Guiding choices: implementing a library website usability study

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is go better understand website usability by community college students. The usability study team sought data that would help to guide in a website redesign. Design/methodology/approach Librarians led students through sessions that followed the usability testing approach defined by Nielsen (2012) which emphasizes the ease of use of the Web interface. This study compared the results from the existing library website and a prototype website. Findings The study’s findings emphasized the need for balance between the variety of services and content that the website provides. This is especially true given that so many community college students are underprepared for college-level courses. Research limitations/implications The study was limited by available time and the clinical nature of the usability session. Practical implications The study results underscore the significant challenge facing library website designers. The various online services exist in pockets that are only partially integrated and, therefore, require students to make decisions and predictive judgments as they navigate the site. Originality/value Overall, this study emphasized the need for balance between the variety of services and content that the website provides.

Testing, testing: a usability case study at University of Toronto Scarborough Library

“…These findings are echoed by Mal and Idal (2015) and Becker and Yannotta (2013), who note that cluttered interfaces and poor visibility of key features can impede website use. Likewise, Swanson et al (2017) noted that too many links on a page can be problematic. As a result, removing low usage links and pages is recommended (Mitchell et al, 2015;Denton et al, 2016).…”

Revise, redUX, re-cycle: iterative website usability studies in an assessment cycle

“…In reviewing multiple usability studies, with particular attention to usability assessment methods, a variety of methodologies were observed in practice. Many studies discussed the process of designing study questions (Swanson et al, 2017;Valenti, 2019;Vargas Ochoa, 2020). Some questions were designed in a way that provided context for the task to help the students understand their motivation behind performing it (Kous et al, 2020;Swanson et al, 2017;Valenti, 2019;Vargas Ochoa, 2020).…”

“…While we observed this practice of question design in the abovementioned studies, it was not explicitly discussed by the authors. Several studies included the roles of session facilitator/interviewer and/or notetaker (Becker and Yannotta, 2013;Conrad and Stevens, 2019;Gillis, 2017;Guay et al, 2019;Klein et al, 2018;Kous et al, 2020;Swanson et al, 2017;Valenti, 2019). Think-aloud protocols, in which the user is invited to narrate their thoughts and actions during the study, are also commonly used (Becker and Yannotta, 2013;George, 2005;Guay et al, 2019;Klein et al, 2018;Tidal, 2012).…”

Assessing Demographics and Needs of Online Students before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons from Academic Libraries

“…There are assessments of virtual library research tutorials showing that effective online research tutorials lead to better student success (Appelt & Pendell, 2010;Blummer, 2007;Lindsay et al, 2006;Lo & Dale, 2009;Sachs et al, 2013;Saunders, 2018;Weeks & Davis, 2017) and librarians working and embedding within the learning management system (LMS), which displays the vitality of libraries integrating with the university LMS (Henrich & Attebury, 2012;Horvat et al, 2015;Mafuna & Wadesango, 2012;Marineo & Shi, 2019;Tumbleson et al, 2019). Assessing the usability of asynchronous online learning objects is crucial to university libraries, and sometimes comes in the form of usability studies on library websites, e-resources, and research guides (LibGuides) (Fry & Rich, 2011;Mitchell & West, 2017;Pant, 2015;Sonsteby & DeJonghe, 2013;Swanson et al, 2017). Learning lessons from library services and resources that serve virtual students is also valuable, such as evaluating chat and library electronic resources (Dempsey, 2019;Devine et al, 2011;Eastman et al, 2019;Ireland & Woods, 2008;Leong, 2007;Logan et al, 2019;Maloney & Kemp, 2015;Rogers & Nielsen, 2017;Valentine & Moss, 2017).…”