The overall purpose of DfR is clear to users at first glance – prior to interacting with the system
Usability testing result: we tested prior finding from heuristic analysis that purpose of site might be unclear at first glance
We asked users to fill out pre-task assessments where we asked them to answer questions about their expectation of the system
Form asked users about what their general idea of the site was
Result: User expectation matched what site was about and accurately inferred relationship to JSTOR
(Contrary to prior finding) do not include an explanatory sentence on the main page about DfR
lack of visual indication of interrelationship between search and select features
‘ Graphs’, ’Results list’, ‘key term’, and ‘references profile’ features are tightly linked to the main search
Current layout does not give an indication that ‘results list’, ‘key term’, and ‘reference profile’ are not separate content, but are about the search query done on the main page
There is a hierarchy
Some users did not understand that under the article list they would see the results of the search done on the main page
DfR Layout Narrowing Down by USER Refined Data Set Whole Data Set Of DfR Diff. Views: Charts, Graph Results List Keyterm Cloud
Layout Change Current Version Previous Version Location indicates incorrect hierarchy Appearance of being in the same frame indicates closer relationship Previous version took advantage of proximity
Put Search Bar on a higher level
(Personal Comments: The mockup us too small….
The cognitive model of users and design of DfR are divergent.
Cognitive Model & Usability
Designer v. User
“ It’s like Google Scholar”
Instances of expectations v. reality using Data for Research
Cognitive Model: Defined
The way people think for the purposes of comprehension and prediction
Significance: for people to understand how to use the Data for Research tool, designers must understand the way they already think
Usability: After purpose, there must be positive interaction in function for repeat use
Providing Search “ It’s like Google Scholar ” (but it isn’t!)
Different Searching Patterns Search #1 Search #2 IF NOT “ Clear All ” Search in DfR Other Database Search Search #2 Search #1 Refined Data Set #1 Whole Data Set Of DfR Refined Data Set #2 Whole Data Set Refined Data Set #1 Refined Data Set #2
search terms accumulate , rather than reset on new search (EXCEPT WHEN going directly to index) Instance: Search aggregation
DfR’s Accumulative Search Use “Selectors” Keep Current Data Set Click “Clear All”
all produce DIFFERENT search results
punctuations have different treatment in the DfR interface
Instance: Keyword searching + punctuations
Search for “ politics ” Search for “ republican ” Search for “ witch ” Delete “ witch ” Search for “ politics republican witch ” SAME Results, By Diff. Methods BUT, you cannot do this!! SAME Data Set, Instance: Search + Blank Space
Clearer path for new search vs. adjusting current search (“New Search” button)
Explain difference between “key terms” and extracted “key terms”
Clarify how search results are accumulated (using all terms? listing by articles and journals with higher frequency?)
A lack of DfR system feedback left searches with unclear meanings.
Search record is crucial to researchers - must keep track of information they gather
Duplication of search in results view indicates system action to users
Lack of system feedback before and after making a search - No tracking or matching of search terms No indication that anything has happened! - Selection criteria box is not prominent enough to notice
Not intuitive that the NAMES are links
Further, cannot determine what they are doing to the results (start with selection ALL included?)
Check and “X” boxes
intuitive as to what is happening when “checking” (adding) or “X”-ing (subtracting) aspect of information
Additional feedback after search that indicates search has been performed
Google Scholar model: redundancy WORKS!
Header renaming to “Search Results”
Reinstate the "X" function for all selectors (option to eliminate from results or from search entirely)
Reinstate "checkmark" function for facets that have been eliminated or are not included in the results.
For (finding 1)...for marketing purposes, a description of DfR is NOT needed on the main page - it’s intuitive to users!
For (finding 2)...take advantage of X to Y. <-- not sure what to put here.
For (finding 3)...similar cognitive models will lead to positive interactions between the system and new users.
For (finding 4)...clear feedback leads to discernible meaning of search results