usability testing for library catalogs october 25, 2001 nicole hennig, web manager libraries.mit.edu...
TRANSCRIPT
Usability testing for library catalogs
October 25, 2001Nicole Hennig, Web Managerlibraries.mit.edulibraries.mit.edu/barton
Thank you
Tracy Gabridge
Librarian for Civil & Environmental Engineering
• led the HTML customization team
Details available ...
http://macfadden.mit.edu:9500/webgroup/usability2001/barton/test1/overview.html
Outline
1. background
2. the tests
3. problems & solutions
4. future directions
1. Background
6 month process
January - June 2001
• old system: GEAC Advance
• new system: ExLibris ALEPH
Web OPAC project teams
• web OPAC team- public service librarians
- circulation staff - processing staff - cataloger - web manager
Web OPAC project teams
• HTML customization teamsame as previous, plus
- systems office staff- programmer
Bibliography
• on handout
• includes background on display and interface design of library catalogs
Background research
• a lot of research on OPAC design available
• but not based on observing usersor usability testing
• library system vendors are not following basic good design principles
Who makes design decisions?
• we have more control now that we can customize HTML screens
• the vendors need to practice good design in building the system
A work in progress
• libraries.mit.edu/barton
• more rounds of testing and improvements are coming later in the spring
Usable design goals
• every page is self-explanatory
• “self-teaching” interfaces
Will it apply?
• some things are specific to ExLibris systems
• many things are general - could apply to any OPAC
General principles
• success summary
http://macfadden.mit.edu:9500/webgroup/usability2001/barton/test2/success.html
2. The tests
The test
• we had already done extensive usability testing while redesigning our web site
Latest thinking has changed
• 1999:Large test, 30 users, timed people- quantitative
• 2001:- More frequent, smaller tests, 5-6people at a time- qualitative
The test
• 1/2 hour long
• 10 questions
• think out loud
The test
• observer takes detailed notes
• train observers to not answer how it was supposed to work until end of the test
• each observer tests 2 people(2 week time frame)
Designing questions
• easy, basic tasks that a first-time user should be able to accomplish
• real-world tasks(give them a real article citation)
Designing the questions
• no need to obsess over perfect, “scientific” questions
• you will learn plenty from watching people use the catalog
The questions
• 1 - 5: known items• 6 - 10: general research
• complete list:http://macfadden.mit.edu:9500/webgroup/usability2001/barton/test1/questions.html
The questions
• test the questions
• get the bugs out
• print out the questionsin large type
Who we learned from
• Washington State University
Janet Chisman, et al.“Usability Testing: A Case Study”College & Research LibrariesNov. 1999
What we learned
• multi-part questions
- if user can’t complete first part, observer does it so they can try second part
What we looked for
• features that were confusing or unclear
• aspects of the system that worked well
The teststest 1 test 2
Who 7 students 3 students3 library staff 4 library staff
4 disabled
Catalogs our old web catalog:Barton (6) 1st draft ofMcGill: MUSE (2) new BartonBoston College: QUEST(2) screens
Dates Jan. 22 - Feb. 1, 2001 May 21 - June 1
Successes 4 of 10 tasks 7 of 10 tasks
3. Problems & solutions
Problem 1
• people usually picked the default choices or the first choices without thinking much about it
(not always the best strategy for their search)
Example
people used first box,ignored second
Solution
Default choice is keyword. This casts a broadnet for those who forget to make a choice.
Problem 2
• Difference between browse& keyword search not clear
Example
?
?
Solution
No need to know difference between keywordand browse search. Combined in one menu.
Problem 3
• it wasn’t clear how to input a search string
(people used initial articles, author’s first name first, thought they had to type the entire title)
Example
• carefully typed complete title, with article:The Journal of the American Chemical Society
Examples far away
Solution
• include examples and instructions of how to input data near the search box and in the search menu
Examples for each type
Example changes when menu changes.
Examples for each type
Example changes when menu changes.
Grouping
Group different title searches, author searches, and subject searches together.
{
Problem 4
• very busy screens with many buttons were overwhelming for people
Example
Solution
• Present choices only where needed
• Group navigation links in ways that make sense
Problem 5
• it was difficult to find clickable URLs for electronic titles
No URL on brief results
Better: URLs showing
Problem 6
• not enough information on brief resultsscreen to choose the most relevant titles
(especially for subject searching)
• [see David Thomas article in bibliography]
keyword: women scientists
includes subject headings
Problem 7
• pop-up windows caused confusion
Solution
• minimize number of pop-up windows
• use only in cases where it’s handyto have the previous screen in thebackground
Problem 8• title you input isn’t at the top
Solution• add marker (wish list)
Problem 9
• holdings info for serials was very confusing to everyone
Example
Do we have Dec 13, 2000 issue?
Example
Example
• people don’t understand open date range
v.1 (1879)-
Not easy to fix
• NISO standard
• way the data is input
• limitations of the system
Example
A better holdings display
A better holdings display
Problem 10
• back buttons or back links didn’t behave as expected (a problem with frames)
Coming soon
• no frames version due from ExLibris soon
• telnet version next year
• minimal javascript
What worked well?
- hyperlinked author names- hyperlinked subject headings
people found and used these very successfully
Self-teaching interfaces
• For difficult searches where youneed to combine fields in a specific way:
- design screenso user doesn’t need to know
- it just does the right thing
Users with disabilities
• 2 blind users: one used “Jaws”, one used “Window Eyes”
• 1 user with dyslexia
• 1 user without use of hands, usedpencil in fist to type, and large trackball
Users with disabilities
• these users had same problems and successes as everyone else
(but the problems were magnified)
• everything took longer
Users with disabilities
• solutions that help everyone help disabled
• solutions that help disabled help everyone
Categories of problems
problems we can fix by:
• changing the HTML• changing the tables in the database• adding custom programming• changing our indexing decisions• changing cataloging practice
problems that only the vendor can fix
Other problems
• many other problems not mentioned here today are described on our web site
4. Future directions
Latest usability research
• most large web sites have hundreds of usability problems
• continuous rounds of testingare necessary to find and fix all problems
• better to begin with “user-centered design”
Latest usability research
User Interface 6 East, Cambridge, MAOct. 2001
Proceedings available
http://www.uie.com
Still to test
Not so basic features, like:
• email/save/print• your bookshelf• advanced searching• complex limiting
• etc.
Cycles of testing
• frequent small tests
• test your solutions
• informal tests with handful of people
Future directions
• share information
• compile guidelines
• influence vendors
Future directions
• are other libraries testing web OPACs?
• contact me to share test results
Nicole [email protected]