11/2 readings

Liu, Shu (2008). Engaging users: The future of academic library we sites. College & Research Libraries, 69(1), 6-27.


I was intrigued by O'Reilly's definition of Web 2.0 as "the Internet as a platform." The Internet can no longer be considered an application itself, but, like Windows or Mac, the Internet is a platform to support other applications. Web 2.0 is discussed frequently in LIS courses, but this is the best definition I've encountered yet. Web 2.0 should support content sharing and "rich user experience," since users and information are no longer two separate entities. The examples of Britannica evolving to Wikipedia and those 1990s style homepages evolving to blogs reinforced this definition.

Liu seemed to be criticizing library websites for having one design for all their pages, although the intro to design articles from last week believed consistent design was a crucial design principle. Liu also found that library websites have too much text and too little collaboration, which are fair points. It was also good to see statistics (even older ones) on how many libraries had adopted a particular technology. Present and future trends for library catalogs and websites are often mentioned, but it can be hard to tell just how widespread technologies are. I thought that 4% was surprisingly low for myLibrary style pages (though there may be more now), and was also surprised that "almost every" library had virtualchat. Maybe the service is not always the easiest to spot on a library homepage.


A takeaway message is that libraries shouldn't adopt new technologies just to stay trendy and relevant. While it is important to keep users interested and visiting the library websites, the technology exists to serve the users need, not just so the library can say they have it.


Discussion question: Is it good practice for a library website to link to have a Google Scholar search box, as 10 libraries did? It is handy that Google Scholar redirects to a library database, but why would a library database send a user to Google?




Tolliver et al. (2005). Website redesign and testing with a usability consultant: lessons learned. OCLC Systems & Services, 21(3), 156-166.


I was very curious to learn what usability experts did for a library. I wonder how someone qualifies for that profession? At first, I imagined that they would test the system themselves and catch most of the errors because they were experts. But the approach involved the expert checklist or heuristic, as well as interviews and exercises with users that were run by the usability expert.

The authors mentioned CMS, describing this type of system as good for repeated updates and for multiple authorized administrators rather than just one webmaster.

One takeaway message is that this article was written in 2005 before Web 2.0 was a huge buzzword, but their goals of updating were similar to the goals of Web 2.0: allow users to interact with the homepage, with dropdown menu and a search box. Looking back, people may divide the development of the Web into eras, but it's important to remember that the general concerns of users overlap these eras.


Discussion question: I was intrigued by the conclusion, where users were tested again 1.5 years after the adoption of the new system. The search box was being used more frequently but also misunderstood; the search was for the library website, while some users thought it might be for the catalog or for the Web. Have you ever encountered an unclear searchbox like this?



Beth Thomsett-Scott. (2005). Yeah, I found it! Performing web site usability testing to ensure that off-campus students can find the information they need. Journal of Library Administration, 41(3), 471-483.


This usability testing relied fully on users doing common library website tasks, with a moderator/observer. The sessions lasted up to two hours, and the student users were given candy at the end to leave with a positive attitude towards the library. The final questionnaire was described as relaxing, but I wonder how effective this style of testing is. Students might have insufficient motivation to try their hardest at all tasks, and this could effect speed measurements. Was there class credit or other reimbursement offered?

Perhaps some students appreciated the benefits of becoming more familiar with library website features, and this style of usability testing has been proven effective. However, it is a real concern that testing may bother the very users it is trying to assist.


A takeaway message is the increasing importance of web interfaces, as digital libraries and offsite access become more common and remove the human interaction.


Discussion question: How effective is a cognitive walkthrough approach? Would you recommend this usability test strategy to libraries with budget issues?