1 / 16

Website Redesign: User Testing and Web 2.0

Session C104 Inspiration for Your Library Redesign. Website Redesign: User Testing and Web 2.0. Bennett Claire Ponsford - Digital Services Librarian Christina H. Gola - Coordinator of Undergraduate Instruction and Outreach Internet Librarian October 29, 2007.

alice
Download Presentation

Website Redesign: User Testing and Web 2.0

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Session C104 Inspiration for Your Library Redesign Website Redesign: User Testing and Web 2.0 Bennett Claire Ponsford - Digital Services Librarian Christina H. Gola - Coordinator of Undergraduate Instruction and Outreach Internet Librarian October 29, 2007

  2. Why are We Redesigning?

  3. Background • Main library and 6 branches, 3 catalogs, 900+ databases, all usual library services but not well integrated • Discontent expressed with current default search • Branch libraries need for their own homepages to meet special needs

  4. Questions to Ask Users • How do users want to search? • What type of items are users searching for? • How do they discover new resources? • What to do with subject and class guides? • Audience and function questions • Format, location, and terminology • What Web 2.0 features do users want?

  5. Methodology: Phases • Initial surveys • Discussion forums • Focus groups • Individual interviews • Create functional specifications • Task based testing of prototypes • Modify prototypes and re-test, etc.

  6. Methodology: Recruiting • Traditional • Blanket campus emails • Advertising in student newspaper • Announcements in classes • New tools • Facebook group • Blog • Discussion forum

  7. Results: First Survey • Undergraduates vs. Grad. Students/Faculty • Both primarily looking for our stuff • Searching differences • Need for information about the library • Interaction with the libraries' website • Web 2.0 issues • Limited interest in tagging • Limited faculty interest in user-generated content • Traditional preferences for communicating with the libraries

  8. Results: Second Survey • Confirmed summer’s results on use of the website • Default search • Want books or everything, but last searched for articles • What to keep on home page • Emphasis on simplifying the home page • No consensus on what that means

  9. Results: Bulletin Board • Intense hatred of our pop-up windows • Frustration • Want to search, click on fulltext • Not interested in all the options we give them • Confusion • Often can’t even describe where they got lost

  10. Results: Focus Groups • Google Scholar • Integrate Systems (catalogs, edocs, etc) • Discovery of databases • Subject and Class Guides • Audience different than previously assumed • Interdisciplinary issues • Not a library jargon issue -- location & format issues

  11. Results: Focus Groups • Need more ways to allow self-discovery and shared knowledge • Visual & “sexy” is good • Use of Web 2.0 tools • Undergrads and Humanities mentioned potential uses for Wikis • Use of RSS – glass half full or half empty? • Personalization features

  12. Did 2.0 Work for Recruiting? • Email was best method • Web 2.0 tools (Facebook, blog, discussion forum) did not help much • Why?

  13. Web 2.0 in Academic Libraries • How far should we go? • Academic standard vs. Web 2.0 • How much education do we provide?

  14. Recommendations • Help them find our stuff and then get out of the way • Reaffirmed tradition design rules • Let the user control the interface • Integrate our systems • Better personalization options • Determine user groups needs before using Web 2.0 tools on website

  15. Next Steps • Undergraduate focus groups • One-on-one interviews with faculty • Revisiting information architecture • Prototype testing • Article to come

  16. Questions? Bennett Ponsford – bennett.ponsford@tamu.edu Christina H. Gola – chgola@tamu.edu Thank you!

More Related