These selections focus on ways that librarians can improve the “usability” of library websites, and thus better serve their patrons. The first of the three readings, “Engaging Users: The Future of Academic Library Websites,” makes recommendations for using the academic library website as a platform. The author begins by addressing what many library websites do have in terms of content, design patters, and other innovative features. She explains that in the current set-up, these sites are lacking opportunities for users to exert their influence, and thus they are less invested in the experience. “In the Web 2.0 era, the relationship between users and information is transformed from stand-alone, separate silos to mutually inclusive, mutually reliant, and reciprocal action-and-reaction entities,” (Liu, 2008). Tandem to that, most academic library websites have an overwhelming amount of text and links on their homepages, which leads to a jumbled user experience. Liu recommends a three-part conceptual model for library websites to act as more of a virtual place. They would include a Library Homepage, a Library Portal page, and a My Library space. This interface would allow for more personalization and user engagement.
The second reading takes us from the theoretical underpinnings of website upgrade, to an actual case study, examining the University of Michigan’s Art, Architecture, and Engineering Library, and how it made the transition from an HTML site to a CMS (Content Management System). Once again, the focus was on usability. The paper describes the step-by-step process the committee went through to enact the upgrade, including assessing the benefits and drawbacks of the old website, the software and scripting language selected, and the use of a “Usability Lab” to further assess whether their new site was meeting the needs of their users. The team included a “usability consultant” to help conduct various tests on the new site. In the end, the team was happy with their results, but the final line of the article is a telling one, “The lessons learned with the usability lab, to listen to users by testing the site and to trust librarian’ instincts and expertise, will guide development in the next state,” (Tolliver, 2005). It is encouraging to hear both that the usability lab was a success, and that it is to the librarians that the author chooses to lend his greatest praise.
Our final reading deals with ways in which library websites need to embrace usability with respect to their off-campus users. The central thrust of the article dealt with the efficacy of two usability techniques: formal usability studies and focus groups. After a detailed analysis of how best to implement these tools, the author concludes that they are both cost-effective and useful for libraries to use. Libraries will see greater use and more satisfied users of their website after implementing these techniques. After reading these articles, it is tough to see why anyone building a webpage would not employ some methods to test usability. These are simple and affordable tools which improve the librarian’s ability to better serve their user, and usability testing should be normative in all website designs and upgrades.
Question: Looking back at our Information Retrieval System Evaluation papers, could the IR systems we evaluated have benefited from some usability testing?
References
1. Liu, Shu (2008). Engineering Users: The Future of Academic Library Sites. College and Research Libraries v. 69 no.1 (January 2008) pp. 6-27.
2. Tolliver et al. (2005). Website Redesign and Testing with a Usability Consultant: Lessons Learned. OCLC Systems & Services. 21(3). Pp. 156-166.
3. Beth Thomsen-Scott (2005). Yeah, I Found It! Performing Web Site Usability Testing to Ensure That Off-Campus Students Can Find the Information They Need. Journal of Library Administration, 41 (3 & 4). Pp. 471-483 (full text available via EBSCOHost)
