when you open up a document in either processor as there is a little
highlighter marker icon. You simply select the desired color. The tools look similar but not
exactly the same, with Microsoft word having a slightly less stylistically pleasing tool. Both
were completely easy to learn, efficient, effective, and error tolerant, but Google Documents
was just slightly more engaging.

Figure 22: Google Documents Highlight Options Figure 23: Microsoft Word highlight options.

Likert Scale Scoring: Task 8

6
5
4
Score

3
2
1
0
Effective Efficient Engaging Error Easy to
Tolerant Learn
Metric

Microsoft Word Google Documents

Figure 24: Likert scale comparison for Task 8

 13

Task 9:
Save document under a custom title
In Microsoft Word, the user has to select file, save as, choose a place to save the document
to, name the document and then select save. This process is relatively intuitive, and the
screen for the completion of this task is more engaging than other components of the
processor. This was very easy to learn, effective, and error tolerant. The process is not as
efficient as it could be.

Figure 25: The page to save the document under a specific name in Microsoft Word.
In Google Documents the document is simply renamed at top of the page. This meets the
highest score on the Likert scale for all of the metrics as it is entirely user-friendly and is
stylistically pleasing. It is easy to fix errors in naming and is completely intuitive and
efficient.

Likert Scale Scoring: Task 9

6
5
4
Score

3
2
1
0
Effective Efficient Engaging Error Easy to
Tolerant Learn
Metric
Figure 26: File naming in Google
Microsoft Word Google Documents
Documents
Figure 27: Likert scale comparison for Task 9
 14

Task 10:
Change from left justified to right justified text
It is easy to see exactly where the justification choices can be changed when you open up a
document in either processor as there are four symbols representing the options for
justification. You simply select the desired option. The tools look similar but not exactly the
same, with Microsoft word having a slightly less stylistically pleasing tool. Both were
completely easy to learn, efficient, effective, and error tolerant, but Google Documents was
just slightly more engaging.

Likert Scale Scoring: Task 10

6
5
4

Score
3
2
1
Figure 28: Microsoft Word paragraph options. 0
Effective Efficient Engaging Error Easy to
Tolerant Learn
Metric

Microsoft Word Google Documents

Figure 30: Likert comparison for Task 10

Figure 29: Google Documents paragraph options.

Overview:

Cumulative Ratings by Task

30
25
20
Score

15
10
5
0
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 Task 5 Task 6 Task 7 Task 8 Task 9 Task 10
Task

Microsoft Word Google Documents

Figure 31: Cumulative ratings across all ten tasks for the two word processors tested.
 15

Cumulative Scoring
60

50

40
Score

30

20

10

0
Effective Efficient Engaging Error Tolerant Easy to Learn
Metric

Microsoft Word Google Documents

Figure 32: Cumulative ratings within each metric for the two word processing systems.
Recommendations and Conclusions:
Between the two word processing choices, Microsoft Word had a higher overall score in
every metric other than engagement. This was due largely to the lack of stylistically
pleasing elements in Microsoft Word. Everything looks nice but it is not engaging enough to
justify a full score in this metric. Google Documents is more engaging, but due to its failure
produce a cover page in a simplistic manner it has scores on the Likert scale that fall below
the scores earned by Microsoft Word. This leads to the overall conclusion that Microsoft
Word has higher usability than Google Documents.
Second Choice: Google Documents
For the tasks laid out for this usability test, Microsoft Word exceeds the usability of Google
Documents. Stylistically Google Documents is more pleasing, but overall Microsoft Word
was able to provide a more usable processing system than Google Documents.
The main failing of Google Documents was its inability to provide formatted cover pages in
a simplistic manner. In every other task the two systems were fairly comparable and
showed little difference. If a cover page is not needed for your document the two word
processors are likely close to being equally usable.
First Choice: Microsoft Word
Microsoft Word has a more simplistic design that lost the processor several points in the
engagement metric, but overall proved to be the more usable word processor between the
two. It proved to be very similar overall to Google Documents, but the ability to insert a
pre-formatted cover page makes it superior for the tasks that were performed. Every other
task was scored very closely with Google Documents, so if you need to use a cover page for
 16

a paper Microsoft Word is the superior. Otherwise there is limited change in usability
between the two word processors.

Bibliography
https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/
https://www.microsoft.com/en-
us/p/word/cfq7ttc0k7c7?=&ef_id=CjwKCAiA8K7uBRBBEiwACOm4dzvqo-
oZTA9Jr_1Wux1gvgAOwh7WdDrp2DD9x5ZweiRrYHYLRI12oRoCpUkQAvD_BwE%3aG%3a
s&OCID=AID2000136_SEM_qZCDySPy&MarinID=sqZCDySPy%7c340667806212%7cdow
nload+microsoft+word%7ce%7cc%7c%7c64346373008%7caud-
473968998473%3akwd-
163527953&lnkd=Google_O365SMB_NI&gclid=CjwKCAiA8K7uBRBBEiwACOm4dzvqo-
oZTA9Jr_1Wux1gvgAOwh7WdDrp2DD9x5ZweiRrYHYLRI12oRoCpUkQAvD_BwE&activeta
b=pivot%3aoverviewtab
 17

Appendix: Raw Data

18