A new look for CONTENTdm: A User-centered design approach

1. A new look for CONTENTdm:A User-centered design approach Western CONTENTdm Users Meeting 3 June 2010 Phyllis Kaiden Product Manager OCLC Digital Collection Services

2. End-User Experience Redesign Goals • Ensure the new interface supports the end-user • Provides access to unique digital materials • Is intuitive, accessible, and supports end-users in their research goals • Is modern and familiar, and meets end-user expectations • Is fun, dynamic, and provides opportunity for discovery • Provide simpler ways to configure and customize • Easier to apply a branded look & feel • Easier to maintain customizations

3. Who are the end-users of CONTENTdm? • As indicated by our user community, the top end-users groups of CONTENTdm include: • Students (78%) • General researchers (75.3%) • Library Staff (72%) • Historians (70.9%) • Faculty (59.3%) • Community members (58%) • September 2009: Demographic survey with 225 respondents to SurveyMonkeysurvey sent to CONTENTdm Listserv

4. Putting the user back in User Interface Susan University Faculty Bob Casual browser • An ideal user experience must meet the needs of the user, without fuss or bother • User experience is about feelings; to create satisfaction. You want people to feel satisfied before, during, and after they have used your product • Make it easy for users to do what they want or need to do

5. What is User Centered Design? Colors Collecting feedback Interaction mapping Surveys Fonts Best practice analysis Sitemaps Focus Groups Usability DESIGN Discovery Interaction Design Visual Design Design elements Current collection analysis User stories Task Walkthroughs Image treatments Personas Wireframes Usability Studies Buttons DESIGN DEV DEV How the OCLC team is using the User Centered Design approach

6. Research & Discovery • Extensive research and information gathering effort helped to define: • what we’re designing, and • who we’re designing it for • Interviews with current users to collect feedback • Demographic surveys • Assessment of search and discovery interfaces • Researched popular media-delivery websites • Evaluation of current CONTENTdm collections

7. Collecting feedback • Interviews with 12 digital librarians and developers helped validate redesign goals, confirm current challenges, and inform personas • All interviewees were in unanimous agreement • Current customization methods are too technical, time-consuming and not easily upgradable • A simpler and more flexible end-user experience is desired • End-users find image viewer “clunky,” antiquated, and not intuitive

8. Assessment of other solutions and providers • Key findings • Because of the popularity of Web 2.0 solutions, interfaces are forward-thinking, dynamic, and communicative. Users expect this behavior. • Need to make all media and document types available to end-users in a thoughtful, seamless manner • End-users expect discovery and exploration – need easy access to the breadth of an institution’s collections

9. Personas From research and feedback gathered, compile an exhaustive list of end-users Journalist Historical Society MLIS 3rd Party Vendor Museum Exhibit Academic Librarian Public Librarian Work Study Student Hobbyist General Public Archivist Photo Editor Historian Service Bureau Grad Student

10. Personas • Distill this list down into key personas

11. Personas • Putting a face and a name to the unique goals Susan University Faculty Bob Casual browser “I’m working on my book this year and it’s also the first time I’ll be teaching. I want to make sure I’m meeting expectations. I need access to resources that will help with my research, as well as to plan my curriculum and lectures.” “I’m a huge history buff. Lately I’ve been collecting research on the infrastructure of cities like Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, and Las Vegas. I can look online for photos, maps, and old newspapers rather than digging through books and microfilm at the library.”

12. Evaluating current functionality • Users should be presented with interfaces that help them accomplish their goals regardless of their search method. “I’m just browsing around in here … I wish there was a way I could only see images.” “That’s cool – I can refine to just image files.” ? • Current CONTENTdm Web templates

13. Personas • Keep these users in mind throughout the entire process

14. Interaction maps • Personas’ unique roles and goals help to define how they will uniquely interact with the system and move through the site • Establish a direction and start critical thinking about key interactions and functionality • Begin to define the “pages, pieces and parts” that will need to be available for users accomplishing their goals

15. Defining the interactions • Using personas, begin to see different approaches to the same digital collection “I’m interested in architecture, I want to discover what’s available to me here.” Susan “I want to find something very specific for my research paper.” Bob

16. Writing user stories • Coming up with solutions to help all users, regardless of their initial approach, to find, refine, and discover. “I want to zoom in and out by using the scroll wheel of my mouse.” “I want to see related digital items.” “I want to add a collection to my search, and have the results load instantly.” “I want the image to load quickly and smoothly, like Google maps.”

17. Wireframes—form follows function • Using a black and white line art style, begin to imagine how specific functionality might work • Wireframes

18. How do we know we’re on the right track? • Giving real-life audiences exposure to preliminary interfaces in order to address usability issues early on, before code is developed • Check in with users early and often! • Surveys & Interviews: “Who? What? Why?” • Focus Groups: “What do you think of this?” • Ad-hoc walkthroughs: “Okay then, what about this?” • Usability Studies: “Please do this task.”

19. July 2009: “Pluralistic Review” (User-Centered Walkthrough, Storyboarding) & Focus Group • Held at ALA Conference in Chicago • 16 College & University students, 5 College & University librarians; groups of 5-7, working on paper independently • In general, participants were satisfied with the redesigned interface • Those who had experience with CONTENTdm also indicated it felt familiar, yet improved • Learned that some of our initial assumptions were incorrect

20. Wireframe shown in focus group • “There is lots of space taken up with information I don’t need.” • “I just want to zoom and pan.” • “I can get more information if I want it. This doesn’t need to be here.”

21. “My Favorites” Wireframe shown in focus group • “WAY too much organization put on the part of the user. Notes, folder descriptions, manage folders. I’m not going to care that much about this stuff.” • “I wouldn’t use this. I’d just want to download or print from my results.”

22. July 2009: Pluralistic Review & Focus Group • Initial Assumptions Challenged • Feedback from CONTENTdm users suggested that metadata was very important and needed to be prominently displayed • Finding – End-users desire instant gratification: the “big beautiful image,” right off the bat, is critical • Feedback from CONTENTdm users indicated that current My Favorites functionality was too limited • Finding – Favorites not widely used by end-users; most said they would never use this type of functionality

23. Iterate through: revise the wireframes… • Using the feedback received in the focus groups, wireframes were revised and iterated • Immediate access to the “big, beautiful image” • Compound Object interface reworked • My Favorites…what to do?

24. September 2009 - Demographic Survey • SurveyMonkeysurvey sent to CONTENTdm Listserv also helped to validate our direction • 225 CONTENTdm users responded • Majority of respondents belong to academic libraries (60%) • Top 5 end-users: Students, general researchers, library staff, historians, faculty • 71% have 15 collections or fewer • 15% have 16-30 • 11% have 31-100 • 3% have over 100

25. September 2009 – revisiting assumptions about My Favorites • Because of conflicting findings about My Favorites, SurveyMonkey questions were put to the survey group • What is real need and use of My Favorites within CONTENTdm user community? • New assumptions based on Focus Group: • “My Favorites” not widely used by end-users • Enhanced My Favorites not desired by end-users

26. September 2009 – My Favorites Findings • Findings • 75% of CONTENTdm users are unsure if end-users utilize Favorites • 28% of CONTENTdm users are satisfied with current My Favorites • 54% are neutral in their satisfaction level • 18% are currently dissatisfied with Favorites. • Those that were indicated that this would be useful if redesigned to support faculty and teaching efforts • Result  make printing, downloading easy for end-users. Consider a more robust My Favorites as an optional add on for organizations supporting faculty and teaching efforts

27. Validate Again –November 2009: Online Usability Study • Usabilla Task walkthrough with accompanying survey based on revised wireframes • Online nature allowed participants to complete at their convenience, within one week’s time • 20 respondents were end-users (Professors, Graduate/Doctorate students, Researchers) • 23 respondents were CONTENTdm librarian users (Digital librarians, Web developers, IT/Systems staff, Collection configuration) • Ad-hoc general users (history buffs, etc.)

28. Wireframe revisions, based on feedback • “Clear, big, zoomable image, great!” • “I’d love to use this interface to search through a real collection!”

29. Interface changes validated as improved • Users are able to accomplish tasks, based on revisions to wireframes • Zooming & panning • Downloading & printing • Accessing item details

30. Goal-oriented functionality validated “I always like to know where I am.” “I would be inclined to scan the images first, so this feature [quick view] strikes me as vital -- it enhances the image and gives me the relative metadata.”

31. Complex, yet intuitive • Compound Object revisions successfully improve users’ ability to understand and navigate around the complex item type • “Table of contents is nice, and relevant to the item, with an option to view the thumbnails instead of the titles.”

32. Interface Changes Validated! • 99% of all participants were able to successfully perform the tasks assigned to them • 99.7% of tasks were completed successfully • 94.4% of researchers indicated that it was either “extremely easy” or “easy” for them to perform assigned tasks • 94.4% of the researchers said the interface exceeded or met expectations

33. Revised interface meets expectations “This new interface looks fantastic. When will it be available? It really incorporates just about everything I could want in CONTENTdm!” - Librarian “The layout is more modern and I think the organization will be more rational.” - Librarian “It seems familiar and easy to navigate. It looks like most other search websites. It’s what I’d expect to find while working on a report.” - Researcher

34. Revised again: helpful feedback immediately incorporated into wireframes • Terminology clarifications • Clearer iconography • Easier access to search results • More prominence placed on download and print • Screens from November study

35. Iterate for better usability • Ongoing Designer/Developer collaboration to ensure what’s being built aligns with users’ goals • Applying a visual layer (pixels, fonts, button style, etc) • Additional check-ins with end-users throughout the project

36. The user-centered design tradeoffs • What your departments or partners are asking for may conflict with your users’ needs • Be the advocate for your patrons & users • Need to strike a balance between presenting a best user experience for end-users vs. needs of institution to present material in a completely customized style • We want to make this highly customizable & configurable, but ensure that the carefully designed User Experience is preserved

37. Why is user-centered design important? • With this approach you never forget the user and what they need • End-user needs are more likely to be met • End-users will be able to more easily discover and use your unique digital assets • End-users will be more likely to return and share • Your collections will be more accessible and useful • You meet your end-users needs

38. Next stage in the Redesign—your turn • The end-user experience redesign “Sandbox” was announced in April 2010 • Sandbox allows you • To see an early prototype of the new end-user interface and follow development progress • To see mockups of work that is in development • An opportunity to try the interface and give us feedback while it is in development

39. Accessing the Sandbox • Login to the USC. The blog has articles about the Sandbox. Click on the link to the Sandbox. Provide feedback in USC Sandbox forum. • What’s in the Sandbox now? • Early prototype (ALA MW) of image viewer using small collection of single images. (Apr 30) • Mockups of image views, with and without text. (May 21) • What’s next in the Sandbox? • Update with more functionality as ready, still using our collection. Announce in USC What’s New blog. • Continue to add functionality and announce.

40. Sandbox collections: “Your Images Here” • When functionality is robust enough to handle real collections, we will ask users to volunteer their (at first) image collections.  • Public? • Unrestricted? • Good match for the functionality being demonstrated? • Depending on the number of volunteers, sizes of collections, and space available in the sandbox, we will have collections for viewing using the new end-user interfaces.

41. How you can be involved • Watch for Sandbox announcements • Test, observe, provide feedback in USC forum • Join us at ALA Annual in DC for an update! • Attend post-ALA webinar

42. Past, Present, Future – Content, for the User • As your digital library programs have grown, so have your needs for tools. • As your users’ expectations have grown, so have their needs for an effective experience. • As user experiences evolve, so will CONTENTdm.

43. Upcoming CONTENTdm Releases • Summer 2010 – CONTENTdm 5.4 • Summer 2010 – Flex Loader • By end of 2010 – End-User Experience Redesign

44. CONTENTdm 5.4 – Summer 2010 • Upload Manager enhancements • Improvements to reduce “hanging” – no need to click Resume • Options to cancel upload, remove an item from queue • More granular progress per item and persistent history • Compound Object editing enhancements • View and edit all pages in a spreadsheet • Find 5.0 • Better efficiency with partitioning of large indexes • Improved normalization for languages • Bug Fixes

45. 5.4 Upload Manager enhancements

46. 5.4 Upload Manager

47. 5.4 Upload Manager

48. 5.4 Compound Object Editing

50. Flex Loader – Summer 2010 • Free desktop tool available upon request to any CONTENTdm license holder • Supports import of the following XML file formats: iArchives METS/ALTO, CCS METS/ALTO and CCS METS/ALTOe • Ideal for users needing to import large quantities of METS/ALTO newspapers to a collection; supports annual NDNP grantees • Supports newspaper article segmentation; Support for article level searching will be added by end of 2010. • Pilot in progress: U of Utah, Ohio Historical Society, Memorial U, State Historical Society of Missouri, Arizona State Library • John Herbert, U of Utah, presents Flex Loader at 2:15 today!