Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Web Usability TestingWeb Usability Testing
Clearing the Path to Library Resources and Services
Victor Baeza, Robin Leech, Karen NeurohrMPLA Annual Conference, 2008
Salt Lake City, UT
BackgroundBackground• Web page history
– Distributed model with web editor
• University template re-design
• University logo change
• Impetus from library administration
• Impetus from library staff
Our starting pointOur starting point
• [graphic of our “old” library home page]
OSU home pageOSU home page
Usability - What is it?Usability - What is it?• “Ease of use” (Jakob Neilsen)
• “... really just means making sure that something works well: that a person of average ability … and experience can use the thing … for its intended purpose without getting hopelessly frustrated.” (Steve Krug)
• “… Extent to which a product can be used by specific users to achieve designated goals with efficiency, effectiveness and satisfaction” (Shelagh K. Genuis)
Why should we test?Why should we test?• Learn how/why/where users become frustrated
• “If you want a great site, you’ve got to test” (Steve Krug)
• “…can reveal problems in design, navigation, layout or labeling…” (Gore & Hirsh)
• “Replaces opinion with user-centered data” (Beth Thomsett-Scott)
Why Test? Why Test? Library Strategic GoalsLibrary Strategic Goals
• Goal Two: Library Services: continually refocus library services to meet the needs of our users
– Objective 2.2: Develop a systematic and on-going assessment of library services through user surveys, meetings with representative student and faculty groups, and analysis of use statistics.
– Objective 2.4: Expand and improve Public Services to maximize use of resources and facilities, resulting in streamlined research and retrieval processes for library users.
RecommendationsRecommendations
• Create a Usability Testing Group
– 5-6 key people (technical, reference, etc.)
Set goals and objectives
– Look at the big picture, where are we going?
• Target population(s)
– Students, faculty, staff, donors, state
RecommendationsRecommendations• Type of tools
– Formal usability, question development, IM & e-mail archives
• Frequency
– At least 3 test groups; 3 web page revisions
• Create a Web Page Re-Design Group
– 5-6 key people (technical, reference, etc.)
• Test Environment/Equipment
– PC with Camtasia
Team compositionTeam composition• Usability Team
– 4 library faculty
– 1 staff
• Web Re-design Team
– 3 library faculty
– 2 staff
Charge to our TeamCharge to our Team
• Begin conducting usability testing
• Begin library home page redesign
• Move library home page into university template
Team assignmentsTeam assignments• Exploring the literature
• Web log files
• Exploring other sites
• Staff surveys
• Workshop attendance
• Local workshop for library faculty/staff
• Meetings, meetings, meetings
• Consultations
TimelineTimeline
Institutional Review BoardInstitutional Review Board
• Incentives
• Methodology
• Risks
• Benefits
Survey 1 - Current SiteSurvey 1 - Current Site• 4 Open-Ended Questions
– 5 things you like about current site
– 5 things you’d like to see changed
– Names and/or URLs of sites you like and why the site appeals to you
– List some features you’d like to see on our site
Significant FindingsSignificant Findings
Usability Testing: Usability Testing: Tools ConsideredTools Considered
• Focus groups (students)
• Survey (paper or verbal)
• Heuristics (site analysis by experts)
• Prototypes (paper mockups)
• Usability walk-through
• Server log analysis
• Card sorting
Testing New TemplateTesting New Template
• Card Sorts
• Focus Groups
• Survey Library Faculty/Staff again
• Recorded task tests (Morae)
Card SortingCard Sorting• Open Card Sorting
– New or Existing Sites
– Users define groups/headings
– Good for redesign or creating new
• Closed Card Sorting
– Existing Sites
– Predefined groups/headings
– Good for adding new content
Card SortingCard Sorting• Answers
– Grouping Information– Navigation Strategies– Users Understanding
• Advantages
– Quick– Inexpensive– Very User Centered– Simple– Sets direction/focus
Card SortingCard Sorting
• Disadvantages
– Content focused
– Shallow (not task driven)
– Limited by users knowledge
– Can be inconsistent
– Analyzer bias
Our Card SortsOur Card Sorts• Test Group
–2 beta (undergrads)
–5 grads
–1 faculty
• Terms from our web pages
• Favored terms from other sites
• Organizational structure
Card SortsCard Sorts
Stu: ILL? I thought it was a big hassle.
Adm: It’s a library term
Stu: Instead of ILL maybe have something to make it easier – “Can’t find it? No problem, try InterLibrary Loan.”
Focus GroupsFocus Groups
• 2 undergrads, 2 grads, 1 faculty
• Pizza & pop
• 1 moderator, 1 note taker
Focus GroupsFocus Groups• Advantages
– Stimulates discussion– Hear different viewpoints– Students eager to share opinion– Relatively inexpensive
• Disadvantages– Best to have a trained facilitator– Group think– Qualitative data hard to organize
Survey 2- Survey 2- Library Faculty & StaffLibrary Faculty & Staff
• After focus groups and card sorts
• Twelve, more specific questions
• Purpose: To improve the library home page for most OSU students.
*Questions in this survey address topics that were not decisive from summer efforts
Top Navigation BarTop Navigation Bar• Order or hierarchy of topics is
effective for most OSU students.
• If disagree that hierarchy is effective, place items in order of effectiveness.
Content Box, page centerContent Box, page center
MiscellaneousMiscellaneous
• Effectiveness of overall layout of page?
• Add “last update” to bottom of page?
• Add prominent links to branch libraries?
• Add small icons for visual interest to some of the page topics?
• Uniformity
• Relevance to the library
• Logo- @ the library
• Suggestions for additional pictures
1. Find Catalog, Books2. Find Articles3. Hours (and Contact Us)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Yes No
Additional CommentsAdditional Comments
• Mix of negative and positive comments, but more positive
• Most suggestions- cosmetic changes (color, font, bullets, etc.)
•People’s expectations are based on web sites they go to and use frequently.
•People will comment on anything and everything; may have nothing to do with functionality
•Don’t underestimate the ownership that library faculty and staff feel to the library site.
Things to Keep in MindThings to Keep in Mind
More Things to Keep in More Things to Keep in MindMind
• Don’t take comments personally.
• You can’t please everyone.
• There’s no such thing as perfect.
• It’s always a work in progress.
Task TestingTask Testing• 11 undergrads
• One-on-one task testing
• 8 questions
• Alternatives to Morae (TechSmith)
•Camtasia
•Jing
•Your own video camera
• Consent forms
MoraeMorae Student Screen
Time line
Student video
Student task directory
Our current iterationOur current iteration
Link on homepageLink on homepage• Tell Us What You Think
Home Page FeedbackHome Page Feedback
• Fall Semester Findings included “BOSS Rocks!”
• Spring Semester Findings “really easy to use and navigate”
• Improvements Needed
ConsiderationsConsiderations• Accessibility
• Administrative (structure)
• Time … time … time
• Timing of re-design
• Budget
• Getting Volunteers
BibliographyBibliography• Abram, S. (2007). 20 Tips to Inspire Innovation. American
Libraries, 46-48.• Jasek, Chris. (2004). How to Design Library Web Sites to Maximize
Usability. Library Connect Newsletter (5). http://libraryconnect.elsevier.com/lcp/0502/lcp0502.pdf
• Krug, S. (2006). Don't Make Me Think! A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability (2nd ed.). Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Publishing.
• Kupersmith, J. (2005, June 2, 2006). Library Terms Evaluated in Usability Tests and Other Studies. Retrieved February 9, 2007, from http://www.jkup.net/terms-studies.html
• Kupersmith, J. (2007, January 10, 2007). Library Terms That Users Understand. Retrieved February 9, 2007, from http://www.jkup.net/terms.html
• Norlin, Elaina and CM! Winters. (2002). Usability Testing for Library Web Sites. Chicago: ALA Publications.
