Analytical usability evaluation for digital libraries: a case study

There are two main kinds of approach to considering usability of any system: empirical and analytical. Empirical techniques involve testing systems with users, whereas analytical techniques involve usability personnel assessing systems using established theories and methods. We report here on a set of studies in which four different techniques were applied to various digital libraries, focusing on the strengths, limitations and scope of each approach. Two of the techniques, heuristic evaluation and cognitive walkthrough, were applied in text-book fashion, because there was no obvious way to contextualize them to the digital libraries (DL) domain. For the third, claims analysis, it was possible to develop a set of reusable scenarios and personas that relate the approach specifically to DL development. The fourth technique, CASSM, relates explicitly to the DL domain by combining empirical data with an analytical approach. We have found that heuristic evaluation and cognitive walkthrough only address superficial aspects of interface design (but are good for that), whereas claims analysis and CASSM can help identify deeper conceptual difficulties (but demand greater skill of the analyst). However, none fit seamlessly with existing digital library development practices, highlighting an important area for further work to support improved usability.

[1]  George Buchanan,et al.  Workshop report: usability of digital libraries @ JCDL'02 , 2002, SIGF.

[2]  Morten Hertzum,et al.  The Evaluator Effect: A Chilling Fact About Usability Evaluation Methods , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[3]  Carol Collier Kuhlthau,et al.  Longitudinal Case Studies of the Information Search Process of Users in Libraries. , 1988 .

[4]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  Getting around the task-artifact cycle: how to make claims and design by scenario , 1992, TOIS.

[5]  Ann Blandford,et al.  An investigation into the application of Claims Analysis to evaluate usability of a digital library interface , 2002 .

[6]  George Buchanan,et al.  Usability for digital libraries , 2002, JCDL '02.

[7]  Carol Collier Kuhlthau,et al.  Information search process of lawyers: a call for 'just for me' information services , 2001, J. Documentation.

[8]  Peter Ingwersen,et al.  Cognitive Perspectives of Information Retrieval Interaction: Elements of a Cognitive IR Theory , 1996, J. Documentation.

[9]  John M. Carroll,et al.  Designing claims for reuse in interactive systems design , 1999, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[10]  Marcia J. Bates,et al.  The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface , 1989 .

[11]  Peter Warren,et al.  Informing Science Challenges to Informing Clients : A Transdisciplinary Approach June 2001 Why They Still Cannot Use Their Library Catalogues , 2001 .

[12]  Alan Cooper,et al.  The Inmates are Running the Asylum , 1999, Software-Ergonomie.

[13]  Ann Blandford,et al.  Information seeking in the context of writing: A design psychology interpretation of the "problematic situation" , 2003, J. Documentation.

[14]  Marcia J. Bates,et al.  The cascade of interactions in the digital library interface , 2002, Inf. Process. Manag..

[15]  Pertti Vakkari,et al.  A theory of the task-based information retrieval process: a summary and generalisation of a longitudinal study , 2001, J. Documentation.

[16]  Rick Spencer,et al.  The streamlined cognitive walkthrough method, working around social constraints encountered in a software development company , 2000, CHI.

[17]  David Ellis,et al.  Modelling the information seeking patterns of engineers and research scientists in an industrial environment , 1997, J. Documentation.

[18]  Deborah N. Wilde,et al.  Research practices of humanities scholars in an online environment: The Getty online searching project report no. 3 , 1995 .

[19]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Heuristic Evaluation of Prototypes (individual) , 2022 .

[20]  Lynne Hall,et al.  Changing Analysts' Tunes: The Surprising Impact of a New Instrument for Usability Inspection Method Assessment , 2004 .

[21]  Cathleen Wharton,et al.  The cognitive walkthrough method: a practitioner's guide , 1994 .

[22]  Ann Blandford,et al.  Claims Analysis ‘ in the wild ’ : a case study on Digital Libraries , 2004 .

[23]  Ann Blandford,et al.  Ontological Sketch Models: Highlighting User—System Misfits , 2004 .

[24]  Vassilios Chrissikopoulos,et al.  Interactive Search Results , 2002, ECDL.

[25]  Elke Duncker,et al.  Cross-cultural usability of the library metaphor , 2002, JCDL '02.

[26]  Nick Bryan-Kinns,et al.  Use of multiple digital libraries: a case study , 2001, JCDL '01.

[27]  George Buchanan,et al.  Usability of Digital Libraries: A Source of Creative Tensions with Technical Developments , 2003, Bull. IEEE Tech. Comm. Digit. Libr..

[28]  Alistair S. Duff,et al.  From Gutenberg to the Global Information Infrastructure: Access to Information in the Networked World , 2001 .

[29]  Gary Marchionini,et al.  Key frame preview techniques for video browsing , 1998, DL '98.

[30]  Ann Blandford,et al.  Patterns of interactions: user behaviour in response to search results , 2002 .

[31]  Robert J. Sandusky Digital Library Attributes: Framing Usability Research , 2002 .