The Perfect Storm: Examining User Experience and Conducting a Usability Test to Investigate a Disruptive Academic Library Web Site Redevelopment

Chase, Darren; Trapasso, Elizabeth; Tolliver, Robert

doi:10.1080/19322909.2015.1124740

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Novice users should be provided with web forms that allow them to communicate with library staff (Pant, 2015, p. 903). Users should be able to differentiate between different resources (Chase et al , 2016, p. 36).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating the usability of the information architecture of academic library websites

Silvis

Bothma

Beer

2019

LHT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide an integrated list of heuristics and an information architecture (IA) framework for the heuristic evaluation of the IA of academic library websites as well as an evaluation framework with practical steps on how to conduct the evaluation. Design/methodology/approach A set of 14 heuristics resulted from an integration of existing usability principles from authorities in the field of usability. A review of IA literature resulted in a framework for dividing academic library websites into six dialogue elements. The resulting heuristics were made applicable to academic library websites through the addition of recommendations based on a review of 20 related studies. Findings This study provides heuristics, a framework and workflow guidelines that can be used by the various evaluators of academic library websites, i.e. library staff, web developers and usability experts, to provide recommendations for improving its usability. Research limitations/implications The focus of the usability principles is the evaluation of the IA aspects of websites and therefore does not provide insights into accessibility or visual design aspects. Originality/value The main problem that is addressed by this study is that there are no clear guidelines on how to apply existing usability principles for the evaluation of the IA of academic library websites.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The evaluation of library websites has attracted a large amount of attention from researchers in the field of library and information sciences (Chase et al , 2016; Pant, 2015; Silvis, 2017; Wu and Brown, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the usability of the information architecture of academic library websites

Silvis

Bothma

Beer

2019

LHT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A prominent theme arising was that the decision to teach them depended on certain factors. One of these was related to student status – librarians were more inclined to introduce the tool to undergraduates, primarily freshmen or sophomores, because it offered them easy access to research information, especially because they were often unaccustomed to using databases (Buck and Steffy, 2013; Chase, et al , 2016; Dyas-Correia et al , 2015). However, there was still concern as to the volume of information returned.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, there was still concern as to the volume of information returned. Chase et al (2016, p. 38) found that undergraduates had difficulties with one-box searches because they did not understand the differences between “library search and non-library interfaces and the resources and information these interfaces access”. Once students reached junior, senior or graduate status with more classes concentrating on particular disciplines, some librarians tended to instruct them on subject-specific databases (Dyas-Correia et al , 2015).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

ARL instruction librarians and the one-box: a follow-up study

Rubenstein

McCain

Boulden

2017

RSR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The effectiveness and usability of one-boxes have been subjects of much research and debate, as librarians have worked to evaluate and improve the tools’ effectiveness and functionality. As one-box technologies change and improve over time, librarians must learn to navigate their new features and limitations. This paper aims to report the results of a study that sought to determine whether or not one-box teaching practices and philosophies of librarians of Association of Research Libraries (ARL) changed between the fall of 2011 and the spring of 2016. Design/methodology/approach This study was conducted using the same survey questions that were sent to ARL instruction and reference librarians in October of 2011. The survey was e-mailed to the same librarians who responded to the original survey. Questions focused on how librarians use the one-box during instructional opportunities and their overall opinions on the one-box as an option. Findings There were similarities between the two studies in that librarians agreed that one-box search tools tended to be beneficial for novices as an entrée into library resources but not as valuable for significant research. Librarians also noted the need for improvement in the results and felt that the products did not live up to their hype. There was a slight shift from negative opinions to more neutral opinions, indicating that some librarians have become more accepting of the tool. This shift may reflect a gradual change that suggests that librarians have become more comfortable with or accustomed to the presence of the one-box and its features. Research limitations/implications Although this follow-up study was sent to all participants who had responded to the first study, fewer than 25 per cent of the original number responded to the survey in 2016. Originality/value This is the first study to examine the shift in practices and philosophies over the past five years of a select group of reference and instruction librarians.

show abstract

“…Questionnaires are the most widely used method for evaluating websites [5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. These can be administered remotely or in person [12] and used stand-alone or in combination with other methodology, such as observed browsing and interviews following completion of task scenarios [13,14]. Allison et al [7] incorporated methods and attributes from 69 studies to suggest a simple but comprehensive guide to evaluating websites, coined GoodWeb, which follows 4 basic steps:…”

Section: Introduction Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of an Educational Health Website on Infections and Antibiotics in England: Mixed Methods, User-Centered Approach

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background e-Bug, an educational health website for teachers and students, aims to help control antibiotic resistance by educating young people about microbes, hygiene, and antibiotic resistance, reducing the incidence of infection and, therefore, the need for antibiotics. The teachers’ section of the e-Bug website has not been evaluated since it was launched in 2009, and worldwide page views have been steadily decreasing since 2013. Objective This study aimed to apply GoodWeb, a comprehensive framework utilizing methodologies and attributes that are relevant to the digital era, to evaluate and suggest improvements to the e-Bug website. Methods Electronic questionnaires and face-to-face completion of task scenarios were used to assess content, ease of use, interactivity, technical adequacy, appearance, effectiveness, efficiency, and learnability of the teachers’ section of the e-Bug website. Results A total of 106 teachers evaluated the e-Bug website; 97.1% (103/106) of them reported that they would use e-Bug, and 98.1% (104/106) of them reported that they would recommend it to others. Participants thought that there was a niche for e-Bug because of the way the resources fit into the national curriculum. Suggestions for improvements included changing the menu indication by highlighting the current page or deactivating links, improving home page indication, and providing a preview of resources when hovering the mouse over hyperlinks. Additional features requested by users included a search function and access to training opportunities. Conclusions This paper reports that the GoodWeb framework was successfully applied to evaluate the e-Bug website, and therefore, it could be used to guide future website evaluations in other fields. Results from this study will be used to appraise the current quality and inform any future changes, modifications, and additions to e-Bug.

show abstract

The Perfect Storm: Examining User Experience and Conducting a Usability Test to Investigate a Disruptive Academic Library Web Site Redevelopment

Cited by 6 publications

References 11 publications

Evaluating the usability of the information architecture of academic library websites

Evaluating the usability of the information architecture of academic library websites

ARL instruction librarians and the one-box: a follow-up study

Evaluation of an Educational Health Website on Infections and Antibiotics in England: Mixed Methods, User-Centered Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About