Weekly Round-Up: Friday 20th November
Posted by: Lorraine on: November 20, 2009
Interactive Triptych Framework (ITF)
This week has been largely spent reading papers as I try to review the Interactive Triptych Framework as a possible framework for evaluating library@nesc later in the project. I still feel like I’m at the beginning of a long journey on this subject and often find that Twitter can be a massive distraction when trying to concentrate for longer than 20 minutes! That being said, I wanted to summarise the framework below from the paper which proposed it. Other papers of relevance will be documented in subsequent blogs.
Analysing and evaluating usefulness and usability in electronic information services, Tsakonas & Papatheodorou, Journal of Information Science, 2006;32
This paper presents the ITF model and suggests that interaction is effected equally by content and system characteristics. It also states that usefulness and usability are interconnected from the user’s point of view. ITF is a holistic picture of user interaction and other approaches to Electronic Information Services (EIS) evaluation. The proposed framework illustrates the interactions taking place between the three components: system, content and users. Each component interacts with each other and it is these interactions which define three evaluation approaches: usefulness, usability and performance.
An important observation of the research paper was the identification of a correlation between usefulness and usability from the users point of view. In addition to this is that fact that all attributes (usefulness, usability and performance) were equally preferred by users and considered important for their interaction. However, the research also reported that usefulness precedes usability when users are asked to state a preference suggesting that content quality is paramount for EISs.
An integrated approach which evaluates usefulness and usability is recommended in order to provide a holistic image of user interaction. If the ITF were to be adopted for the planned evaluation of library@nesc then such an approach would need to be designed. This is something which I intend to give some thought to.
Social Media event from NESTA
In addition to reading this week I also watched a streamed event on social media organised by NESTA entitled ‘Social media – a force for good?’. This well organised and interesting event invited three people with something to say on the subject to answer questions: Stephen Fry, Biz Stone (founder of Twitter) and Reid Hoffman (founder of LinkedIn). If you missed the live stream you can watch on the NESTA website. Although it was a talk on social media, Twitter inevitably dominated the questions. I’ve summarised a couple of points raised which I thought were topical and of interest:
- Biz stated that his prediction for Twitter in years to come is that it won’t be triumph of technology, more a triumph of humanity. It seemed like there has been recent debate about social media and whether or not it is a saviour or slayer of humanity. I think scientific research will play a great role in attempting to answer this question. Twitter is relatively young and very little (if any) solid research has been done on its effects on individuals and society. There seems to be a huge amount of potential for researchers on this subject and this makes it an exciting subject.
- Another similar question asked if things like Twitter are increasing isolation amongst people. Biz refuted this when he pointed to the many Tweetups that happen around the world. As an attendee of a weekly Twitter related meet-up- Edinburgh Coffee Morning I tend to agree. Although I am relatively new to the group it seems that many friendships have been formed through face-to-face conversation which has continued on into Twitter and more recently Facebook. The Guardian wrote this week ‘Is local the new social now?’ and when thinking about the popularity and regularity of local Tweetups then it is fair to say that it is.
- Finally a topic which cropped up a few times was the power of the masses on Twitter. Reid Hoffman put it as “The wisdom of the crowd or the madness of the masses.” This refers not only to the information which influences us on an individual basis but also the potential of Twitter (and all forms of mass communication) to whip people up into a frenzy with (possible) catastrophic consequences. One could argue that the masses are not on Twitter which is equally correct but I wonder how long it will be before this changes and we see more extremists using Twitter to communicate their message (if not already)? Something to be aware of at least.
Finally
I thought I would post another Dilbert strip which I saw this week. Its on the theme of cloud computing and made me laugh. Have a great weekend!
Usability Inspection of Digital Libraries (Part 4 of 5)
Posted by: Lorraine on: November 16, 2009
- In: #inf11| UX2
- Leave a Comment
Scran Background
Scran is a multimedia digital library providing a database of items from museums, galleries, archives and media across Scotland. It provides limited access to users for free. Those who pay a fee to subscribe can have full access to all services including the social network, Scribble.
Findings
Resource discovery
Scran provide another search feature in addition to the advanced search called ‘Fielded’ search. This appears to be similar to the advanced search but it is not made clear to the user what the purpose of this search is and how it differs from advanced search. This does not meet Heuristic 2: Match between the system and the real world which recommends that words and phrases should be used that are familiar to the user. In addition, the links within both search forms that start a new search are not clearly identifiable. The design of the ‘Go’ link means that it does not look like a link and could be overlooked (see image). The close proximity of a ‘Clear’ link could cause users to accidentally wipe their search and force them to start again. The design of the forms are not forgiving for the user as highlighted by ISO heuristics and do not prevent potential errors from happening as recommended in Heuristic 5.
Navigation
Scran also does not use faceted navigation, instead providing paginated results which users can navigate. This alternative system does not allow users to manipulate the results in the same way as other navigation systems, limiting user control (Heuristic 3). Scran does allow users to re-order results and increase the number of results presented per page. This helps to speed up time on task and therefore meets the ISO heuristics which recommend controllability and customisation.
Presentation of search results
The results are displayed in a ‘gallery’ presentation style with thumbnail images and text displayed in a grid formation. Where images are not available a replacement graphic is provided to categorise the type of information e.g. pathfinder pack. Unlike WDL and Europeana, Scran does not provide users with the option to change the view of results from gallery for list. Instead, drop-down menus are provided to allow users to alter the order of results. However, these options are hidden beneath a link titled ‘Search options’ and could therefore benefit from being more visible. Providing this service means that it meets Heuristic 3: User Control and Freedom but does not meet ISO heuristic which asks if it is clear what the user should do next.
Presentation of results in a gallery format can speed up time spent searching but DLs should be weary of a possible disadvantage to this system; the hierarchy of results is less clear, meaning that users may be unsure which results are most relevant. This can potentially conflict with Heuristic 2 (Match between the system and the real world) if the information does not appear in a logical order. Where possible users should be given to choice to display results by list if they wish.
Help and guidance
The help section within Scran can only be located via the Site map when a user is not logged in. Even for members who are logged in, the help section is difficult to find. This makes it harder for users to get help when they need it. This does not meet Heuristic 10: Help documentation which states that help information should be easy to search. However, if a user does locate the help section, Scran provides useful video tutorials which communicate information in an engaging way and reduce the size of help documentation as also suggested by Heuristic 10.
When a search returns no results, Scran provide sufficient help for users to complete their task. Suggested spelling is provided as well as advice and tips on recovering from an error (see image). As a result, Scran provide a forgiving dialogue (ISO heuristic) which is successful in helping users diagnose and recover from errors (Heuristic 10).
Interactive tools
Scran provide a ‘Create’ link next to each image which allows users to interact with images in a unique way. Users can manipulate the image to create a variety of media such as calendars, posters or greeting cards. A step-by-step form allows the users to step through the each option and customise their design (as recommended in Heuristic 3). Creations can then be saved to the site or downloaded in a PDF format. Providing such interactive tools helps to engage the users and allows users to customise information to suit their needs as recommended by the ISO heuristic on individualism.
Social Interaction
The online community service provided by Scran is called Scribble. It is not immediately recognisable from the title what Scribble is and there is very little information for users to explain Scribble and how it benefits users. Limited information on labels and services means that Scribble does not meet Heuristic 4: Consistency and standards.
Access to Scribble requires a separate password to that used to log in to Scran. It currently uses the login details from ‘Stuff’ which is the service for creating calendars etc. A link is provided to allow users to do register for Stuff if they have not already done so. However, if a user is already registered and logged into My Stuff, they are still required to log in again for Scribble. This is potentially confusing for users. By conforming to a minimalist design as recommended in Heuristic 8, a streamlined service would be created with one log in required for all Scran services.
Finally, if a user forgets their Scran ‘Stuff’ login a ‘Forgotten Password’ link is provided. However, when this is selected a message is returned that password changing has been disabled. No other information if provided to help users remember their user name and password. This makes it very difficult for those users to be able to log in to Scribble and does not meet Heuristic 9: Help users diagnose and recover from errors.
Personalisation and customisation
My Stuff is the users’ personal section of Scran and opens in a new window. This is potentially confusing for users, especially those using assisted technology such as screen readers. It can cause disorientation for those who are unaware that a new window has opened and prevent them from navigating back to the previous page. Limiting control for the users conflicts with Heuristic 3 (User control and freedom) and providing insufficient feedback to keep users informed of what is going on conflicts with Heuristic 1 (Visibility of system status).
When a user wants to save what they are working on in Scran, they must select the ‘Save’ link below the relevant item. However, when this happens a new window opens and if the user already has the Stuff section open in another window, nothing appears to happen. Users are not provided with sufficient feedback to indicate a change has happened so are less likely to know if their action was completed. Visibility of system status should be maintained to avoid confusion (Heuristic 1). It should also be made clear to users what they should do next (ISO standard: self descriptiveness).
On the whole, the customisation tools provided by Scran are engaging and increase the usefulness of the material available. Making some changes to improve the interface would ensure that the tools are intuitive to use and consequently encourage more members to utilise them.
Weekly Round-Up: Friday 13th November
Posted by: Lorraine on: November 13, 2009
I’ve decided that since reading the excellent blog by Social Media Officer, Nicola Osborne, I have been inspired to start writing a weekly round-up of news/events/topics/discussions that have interested me. It will help me track my own research and hopefully be of interest to others.
World Usability Day (WUD): 12/11/09
Although this year’s theme was sustainability, the general purpose of WUD is to raise awareness of usability. So in that spirit I wanted to share some great usability related resources which I refer to frequently and that do a great job spreading the word:
- UX booth: a blog with guest posts from people throughout the usability community.
- UX blog: a blog from a usability professional, Barry Briggs who frequently posts links to other useful resources on the web.
- IxDA: has a discussion forum on all things usability and new topics are frequently posted on Twitter to follow.
- A List Apart: Very well known in the design community for producing great articles from some of the most prominent professionals around. Topics are not restricted to usability but also cover design, code and business.
- UX Exchange: Relatively new to me, this is a simple UX Q&A site that aims to build a community lead, authoritative resource on the User Experience disciplines. Post a question and get an answer back fast.
I also came across a blog by Dana McKay on this year’s WUD theme which discusses the connection between usability and sustainability.
Library 2.0 Community
I joined Ning’s Library 2.0 community online yesterday and although I’ve not had much time to look through the site in detail, it does look like a promising resource for information, discussion and networking with like minded people.
BBC Digital Revolution: open source and collaborative documentary
Perhaps later than others, this week I discovered that the BBC are in the process of creating a documentary about the internet and are using a suitably interactive process to produce the 4 part series which will be aired in 2010. If you happen to be in London this weekend they have an event going on which aims to test the way the internet effects us. For more information please visit their site. It sounds really interesting and something I would love to attend if I wasn’t so far away. If like me you cant attend then there is lots of other stuff to check out on their site including film clips which you can not only watch but also download and edit. One interview which I was particularly interested in was that from Twitter creators, Biz Stone and Evan Williams. Something which they pointed out in their interview was that Twitter is essentially ‘Recipient driven communication’. This is a great term to describe Twitter and the fact that users decide what information they wish to receive and not the individual/company/corporation providing the information. This for me is one of the defining things about Twitter and the reason I think it has become so popular and consequently so powerful.
JISC mailing list: Web2
If however you still like your information pushed to you through more traditional forms such as email, a new JISC mailing list had been set up recently on the theme on Web 2 and its uses in libraries. I joined last week and have already started receiving emails with links to some useful information (one example being the Library 2.0 community above).
Twitter Re-tweet beta
This week people started tweeting about the Retweet functionality that was being trialled by Twitter and it wasn’t long before I got to test it myself. Yesterday however it was pulled by Twitter while they try to fix a bug. Anyway while it was available there seemed to be a lot of grumbling about the fact that users can’t edit their Retweets at all. This on the surface sounded crazy, the majority of people like to add their own value to Retweets and I could predict that many users would shun Twitters attempt at this service and continue using their own system through their respective client manager. However after reading an article on the subject from e-consultancy I realised what Twitter is trying to do. Quite often when users add their own comments to a tweet, character real-estate quickly becomes a problem and the users have to make an executive decision of what to delete from the original tweet. This quickly degrades tweets and consequently they become more difficult to track. Twitter could be trying to address this issue by removing this problem from tweets, leaving more room for content. However, I didn’t get the chance to try the Retweet function before it was promptly removed by Twitter so the jury is still out on this one!
Twitter Lists: filtering out all the irrelevant noise
Last week Twitter lists were the talk of the Twitterverse because they had finally been rolled out for everyone to use. At first it seemed quite novel to have a new feature but I quickly began to wonder how useful lists were in their current incarnation. Lists seem to be a way for individuals to categories groups of people they follow on Twitter, similar to groups in Tweetdeck. The group can be named anything and only be edited by the creator so if you find yourself in a list you don’t agree with there is little you can do about it, something which has been touched upon by others in the past. Additionally, if someone visits the group stream, there could be a large proportion of tweets which are unrelated to the group name. For example, although I am a usability analyst, not all my tweets are related to the subject. Thankfully I came across a blog which provides instructions on how to solve this problem by creating a hack to filter groups by a hashtag. This is a good short term solution but something I hope Twitter start to seriously think about as it could have a huge impact on the success of lists.
In plain English: Cloud Computing
Finally I wanted to share some brilliant videos which do a great job of explaining technology in laymen’s terms. They are by a company called Common Craft and their most recent edition is ‘Cloud Computing in Plain English’. They also have some other useful videos on Twitter, Web Search Strategies and Social Media (which is a personal favourite because it uses a brilliant ice cream metaphor to explain the concept). Next week there is a free webinar from TechSoup which will be interviewing Common Craft, Mary Beth Facciolo from the Colorado State Library and Carolyn Blatchley from Cumberland County Library System in Pennsylvania to hear how they are usign these videos to support the needs of their community. If you are interested in registering from this event then sign up with TechSoup.
New Beta British Library Catalogue: Initial Impressions
Posted by: Lorraine on: November 9, 2009
It was brought to my attention on Twitter this morning that the British Library (BL) have a new beta catalogue system. This was great timing on my part since I had just blogged about the current system which has been evaluated at part of the project’s usability inspection of selected digital libraries. After taking a quick look at the new beta version, I’ve noted a few first impressions and how it compares to the current version. Feel free to try out the catalogue for yourself before reading my notes, it might help to provide some context.
- Advanced search is still available but less prominent than before. As BL currently state that 75% of their users are academic researchers (including students), it seems likely that many will want to use the advanced search. Therefore making it easier to find will benefit most target users.
- Search results are more clearly presented making it easier for users to scan the page. Icons are also used to classify each item into type e.g. audio, book, journal etc. It would appear that a more user centric approach has been taken but providing all results in one place rather than separated into individual catalogues as before. This ensures that the user’s experience remains consistent throughout.
- Search results can now be refined further using the new faceted navigation on the right hand side. Categories such as author, subject, language, material type can be selected to narrow results and will make it quicker and easier for users to find information.
- The faceted navigation allows users to remove selected facets individually to widen search (see image). This provides users with complete control over their search, reversing out of an action easily if they change their mind or make a mistake.
- The user’s search remains at the top of the results page. Making the search criteria persistent allows users to review the search strings and check for spelling errors. This cuts out any unnecessary time spent by the users re-entering a new search which could be them same or very similar to their original search.
- Advice and guidance is provided below search results. A section titled ‘Haven’t found what you are looking for?’ is similar to that provided in the current version however the biggest difference is the advice that is provided. Links to external resources including Google Books and subject related websites may be more relevant to users than generic advice and help them complete their task.
- A personal section titled ‘My Workspace’ is provided. Here users can save items, add tags and review their search history. To obtain full access users are encouraged to login. British Library Reader Pass holders and registered document supply customers can log in but for those who are not pass holders, there is no information on how to obtain a pass or join the library in order to use the features in full. Providing such a link would be useful for new users, especially because it is common for users to register online to use a site’s services.
- Finally BL have a link to a feedback form which users can use to send their thoughts on the new beta site. This not only lets users feel involved in the design process but also provides developers with some free unsolicited feedback which can make positive changes to the DL and ultimately create a positive experience for the user.
The new beta interface has many more features which users will like compared to the old version. BL have moved away from individual specialised catalogues towards one comprehensive search engine. From the users point of view this is a positive development.
Usability Inspection of Digital Libraries (Part 3 of 5)
Posted by: Lorraine on: November 3, 2009
- In: #inf11| UX2
- Leave a Comment
British Library background
The British Library (BL) is the national library for the UK and is one of the largest research libraries in the world. The British Library website provides an umbrella for several catalogues including their online gallery, journals and catalogue records. Each catalogue appears to have its own website interface.
Findings
Search
BL display a basic and advanced search prominently on the homepage. Users can also choose which catalogues to search as there are separate check boxes for each one below the search field. A link to the advanced search is positioned below the basic search field. However the advanced search is not presented as a form which users might expect. Instead users are directed to several different advanced search forms depending on the catalogue they wish to search. In addition the Image Gallery catalogue does not provide an advanced search where all other BL catalogues do. BL should try to maintain consistency across every catalogue in order to comply with Heuristic 4.
Navigation
BL provides paginated results for users can navigate. The design and display of the paginated results varies according to the catalogue the user is viewing. In addition, users cannot navigate back to search results easily, often forced to use their browser. Providing a different system within each catalogue prevents users from being able to learn how to use the site effectively meaning that it does now support learning or conform with the users expectations which are both ISO heuristics.
BL does not provide an alternative to navigating results through pagination. This means that users are required to search through each page of results to find what they are looking for. This limits the users control over the presentation of results and as a result does not meet Heuristic 3: User control and freedom. Consequently time on task could be substantially longer using pagination alone compared to other systems such as faceted navigation.
Labelling
The labelling of links to catalogues does not match their headings. For example, after an initial search using all catalogues on the homepage, a small selection of results from each one is presented. Users can select one of the results displayed or browse all results in a particular catalogue by selecting ‘all web page results’ or ‘all journal articles’ etc. However, when they do so, the title of the catalogue is different to the link, for example ‘All journal articles’ becomes ‘British Library Direct’. These titles do not exactly match the labelling of links and therefore do not meeting Heuristic 2: Match between the system and the real world.
BL abbreviates labels within meta data information which not every user will be familiar with (see image). A full description or explanation of the label is not provided which will make browsing difficult for some (H2).
Information architecture: Search results
It is important that results are displayed in a way that makes it easy for users to search, provides them with control over the display of search results and that the information provided is understandable and comprehensive.
Initial results are clearly displayed but become inconsistent between catalogues. Initially search results are displayed in a clear manner with colours to distinguish each catalogue. However, if the user navigates to the results of a particular catalogue, the presentation changes. In addition, most of the catalogues present results in a table, however the Online Gallery presents results in a list with small text and very little visual formatting. This makes it difficult for the user to scan results easily and mean that it does not conform with Heuristic 7 which recommends that the system can be used efficiently by users. The Online Galley does provide a system for users to sort results by relevance or date however, it is the only catalogue to do this.
BL does provide clear feedback to users on the hierarchy of search results from the homepage. Text is provided at the bottom of each section clearly stating the hierarchy of the results (see image). Doing so ensures that the visibility of system status is achieved as recommended in Heuristic 1.
Meta data
Item information was evaluated to ensure that labels and titles used are understandable, that accelerators are provided for experienced users and that the information provided is comprehensive.
As with other issues identified, the presentation of meta data appears to vary between each catalogue. The Integrated Catalogue and British Library Direct provide the best examples of meta data presentation. Information is separated into a table with clear distinction made between titles and data. The information provided appears to be comprehensive including shelf-mark, ISBN where possible. This meets Heuristic 8 which states that information presented should be relevant. However, by not providing a consistent experience across each catalogue, the BL is unable to meet Heuristic 4 or the ISO heuristic which recommends consistency and the use of commonly used conventions throughout the site.
Help and guidance; recovery from errors
When a user is conducting a search, BL does several things to help users improve their search or recover from a search error. The original search string is persistent throughout the search results. This helps users to check their search criteria and ensure that words were not accidentally misspelled. A link to the advanced search is also provided which allows users to select this option if the basic search is not meeting their needs. Finally, BL also provides a variety of resources to help users construct a more effective search (see image) meaning that it successfully meets Heuristic 5: Error prevention as well as the ISO Heuristic which recommends that the dialogue is suitable for user’s task and skill level.
Personalisation and customisation
Personalisation is possible but is again dependent on the catalogue the user is using. Online Gallery allows users to save and tag images to create their own personal gallery but users must register first. The Integrated Catalogue allows users to place items into a digital folder without requiring them to register however items are only saved for the duration of the session. There does not appear to be one central place for users to register or save items which limits customisation as outlined by the ISO heuristic and also means that the system is not flexible for the users (Heuristic 7).
Social Interaction
BL use a number of external social networking sites including Twitter, Facebook and Flikr to provide their users with a social networking experience. This can be useful for users who already belong to one or more of the social networks because they will be familiar with the site already and will not be required to register again. Links to each social network is provided within the ‘Your Library’ tab on the homepage. The label is quite general and does not immediately communicate the information provided within this section. Consequently users might be unaware of the social networks and be unable to take advantage of their benefits.
Usability Inspection of Digital Libraries (Part 2 of 5)
Posted by: Lorraine on: October 29, 2009
- In: #inf11| UX2
- Leave a Comment
Europeana Background
The second DL to be evaluated is Europeana.
Europeana is a repository which links media from a number of European organisations. You can search for images, video, sound clips and text across museums, galleries, libraries and digital collections. The current version is a prototype which was launched at the end of 2008 and version 1.0 will be available in 2010. It is important to note that Europeana is separate from The Europeana Library.
Findings
Search
Although a search form is provided, it is not persistent throughout the entire site. If a user navigates to any of the universal links across the top of the site e.g. communities, time-line etc, then the search form disappears. To find the search form again the user must navigate back to the homepage. Currently the only link to the homepage is within the logo which is not immediately obvious. Consequently this does not meet Heuristic 4 or the ISO heuristic which request systems are consistent and follow platform conventions.
Unlike WDL, Europeana does provide an advanced search. A link to the advanced search form is prominently displayed below the search field. The extra fields in the advanced search are toggled to allow users to expand the search form without having to leave the page. This retains consistency, simplifies the navigation and reduces possible disorientation. Providing an advanced search meets Heuristic 7 which (accelerators for experienced users) and ISO heuristic which promotes dialogue suitable to user’s task and skill level.
As mentioned in the evaluation of WDL, Europeana is also guilty of not providing constructive help to users when no search results are returned which conflicts with Heuristic 9: Help users recognise, diagnose and recover from errors and ISO heuristic: Is the dialogue forgiving?
Browse
Similarly to WDL, Europeana have introduced a time-line which is currently in beta testing. Europeana present the time-line as a tag cloud of years and the size of font is directly related to the number of items available. When a user selects a year, a carousel of images appears which the user can select or scroll horizontally through. The time-line is not currently the default search method and as a result is not featured on the homepage. However, a carousel of images is presented on the homepage below the search form. The time-line was evaluated to investigate how intuitive the navigation system is to operate and how effective this system is at assisting browsed searching.
- The implementation of the time-line in Europeana makes browsing less efficient than other systems available. When a user selects a year from the word cloud to browse the time-line, a search form is provided to the left of the time-line. it is not immediately noticeable and its distance from the time-line and the use of boxes to section off the interactive element, users could consider the search form to be separate. Additionally, searching through results without using the search form will take longer to navigate. As results are paginated, users must navigate through each page individually in addition to using the carousel which could be time consuming. There is currently no other way of narrowing results. Consequently users have limited control over the presentation and navigation of results using the time-line system meaning that it does not meet Heuristic 3: User control and freedom and the ISO heuristics: Controllability and Suitability for learning.
- Word clouds don’t behave consistently and consequently results lose their usefulness. Although the word cloud presents results relative to the size of text, this does not always help to inform users effectively. For example, if a search is conducted using the search form, the word cloud changes (see image). Now all the years are uniform in size. No information is provided to inform users of the number of results for each year meaning that it does not meet Heuristic 1: Visibility of system status or ISO Heuristic: Self-descriptiveness.
User driven navigation
- This is something which has largely been popularised through social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. User driven navigation aggregates users behaviour and actions on a site. It gives users insight into what other users are doing. Europeana has introduced a section on the homepage similar to this which provides details of topics users have searched for. ‘People are currently thinking about’ (image below) is an alternative way to browse the DL and one which is entirely dependent on the user. It is not clear if the information reflects the most recent searches or the most popular searches but is a good example of a DL adopting an idea from social networking sites and adapting it to provide an additional service to users. This satisfies the ISO Heuristic which requests that users can control the pace and sequence of interaction.
Faceted navigation
Faceted navigation is used to help users frame their choices by allowing them to reduce the number of possible matches to their search. Europeana is one of three DLs evaluated which provided this type of navigation. The faceted navigation was evaluated to understand how useful this system is and identify any potential usability issues such as labelling, disorientation and user control.
- Labels and categories used should be understandable to users and relevant to the DL. Europeana have a section where users can narrow their results by language. However, each label is abbreviated to two letters making them difficult to distinguish. Abbreviated words and unfamiliar terms should be avoided to conform with Heuristic 2: Match between the system and the real world.
- Clear visual feedback within the faceted navigation helps orientate users. When using the faceted navigation, the users selections do not reset the search unexpectedly instead allowing users to select more than one category and de-select categories to widen a search if desired. This provides users with a high level of control as recommended in Heuristic 3: User control and freedom.
- Use of pagination in addition to faceted navigation. Providing both allows users to reduce the number of results from an initial search, reducing time spend navigating pages of results in order to find what they are looking for (Heuristic 3).
Personalisation and customisation
Europeana provide a section called ‘My Europeana’ where registered users can save searches, items and add tags to items so that they can be grouped together by keywords. User must first register. Registration is streamlined and only requests the users email address. Often long registration forms requesting unnecessary personal information can be off-putting to users so this form encourages users to join.
However ‘Tagging’ items is a relatively unfamiliar term not used extensively in DLs and as a result it is likely to confuse some users. Additionally, once a user creates and submits their tag, there is no feedback instructing the user on how to find the tag. Although the user is informed that their action has been successful, a link to their tags would help users find them more easily. In this situation the status of the action is provided but its visibility within the site is less straightforward which conflicts with the ISO standard relating to self-descriptiveness.
What are your thoughts? Do you agree or disagree with the findings? All feedback is welcome.
Usability Inspection of Selected Digital Libraries (Part 1 of 5)
Posted by: Lorraine on: October 23, 2009
- In: #inf11| UX2
- 3 Comments
Now that the report is almost finished it seemed appropriate to share some of the findings from the investigation here for feedback. It is hoped that this will help to draw conclusions from the findings and inform the subsequent usability and evaluation work on library@nesc – the digital library in development in UX2.0. Due to the size of this report, the issues highlighted here will be split into five separate blogs. The theme of each blog will be determined by each digital library (DL). The first library to be discussed is the World Digital Library.
An outline of the methodology used for this inspection can be found in a previous post. Each digital library was evaluated against a set of heuristics developed by Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich. In addition to these heuristics, the International Standardisation Organisation’s (ISO) set of principles from the Ergonomics of human-system interaction section (part 110) were also referenced. A useful outline of these internationally recognised principles is provided by User Focus.
World Digital Library Background
The World Digital Library (WDL) is a collaboration between the Library of Congress, UNESCO and the national libraries of 32 countries. It is offered in seven languages and provides details of rare books, maps, film clips and recordings for free. Its objective is to “promote international understanding, to expand non-English and non-western content online, as well as to contribute to research and education.”
Findings
What strikes you about WDL is the unconventional approach to search which allows users to not only search but also browse information. The home page has a world map and a time-line which are both interactive. Users can manipulate the time-line using sliders and select a thumbnail image from the map to open a carousel of images. This system is an engaging way for users to browse the library and is particularly useful to those without specific search criteria. One issue which was discovered using this system is outlined below:
Links within the map behave unexpectedly. If a user selects the number of items in the map they are directed to a new page of results. However, if the user selects the thumbnail image (as shown in image right), a carousel opens on top of the world map. It is not clear why links which provide the same information behave differently and there is nothing to indicate to users before selecting a link what will happen. This conflicts with Heuristic 4 (consistency and standards) within Nielsen’s set of heuristics and the ISO principles that ask ‘Does the dialogue support learning?’ and ‘Is the dialogue consistent?’
WDL have been creative in providing new ways for users to search information but what about traditional search? WDL does have a simple search form which is persistent throughout the site. Many users expect to find a search form in a digital library (or any website for that matter); therefore it is good that they have included it. However, heuristics used to evaluate WDL’s search revealed a couple of issues and are described below:
- No advanced search. Although a basic search form is provided, a link to an advanced version is not present. The absence of an advanced search may be determined by those who use the DL. If WDL found that their core users do not use an advanced search then its presence is not important. It is plausible that users could prefer to use tools such as the map and time-line as opposed to search. However, generally an advanced search should be provided and clearly labelled to cater for all types of users. This is consistent with Nielsen’s Heuristic 7 which states that ‘Accelerators – unseen by the novice user – may often speed up the interaction for the expert user such that the system can cater to both inexperienced and experienced users. It is also covered by an ISO standard which recommends that the dialogue is suitable for the user’s task and skill level.
- No help provided to users when no search results are returned. A search that returns no results is commonplace in a DL which is still growing its catalogue. It is therefore important that help is given to users to allow them to successfully complete their task. Providing a list of tips that allow users to construct a more successful search is one solution. In addition, search engines which can suggests an alternative spelling of words is also very useful. Other DL’s evaluated in the report provided good examples of help when no results are returned. SCRAN for example provides links to more detailed resources on searching that provide users with some useful lessons. Heuristic 9 details this issue and requests that messages suggest a constructive solution (help users recognise, diagnose and recover from errors). The ISO standard requests that dialogues support learning and provide a forgiving dialogue reinforce this issue.
When search results are provided, results are presented in a gallery format by default. Users have the option to switch to a more traditional list view if they wish (image above). Providing icons that are supported with text are recommended because they ensure that users understand unfamiliar graphics. This is something which WDL does successfully and fulfils Heuristic 6 which requests that options should minimise a user’s memory load and promote recognition rather than recall. It is also covered by the ISO standard which states that the dialogue should make clear what the users should do next. This system also gives users the power to customise the display of results to suit their needs and this satisfies Heuristic 3: ‘User control and freedom’. One issue was identified regarding the display of search results which WDL should be aware of:
- The hierarchy of search results should be clearly indicated. When a user is searching results using Gallery View, it is not clear how the results are organised. As the results are displayed horizontally as well as vertically, users may be unsure which items are most relevant. Feedback should be provided to make it clear how results are organised i.e. relevance, alphabetical, date etc. The British Library provides a good example (pictured below) of such feedback. Being aware of this issue will ensure that Heuristic 1: ‘Visibility of system status’, and ISO standard: ‘Dialogue conforms to user expectations (consistency)’ is maintained.
Finally many of the DL’s evaluated in the report did not adequately provide internal navigation for users between search results and item information. If a user selects an item for more detailed information there is no clear way of navigating back to the search results. As a result, users are forced to rely on the browser to navigate the site. This does not meet the guidelines of Heuristic 3: User control and freedom, which recommends that an undo and redo is provided for users. This is also the case for ISO standards which recommend controllability and self-descriptiveness.
UX2.0 is very interested in feedback on the research conducted to date. If you have a comment or question, please feel free to use the form below. The next blog will cover some of the findings from the evaluation of Europeana.
Usability Week Edinburgh Sep 14-18
Posted by: Lorraine on: September 11, 2009
UX2.0 will be attending Nielsen Norman’s Usability Week in Edinburgh next week and Berlin in November. Both events provide a variety of one-day tutorials which are very relevant to the project. The tutorials taking place next week which I will be attending include Information Architecture 1 and 2 and Fundamental Guidelines of Web Usability. Some of the information will likely reaffirm my existing knowledge on the subjects but it is hoped that some new insights will also be gained. There will also be a great opportunity to meet other professionals working in the field. Most importantly, the learning from these tutorials will greatly help to inform the evaluation currently taking place on existing digital libraries (see previous post). Highlights of the event will be available next week.
If you are attending please let me know, it would be lovely to meet up at some point during the three days that I’m there.
Heuristic Evaluation and Cognitive Walk-through
Posted by: Lorraine on: September 10, 2009
- In: UX2
- Leave a Comment
My last post said that an explanation of each methodology would be provided for those unfamiliar with the terms. As promised, details are provided below:
Heuristic Evaluation
Heuristic evaluations are well documented on the web with many authoritative resources. Instead of paraphrasing other sources I thought it would be more appropriate to provide links.
Brief definition by Usability First
Jakob Nielsen’s ‘How to’ paper provides a comprehensive guide to the methodology from when it was originally developed: http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_evaluation.html
Sitepoint’s step-by-step guide provides a more detailed explanation of each heuristic which is straighforward and easy to understand: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/heuristic-evaluation-guide/
Usability.gov outlines the original heuristics in addition to subsequent variations: http://www.usability.gov/methods/heuristiceval.html
A detailed check-list of every heuristic for those conducting a heuristic evaluation: http://www.stcsig.org/usability/topics/articles/he-checklist.html
The benefits of a heuristic evaluation from Usability Net: http://www.usabilitynet.org/tools/expertheuristic.htm
Cognitive Walk-through
Short description and definition
Comprehensive outline of the method: http://www.tiresias.org/tools/cognitive_walkthrough.htm
Defining the procedure of a walk-through: http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~zwz22/CognWalk.htm
Some of the characteristics of a cognitive walk-through include the creation of personas and the detailed documentation of tasks step-by-step in order to pinpoint exactly where the interface might fail. As with a heuristic evaluation, more than one evaluator is ideal however a cognitive walk-through often includes developers in the team of evaluators as well as usability experts.
Relationship with UX2.0 project
Sitepoint’s guide suggests conducting a heuristic evaluation by using one of three approaches:
- Develop a set of tasks and ask your evaluators to carry them out.
- Provide evaluators with the goals of the system, and allow them to develop their own tasks.
- Ask evaluators to assess your dialogue elements.
As discussed in the previous post, the evaluation intends to follow the set of heuristics while also carrying out typical user tasks (approach 1). Therefore the evaluation will predominantly be a heuristic evaluation and not a cognitive walk-through.
The main user task of a digital library is searching for a piece of information. Specific details of the information a user might be searching for will vary according to each DL and cannot be fixed. As a result, specific details of each task will be appropriate to each site.
UX 2.0 Usability planning
Posted by: Lorraine on: September 4, 2009
- In: #inf11| UX2
- 3 Comments
So the first part of the usability research taking place in the UX 2.0 project is to perform a usability inspection of selected digital libraries (DLs). In order to do this two things had to be decided:
- What DLs to inspect
- How to perform the inspection
In this entry I have mapped out how these decisions were made and the implications.
The most difficult thing about selecting DLs to inspect was in narrowing the list because there are so many DLs out there. How many will give a sufficient breadth of information for comparison? What criteria should be used and which should be excluded? These were all questions that the team had to answer. As we wanted to compare our findings with the evaluation of the digital library, library@nesc later on in the project, it seemed appropriate to exclude commercial publisher digital libraries and focus on public digital libraries. In addition to that, the findings from the WorldCat usability testing report published for the ALA Annual in July 2009 revealed that academic users favour searching local, national and worldwide collections together as opposed to public library patrons who are interested in resources which are geographically close. This led us to think in terms of the geographic reach of DLs and the differences between them. As a result we selected 5 digital libraries which represent each geographic location; worldwide, continental, nationwide, regional and local. From this the following DLs were selected:
| Attribute | Digital Library | Web address |
| Worldwide | World Digital Library | http://www.wdl.org/en/ |
| Continental (Europe) | Europeana | http://www.europeana.eu |
| Nationwide (UK) | British Library | http://www.bl.uk |
| Regional (Scotland) | SCRAN | http://www.scran.ac.uk/ |
| Local (Edinburgh) | Edinburgh University Aqua Browser | http://aquabrowser.lib.ed.ac.uk/ |
Next thing to do was decide how to conduct the inspection. There are a number of well known and commonly used usability methodologies available. A number of factors affecting the scope of this inspection helped to narrow the choice:
- Scope: the inspection was proposed as a quick appraisal of the current state of digital libraries and was not intended as a detailed evaluation.
- Time-scales: the short time-scale meant that the inspection had to be done quickly. As a result, user testing would not be achievable at this stage in the project
Consequently, it would not be possible to evaluate the usefulness of each DL as outlined by Tsakonas and Papatheodorou (2007) and their triptych methodology. Factors such as the relevance, format, reliability and coverage would not be examined at this time. Instead the focus would be on the usability of the system to the user such as ease of use, aesthetics, navigation, terminology and learnability. As digital libraries generally have a well developed strategy and scope, it is more important to focus attention on the structure, skeleton and surface of the DL as explained by Jesse James Garrett in his book ‘The Elements of User Experience’. This includes information architecture, navigation design and visual design such as page format, colours and typography.
With all this in mind it was decided that a heuristic evaluation would be suitable. However, co-creator of these heuristics, Jakob Nielsen points out that heuristic evaluations are better when carried out by more than one evaluator. As there are no other specialists working on this project this would not be possible. However, as this inspection is intended as a quick evaluation of current DLs it was not considered detrimental to the research. To try and limit this issue, use of the cognitive walk-through method will also be integrated into the inspection. Formal task scenarios will not be created but typical user tasks such as searching will be considered when evaluating each DL. It is hoped that doing so will highlight any barriers to task success when its not possible to test with actual users.
For anyone who is unsure what a heuristic evaluation and cognitive walk-through entail, I plan to explain these in my next blog post.
So after deciding on the digital libraries to inspect and the method to inspect them, I am now at the stage of analysing each library and collecting my findings. Every usability expert has their own method for doing this but I find that familiarising myself with each site first then jotting down brief notes on each issue accompanied by a screen grab works best for me. After that, issues will be written up in detail assigned a severity rating and discussed. In addition, positive findings and the development of collaborative or personalised systems (if any) will also be examined. Finally, each DL will be compared and contrasted and conclusions drawn.
I hope this has helped to provide insight into the early stages of the usability research taking place. Please feel free to comment or discuss any aspect of the methodology.
