Why We Are Not Google: Lessons from a Library Web site Usability Study

Swanson, Troy A.; Green, Jeremy

doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2011.02.014

Cited by 35 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Favourites menu and the Archives link also held little appeal to the distance students as they did not seem to relate to their primary reasons for using the website. Indeed, the prominence of the search feature on the library website's home page accorded with the priorities established by the participants (i.e., searching for resources) (George, 2005;Swanson & Green, 2011;McHale, 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several user studies were conducted as part of library website redesigns or with the goal of examining usability characteristics across different academic library home pages. Many library home page usability issues have been explored in the literature, such as the presence of particular design elements, the use of white space and the visual presentation of particular design elements, the priority users place on the presence of certain links, and the placement of search features and user behaviours regarding them (Jones & Leonard, 2011;Kasperek, Dorney, Williams, & O'Brien, 2011;McHale, 2008;George, 2005;Swanson & Green, 2011). Polger (2011) also compared librarian and student terminological preferences for library websites (p. 1).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is reflected in a variety of ways, such as how and where content is placed, how much space is allotted for certain types of content, and which "starting point" resources are recommended to users (Kasperek et al, 2011, p. 242). Swanson and Green (2011) also pointed out that students tend to gravitate towards the search box often prominently featured on library home pages, rather than browsing through links provided to reach their desired resources (p. 223). Features like search boxes or help links may be users' first choices on library home pages, as these are more familiar elements often included on other websites, while the language used for other site-specific links may not be.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

“Watch Your Language!”: Word Choice in Library Website Usability

Gillis

2017

Partnership

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many academic libraries conduct extensive user studies when redesigning their websites, considering characteristics such as design features, information architecture, and link and information placement. One of the less studied aspects impacting library website usability is choice of language. This article presents the results of a usability study conducted at a small Canadian academic library that assessed the impact of word choice on user interactions with its library website. The author provides an overview of the relevant literature and explores the role that word choice, especially on a library website's home page, can play in user experience.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

“Watch Your Language!”: Word Choice in Library Website Usability

Gillis

2017

Partnership

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The experiment by Teague-Rector et al [14] also showed that moving the search box from left to the center of the interface increased the number of searches conducted. Some attribute this to Google, which could have shaped users' expectation to see the search box at the center [22], [23].…”

Section: Usability Of Library Discovery Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Case for Adaptation to Enhance Usability and Accessibility of Library Resource Discovery Tools

Beyene

Ferati

2017

Universal Access in Human–Computer Interaction. Design and Development Approaches and Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Library resource discovery tools (RDTs) are the latest generation of library catalogs that enable searching across disparate databases and repositories from a single search box. Although such "Google-like" experience has been applauded as a benefit for library users, there still exist usability and accessibility problems related to the diversity of user goals, needs, and preferences. To better understand these problems, we conducted an extensive literature review and in this process, we initially grouped issues into three categories: interface, resource description, and navigation. Based on these categories, we propose adaptation as an alternative approach to enhance the usability and accessibility of RDTs. The adaptations could be conducted on three levels pertaining to categories of issues found, namely: interface, information, and navigation level. The goal of this paper is to suggest how the process of adaptation could be considered to improve usability and accessibility of RDTs.

show abstract

“…Much has been written about librarians' efforts to help patrons understand this language (Adedibu & Ajala, 2011;Ayre, Smith, & Cleeve, 2006;Chaudhry & Choo, 2001;Dewey, 1999;Doran, 1998;Foster, 2010;Houdyshell, 1998;Hutcherson, 2004;Imler & Eichelberger, 2014;Naismith & Stein, 1989;Pinto, Cordon, & Gómez Diaz, 2010;Sonsteby & DeJonghe, 2013;Spivey, 2000;Swanson & Green, 2011). Rather than alluding to tangible objects and services, information literacy jargon, on the other hand, may elicit abstract thoughts and actions that require a higher-degree of critical thinking to comprehend and apply (Pinto, Cordon, & Gómez Diaz, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Collision of Two Lexicons: Librarians, Composition Instructors and the Vocabulary of Source Evaluation

Carter

Aldridge

2016

EBLIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

the terms of the Creative CommonsAttribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike License 4.0 International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-ncsa/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the same or similar license to this one. AbstractObjective -The study has two aims. The first is to identify words and phrases from information literacy and rhetoric and composition that students used to justify the comparability of two sources. The second is to interpret the effectiveness of students' application of these evaluative vocabularies and explore the implications for librarians and first-year composition instructors' collaborations.Methods -A librarian and a first-year composition instructor taught a class on source evaluation using the language of information literacy, composition, and rhetorical analysis (i.e., classical, Aristotelian, rhetorical appeals). Students applied the information learned from the instruction session to help them locate and select two sources of comparable genre and rigor for the purpose Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2016, 11.1 24 of an essay assignment. The authors assessed this writing assignment for students' evaluative diction to identify how they could improve their understanding of each other's discourse. Results -The authors' analysis of the student writing sample exposes struggles in how students understand, apply, and integrate the jargon of information literacy and rhetoric and composition. Assessment shows that students chose the language of rhetoric and composition rather than the language of information literacy, they selected the broadest and/or vaguest terms to evaluate their sources, and they applied circular reasoning when justifying their choices. When introduced to analogous concepts or terms between the two discourses, students cherry-picked the terms that allowed for the easiest, albeit, least-meaningful evaluations.Conclusion -The authors found that their unfamiliarity with each other's discourse revealed itself in both the class and the student writing. They discovered that these miscommunications affected students' language use in their written source evaluations. In fact, the authors conclude that this oversight in addressing the subtle differences between the two vocabularies was detrimental to student learning. To improve communication and students' source evaluation, the authors consider developing a common vocabulary for more consistency between the two lexicons.

show abstract

Why We Are Not Google: Lessons from a Library Web site Usability Study

Cited by 35 publications

References 18 publications

“Watch Your Language!”: Word Choice in Library Website Usability

“Watch Your Language!”: Word Choice in Library Website Usability

A Case for Adaptation to Enhance Usability and Accessibility of Library Resource Discovery Tools

The Collision of Two Lexicons: Librarians, Composition Instructors and the Vocabulary of Source Evaluation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About