This document summarizes a usability study conducted on the University of Denver's Library and Information Science (LIS) LibGuide. It provides background on the rise of LibGuides and their benefits. Shortcomings identified include guides being more useful for librarians than students and issues with content, organization, and maintenance. The study used Morae software to record users interacting with the LIS LibGuide and measure effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction. Interview themes that emerged included scope, likes, information-seeking behaviors, dislikes, organization, and suggestions for improvement. Suggestions for LibGuide creators focused on usability testing guides, ensuring easy discovery and navigation, incorporating student input, and collaborating with faculty.

1. BUILDING AND
EVALUATING
LIBGUIDES
Chelsea Jordan-Makely
September 2012
What do the information professionals of tomorrow think of
today’s research guides? A usability study of the University
of Denver’s Library and Information Science LibGuide
http://libguides.du.edu/lis

2. The rise of LibGuides
• 42,000 LibGuide users worldwide
• 236,735 LibGuides
• Pacific University: 72 subject guides

3. Benefits of using research guides
• Alleviate library anxiety (Cox, 1996)
• Facilitate access (Cox, 1996)
• Cut through excess of information (O’sullivan & Scott,
2000; Bunnell & Byerly, 2000)
• Showcase library’s resources and librarians’
expertise (Cox, 1996; Morville & Wickhorst, 1996;
Sugarman & Demetracopoulos, 2001)
• As a curriculum tool (Sugarman & Demetracopoulos,
2001)
• Reduce cognitive load (Little, 2010)
• Checklist (Richardson, 2001, as cited in Vileno, 2007)

4. Shortcomings of research guides
• Guides may be more beneficial to librarians than to
students (Reeb & Gibbons, 2004; Neilson, 2004; Vileno,
2007, 2010)
• Difficult to use (Morris & Grimes, 1999; Reeb & Gibbons,
2004; Courtois, Higgins & Kapur, 2005; Vileno, 2010)
• Questionable content and organizational schemes
(Dahl, 2001; Dunsmore, 2002; Reeb & Gibbons, 2004;
Neilson, 2004; Jackson & Pellack, 2004; Courtois, et al.,
2005; Morris & Del Bosque, 2010; Vileno, 2010)
• Time consuming to build and problematic to maintain
(Morville & Wickhorst, 1996; Sugarman &
Demetracopoulos, 2001; Morris & Del Bosque, 2010)

5. Evaluating research guides
• Content analysis
• Need
• Organization
• Content
• Analytics
• Usage
• Usability Testing
• “Provide data on whether participants can accomplish the tasks
(effectiveness); do so in a reasonable amount of time and effort
(efficiency); show how [it’s used] (context), and . . . their reaction
to the product or service (satisfaction)” (Ward & Hiller, 2006, p.
154)
• Surveys
• Information-seeking behavior
• Satisfaction

6. Usability Testing with Morae
Morae software
• Video of users’ computer screen
• Audio and video of students themselves
• Tasks:
• Time on task
• Mouse clicks per task
• Success per task
• Optimal path
• Real-time observations and markers
• Pre- and post-test questionnaires
• Interview questions

7. Interview data
Times a theme was mentioned
Scope 50
Likes 48
Information-seeking behaviors 24
Suggestions 23
Dislikes 18
Themes
Organization 16
Penrose Library 14
Naming 12
LibGuides 10
Appearance 7
Navigating/browsing 6
Subject Librarian 3
Other 1

8. Suggestions for LibGuide creators
• Begin by researching other LibGuides
• Ensure that guide can be easily found
• Get student input in regards to naming and
organization; avoid jargon
• Define scope (main page)
• Use multiple access points to “signpost”
• Create a new tab to bypass scrolling
• Keep content to the center pane
• Collaborate with faculty
• Use resources with live links
• Incorporate multimedia
• Utilize tools for student and faculty feedback

9. THANK YOU!
Questions?
ChelsJMakely@gmail.com