Wc Usability Online Catalogs Combined August2009 Rev1 Ch


Published on

OCLC study and report on online catalogs

Published in: Technology, Spiritual
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • After we intially launched our pilot, we immediately began intensive usability studies to begin to identify the issues and the successes of the new concept site. In collaboration with the WorldCat Local pilot libraries, we identified major areas of concern that our libraries and OCLC thought were usability issues in the WorldCat Local site.
  • One of the major features of WorldCat Local is offering the user the ability to discover local, group, and global holdings in one search interface. Since this is probably a new concept for library patrons, we wanted to make sure that the discovery and fulfillment experience in WorldCat Local would provide an equal or better experience than what patrons currently have using their local and group systems separately. Our testing showed that academic users had a strongly favorable response to searching local, group, and global collections together. However, since public library patrons are more concerned about what is at their local “branch” which is not easily discoverable through WorldCat Local, combining local, group, and global holdings was not received as favorably. To address this, OCLC is in the process of implementing branch holdings that will be discoverable through WorldCat Local and meanwhile, WorldCat Local introduced the ‘library scoping’ dropdown next to the search box that allow users to limit the results shown to just items owned by a particular library (currently not at the branch level).Both undergraduate and graduate student test participants recognized, understood, and welcomed the basic concept of combining articles form different sources, and combining them with books. They repeatedly mentioned the inclusion of journal article content as something they valued highly. However, most participants in one test (9/14) wrongly assumed that journal article coverage includes all the licensed content available at their campus.
  • For more information about the results we’ve discovered in usability testing WorldCat Local, download the summary written by one of our user researchers, Arnold Arcolio at this URL. Arnold presented his findings last month at ALA and provided a great forum for discussion among librarians who are interested in WorldCat Local usability.
  • Wc Usability Online Catalogs Combined August2009 Rev1 Ch

    1. 1. Online Catalogs: Designing with Users in Mind<br />Webinar<br />August 13, 2009<br />Christie Heitkamp<br />Manager, User Experience & Information Architecture Team, WorldCat Local & WorldCat.org<br />Karen Calhoun<br />Vice President, WorldCat and Metadata Services<br />
    2. 2. Polling –What Do You Think?<br />1. Our staff understand what our end users want from our catalog<br />A – True<br />B – False<br />C – Don’t know<br />By pirate johnny<br />http://www.flickr.com/photos/piratejohnny/2798872422/<br />
    3. 3. More Polling<br />2. My library’s end users are satisfied with our online catalog<br />A – True<br />B – False<br />C – Don’t know<br />By: sea turtle<br />http://www.flickr.com/photos/sea-turtle/3181321172/<br />
    4. 4. More Polling<br />3. My library’s cataloging practices and priorities reflect what end users want from our catalog<br />A – True<br />B – False<br />C – Don’t know<br />
    5. 5. An introduction<br />Use, User, and Usability Studies <br />
    6. 6. Agenda<br />Introduction to user experience<br />Usability studies conducted on WorldCat.org and WorldCat Local over the past few years<br />Meet the “users”<br />
    7. 7. Credits<br />Arnold Arcolio<br />Mike Prasse<br />OCLC Marketing group – Joanne Cantrell<br />WorldCat Local Pilot partners<br />
    8. 8. Usability & User Experience<br />User Experience (from wikipedia)<br /> User experience design, most often abbreviated UX, but sometimes UE, is a term used to describe the overarching experience a person has as a result of their interactions with a particular product or service, its delivery, and related artifacts, according to their design<br />
    9. 9. User research methods we use<br /><ul><li>Usability Testing: 1:1 with a user completing a set of tasks
    10. 10. User Surveys: links or popups from our site
    11. 11. Focus Groups: discussion groups with customers or users
    12. 12. Contextual Interviews: 1:1 observations and interviews of users in their own environment
    13. 13. Card Sorts: 1:1 activity with a user to understand their mental model and information organization
    14. 14. Soon to come at OCLC…usability testing with eye tracking!</li></li></ul><li>Developing a persona for the online catalog searcher<br />Wikipedia:<br />Personas are fictitious characters created to represent the different user types within a targeted demographic that might use a site or product. Personas are useful in considering the goals, desires, and limitations of the users in order to help to guide decisions about a product, such as features, interactions, and visual design<br />A persona will help teams focus on designing an online catalog for a specific kind of user, instead of designing a system for any user (which usually means designing for a non-existent user)<br />
    15. 15. Who is using the catalog?<br />
    16. 16. What kind of students are these?<br />
    17. 17. What kind of search? 80% known item searching<br />
    18. 18. What kind of item? 74% book searches<br />
    19. 19. Meet the “user” – primary personas of worldcat.org<br />
    20. 20. Questions?<br />
    21. 21. Study results<br />Online Catalogs: What Users and Librarians Want<br />
    22. 22. Credits: Online<br />Catalogs Study<br />With thanks to<br />Janet Hawk, <br />Joanne Cantrell,<br />Peggy Gallagher,<br />OCLC Market Research <br />Photo by allw3ndyhttp://flickr.com/photos/allw3ndy/2757149584/<br />
    23. 23. Online Catalogs: What Users and Librarians Want<br />End-Users expect online catalogs:<br />to look like popular Web sites<br />to have summaries, abstracts, tables of contents<br />to help find needed information<br />Librarians expect online catalogs: <br />to serve end users’ information needs<br />to help staff carry out work responsibilities<br />to have accurate, structured data<br />to exhibit classical principles of organization<br />http://www.oclc.org/us/en/reports/onlinecatalogs/default.htm<br />
    24. 24. Objectives of our metadata quality research<br />Start over without assumptions about what “quality” is<br />Identify and compare metadata expectations<br />End users<br />Librarians<br />Compare expectations of types of librarians <br />Define a new WorldCat quality program …<br />Taking into account the perspectives of all constituencies of WorldCat<br />End users (and subgroups of end users)<br />Librarians (and subgroups of librarians)<br />
    25. 25. Research methodologies and demographics<br />Focus groups<br />Conducted by Blue Bear, LLC<br />Three sessions: College students, general public, scholars<br />Pop-up survey on WorldCat.org<br />Conducted by ForeSee Results<br />11,000+ responses: Students (28%), educators (22%), business professionals (19%), other; mix of ages; 44% from outside U.S.<br />Librarian survey<br />Conducted by Marketing Backup<br />1,397 responses; North America (64%) and outside North America (36%); academic, public, special libraries; staff with roles in technical and public services, ILL, directors<br />
    26. 26. What did we learn?End-user focus group results<br />Key observations:<br />Delivery is as important, if not more important, than discovery.<br />Seamless, easy flow from discovery through delivery is critical.<br />Summaries and tables of contents are key elements of a description<br />Improved search relevance is necessary.<br />
    27. 27. What did we learn?End-user focus group results<br />
    28. 28. What did we learn?End-user focus group results<br />“End users enter a few short search statements into online IR systems. Generally, their queries bear two to four words.”—Karen Markey<br />Twenty-five years of end user searching, Part 1: Research findings. 2007. http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/56093<br />Other key findings of our study:<br />Keyword searching is king, but …<br />Advanced search (fielded searching) is useful<br />Faceted browse is useful<br />These help end users refine searches, navigate, browse, and manage large result sets<br />
    29. 29. What did we learn?Pop-up survey suggestions<br />Changes to help identify an item?<br />End users (n=7535)<br />
    30. 30. End-user recommendations<br />Improve search relevance<br />Add more links to online full text (and make linking easy)<br />Add more summaries/abstracts: Make summaries more prominent<br />Add more details in the search results (e.g., cover art and summaries)<br />
    31. 31. Librarian/staff survey results<br />Recommended enhancements to WorldCatTotal librarian responses<br />
    32. 32. End-User Results: Recommended Enhancements<br />Librarian/Staff Results: Highlighted Differences<br />14<br />Recommended enhancements to WorldCatTotal end-user responses<br />1<br />4<br />
    33. 33. What did we learn?Librarians’ Perceptions of What End-Users Want<br />Recommended enhancements to WorldCat<br />
    34. 34. What did we learn?Librarians’ Perceptions of What End-Users Want (2)<br />Recommended enhancements to WorldCat<br />
    35. 35. Recommendations from librarian survey<br />Merge duplicates<br />Make it easier to make corrections to records (fix typos; do upgrades); “social cataloging” experiment—Wikipedia<br />More emphasis on accuracy/currency of library holdings<br />Enrichment—TOCs, summaries, cover art—work with content suppliers, use APIs, etc.<br />More communication about what users say they want<br />
    36. 36. Questions?<br />
    37. 37. results<br />WorldCat Local Usability Testing<br />
    38. 38. Usability Testing WorldCat Local<br />Test Sites from 4/2007 – present:<br /><ul><li>University of Washington
    39. 39. University of California
    40. 40. Berkeley
    41. 41. Davis
    42. 42. Irvine
    43. 43. The Ohio State University
    44. 44. Peninsula Library System, San Mateo, California
    45. 45. Free Library of Urbana
    46. 46. Des Plaines Public Library
    47. 47. Northeastern Illinois University
    48. 48. University of Illinois, Springfield</li></li></ul><li>Usability Testing WorldCat Local – Phase 2<br />Issues we wanted to test:<br />In general:<br /><ul><li>combining local, group, and global holdings; </li></ul>well received by academics, needs branch information for publics<br /><ul><li>including journal article and other licensed content;</li></ul>welcomed single search for multiple kinds of content, but assumed it was comprehensive of library collection =&gt; metasearch<br /><ul><li> simple search box; </li></ul>users expressed appreciation for a search box where they can “just type anything.” <br /><ul><li>advanced search options; </li></ul>Used by about half of participants. Needs improvement to help user start a new search or refine an existing search.<br />
    49. 49. Usability Testing WorldCat Local<br />Search Result Pages:<br /><ul><li>result ranking</li></ul>Relevancy often accepted without question by most academic users. Trust library knows best how to do this for them. Sometimes surprised when an item chosen as relevant but the matching terms are not visible on search results. <br /><ul><li>editions and FRBR, </li></ul>Most users do not search for a specific edition. Often the default edition chosen by WorldCat Local does not match expectations of what should be the default edition however (widest held vs. most recent). <br /><ul><li>faceted browsing, </li></ul>Often noticed and praised, but not always used. Usage data indicates that they are highly used in worldcat.org. Format and Author are the two highest used facets.<br /><ul><li>level of detail; </li></ul>Desire to see summary and TOC on search results. Desire to see why/where terms matched. Desire for indication of full text access, more location & availability information.<br />
    50. 50. Usability Testing WorldCat Local<br />Item Details Pages:<br /><ul><li>getting print copies from local, group, and worldwide collections; </li></ul>Local and group fulfillment was successful for academics. Publics were mostly concerned about what they could get at their local branch only. ILL was not of interest to publics or undergraduates, however usage indicates that ILL is highly used in academics.<br /><ul><li>access to electronic resources; </li></ul>Users didn’t have a problem finding the links to electronic access, but they expect any link displayed will give them full text access. The display of WorldCat links along with local library links is problematic and confusing. When displayed with the open URL resolver, users often don’t know which is the best course of action to get to full text but are more likely to click on a link than a button to get to full text.<br />
    51. 51. Usability Testing WorldCat Local<br />Item Details Pages:<br /><ul><li>collaborative and personal workflow features;</li></ul>Anonymous ratings, reviews, reader recommendations, tags, and other user lists: <br />For academics, need to know WHO is contributing this data and their reputation and identity. Reactions to anonymous user contributed data is largely negative. <br />For publics, authority is less important. Users are more likely to contribute information.<br />See Arnold Arcolio’s summary for more detailed information.<br /><ul><li>navigation; </li></ul>Most use the browser “back” button to navigate back to results. <br />
    52. 52. Usability Testing WorldCat Local<br />Item Details Pages:<br /><ul><li>Rearrangement of high-value bibliographic data</li></ul>Conducted surveys and card sorts to determine what information is most important when looking at an item in the catalog:<br />Title<br />Author<br />Summary/Abstract<br />Publication Year<br />Access to online content<br />Publisher<br />TOC<br />Ability to see what is immediately avaialable<br />Languages<br />Editions<br />
    53. 53. Detailed Record Redesign<br />Item Details Pages:<br /><ul><li>Putting important Bib information</li></ul>at the top of the page & Less important <br /> Bib Information lower on the page.<br /><ul><li>Integration of library services on the </li></ul> page.<br /><ul><li>Single place for display of electronic</li></ul> access.<br /><ul><li>Fulfillment displayed with local/group
    54. 54. global availability.</li></ul>Other improvements:<br /><ul><li>Grouped functionality based on user</li></ul> expectations (card sorting): i.e. created<br /> a ‘toolbar’ for common functions like<br />cite, print, email, bookmark.<br /><ul><li>Introduced recommendations based on</li></ul> WorldCat data.<br />
    55. 55. For more information about the usability studies we’ve done and a summary of results written by Arnold Arcolio, visit:<br />http://www.oclc.org/worldcatlocal/usability<br />
    56. 56. Questions?<br />
    57. 57. What does it mean for my library?<br />Conclusion<br />
    58. 58. What Does It Mean For Aligning What My Library Does with What Users Want?<br />By: David Wulffhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/dwulff/5357629/<br />
    59. 59. Question 3 Revisited<br />3b. My library’s cataloging practices and priorities reflect what end users want from our catalog<br />A – True<br />B – False<br />C – Don’t know<br />
    60. 60. Two Starting Points<br />Paying attention to what’s important about records<br />Aligning librarian and staff priorities with end user priorities<br />E-resources, books, media, unique digital collections, special collection<br />Redesigning work practices<br />
    61. 61. Based on our two studies, what’s important about records?<br />Delivery information – item availability and links to content<br />Basic bibliographic information (title, author, publication year, publisher, format, edition, language)<br />Evaluative content like summaries<br />Fielded indexing (to support advanced search)<br />Faceted browse (based on controlled forms names, topics, tags, etc.)<br />Social features (for some audiences)<br />
    62. 62. Follow up<br />What did you think of the format of today’s session? (Webex with polling and chat)<br />What did you think of the content of the presentation?<br />What did you get out of the session that you can use in your work?<br />What do you wish we had talked about?<br />
    63. 63. Thank You!Christie Heitkamp, heitkamc @oclc.orgKaren Calhoun, calhounk@oclc.org<br />