Sheet1

Page 1

Score Students Score Librarians SummaryGeneral Visual Design Look and Feel

Branding

Colour scheme

Fonts & Typefaces

Brand / name

The general look and feel of the site was well received by students and favourable compared to other journal resources that were considered to 'databasey'

The Librarians who were familiar with the existing extract database did not immediately respond to the look and feel of the site. One user implied that it was too modern (“Web 2.0”). One user considered the design excluded students.

The design provides a fresh new look to the product, breaking from the existing site and moving forward to appeal to a younger audience without providing a barrier to use by existing users.

The brand was not at all clear for students. Two logos created confusion and they had no clues to interpret what CAB might stand for. There were no other indicators to the brand

Not all of the Librarians correctly identified the 'CAB Direct' brand as the extracts database and they found the presence of 2 logos of equal weight demanding.

Giving both logo's equal and conflicting prominence at the top of the page confuses users and fails to communicate any content context or brand values.

The colour scheme and general design communicated well with students and gave them the idea that they were the target audience.

There were some negative comments about the colour scheme, but it did not seem the these created a major obstacle to usage. The application of colour may be a barrier to use (eg. links)

The colour scheme is strong, inviting comment, but not intrusive. It places the resource within the student domain. (see below for comment re: linkages)

There were no negative comments regarding the fonts used but there was some inferred difficulty among students working in a laptop environment in reading the smaller font sizes (leaning in and squinting) and identifying the behaviour of links that were orange and not underlined.

There were implied and direct observations about the size of the font in some areas, particularly that words on the the right and left-hand side of the screen were too small to be easily read and that the page title text was easy to read and prominent.

The choice of font is satisfactory but its usage is not. Very small type is inhibiting usage and font colours are not communicating behaviour, structure or content to the user.

High Level layout and spacing

The overall layout of the pages seemed to support users focus on the central area and there were no direct or implied comments regarding the general layout. On closer inspection, the content of the areas that drew the eye most (the right hand side high contrast boxes) in relation to other content elements created a level of difficulty.

The Librarians seemed less pleased with the overall layout of the site. While the use of whitespace seemed to effectively focus users on the central areas of the site, this may have caused problems as at least one user failed to notice the left hand area functionality.

The layout of the pages makes the core content easy to read and locate. The design of the right hand boxes makes them highly visible to the user. A cost of this is that users can overlook the 'unboxed' content on the left hand side of the page.

Navigation and Signage

There was a great deal of confusion over the name and brand of the site. Users failed to identify the name and content of the site using the brand information.

There were hesitations caused by the placement of two logos (brands) and the CAB Direct name was not clearly linked to the site's content or purpose

The signage and branding of the site are failing to support he site's use. They are causing confusion. They are failing to identify the content and context of the site.

Sheet1

Page 2

placement and layout

Content Scope

use and access

Navigation and Signage

Students were relatively slow to locate the search box (compared to google and other standards) and tended to overlook other navigation elements. Left-hand navigation was overlooked and not identified as links.

Left hand navigation at a search level was overlooked by at least one user until prompted. The main navigation was taken as a description of the content types. The category links on the home page were rarely identified as links.

The placement and emphasis of the left hand and main navigation are impacting on their usage. The search box is not effectively place d on the home page. The advanced search in not finable. There is a confusion over the relationship between navigation elements and their actions.

labelling and nomenclature

The students were baffled by some of the labels (ancillary information) and surprised by the function of others (thesaurus, related literature). The Home, Search Results, and Document Details pages were easily distinguished by their titles.

The librarians managed to identify most of the labels correctly but expressed a preference for simplified and generic terminology (Cabi Codes).

Using CABI specific terms and nomenclature inhibits usage for external users. The value of CAB specific labels is not validated by the findings of these tests. Natural, simple and closely descriptive labels are preferable. Clear page titles are working well for orientation.

Students failed to identify the scope of the content (some thought it was a subject-oriented, internet wide search engine). They relied heavily on the homepage category list to assess the scope of the content and the main nav items.

Librarians found it difficult to identify the scope of the content. Some thought that is reflected the entire CABI output. They relied heavily on the main navigation labels and metadata displays in the results to assess the scope of the content

The homepage and other content do not provide an understanding of the scope of the content. Students relied on keywords for clues, Librarians tended more toward metadata and labelling. Both users need more clear descriptions of the content to support their use of the product.

Students used the search to access content. This took at least 2 clicks to retrieve. Placement on 'full text' on third party sites was not clearly understood or an issue for students.

Librarians used the search feature to access content, but at least one commented that she might use the main navigation to explore the content and assess it's relevance before searching. Librarians used their experience of other databases to create an expectation of how the full text option would behave.

Students do not seek access to content other than through the quick search box. They do not attempt to use boolean operators or complex strings. Librarians look to browsing methods to asses and access the content. They use their high expertise of using online resources to reach content through boolean search terms and complex strings. They use metadata and advanced search to explore the content.

ownership and integrity

The students did not comment on the ownership or integrity of the content. They did not express any concerns about the ability to assess the value of the content.

Librarians had some difficulty identifying the ownership of the content (was it CABI documents or links to third party?). They were keen to ensure the integrity of content presented through the products they provide.

Students did not look for clues to content ownership or integrity, and did not suggest that they might wish to find 'closed' datasets to explore. The librarians were frustrated by the lack of clarity about the ownership or integrity of the content they were exploring.

Sheet1

Page 3

Content

readability / clarity

Search and discovery location

use and access

response

performance

The content of the main part of the page was easily read and understood. The content in the side bars was squinted at and it's purpose and function was, at times, unclear

The content in the main section was relatively easily read and understood – although there were comments that the contrast levels created difficulties. The content in the side bars was hard to read and sometimes overlooked and, at times, it's function was not clear.

The content presentation could be clearer and this may improve the usability of the interface for all users.

All of the students successfully located the quick search box. Advanced search functionality was not required. Where the refinement options were found, there was not an understanding of their relationship across the left and right hand sides of the page. The homepage category lists were used to describe the content and not as search tool. The tag cloud was understood but not used.

While all librarians successfully located the quick search function, they needed to be assisted in finding the Advanced Search after leaving the home page. The refinement options were located by some, but entirely missed by others. The separation of the CABi terms caused confusion.

There full range of search and discovery potential is not realised by users because the GUI does not present the options in a highly visible and intuitive manner. Advanced search in easily accessible. Better visual relationships between search option will improve discovery.

The students easily typed their terms into the quick search box and identified the arrow as a 'click to execute' icon. Few students sought or used the refinements and when prompted, there seemed to be little understanding of the action that would be performed.

Librarians easily typed their search terms into the quick search box and identified the arrow as the 'click to execute' icon. The most of the librarians were not sure if the quick search box would accept complex search strings and boolean operators. There was a clear understanding of the relationship between refinements and the action to be performed.

the search box design fulfils the expectations of a simple search. Students have no further requirements and consider all refinements to have a 'narrowing' effect. These actions would be better understood if the scope of the content were more clearly realised. Expert users are not well supported by the search interface beyond simple search.

The search responded in the expected way to the search execution and the time was not too long

The search responded in the expected way to the search execution and the time was not too long

The response of the search engine did not present any barriers to usability.

Students seemed to be satisfied with the performance of the search and did not express any further requirements

Some librarians commented that the visibility of search algorithms would be a requirement for them to utilise the 'most relevant' ranking.

The performance of the search algorithms presented no problems to Students who did not display and concern for or understanding of what happens when a search is executed. Librarians were looking for more sophisticated indications of what had been searched and how the results had been collected.

Sheet1

Page 4

Storage and retrieval location

Retrieval interfaces were not available for testing during these sessions.Other issues Using search results

Some students did not locate or comment of the availability of this feature until prompted. There was not any difficult in locating the feature once asked.

Librarians did not always identify this feature without prompting. There was a misunderstanding of the 'bookmark' icon, but the central location of the 'save this search' text link was clear.

There demand for storage of results was voiced most strongly among the Librarians, and they prioritised exporting results to third party citation software above saving within the site. The tools for the operation of storage need to be carefully and consistently positioned and should be intuitively designed.

Students did not express concern over the ability to select multiple search results

Librarians expressed a requirement to select multiple search results and this was not available on the interface

Checkbox selection of multiple search result for export or other actions would improve the usability of the product for the librarian community and may be of use to students.

Exporting search results

Students did not recognise or seem to value the icons allowing them to export results to social bookmarking services.

Librarians expressed a requirement to download citation data to external software, but some failed to locate this feature.

Consideration should be given to the placement of tools to save or export the results based on user's preference and priorities.