All About the User

               How do we define usability?  This is an important point of consideration for this week’s readings – and it’s not just about finding a dictionary definition.  Actually, it somewhat recalls our readings for the week of September 12^th, where I asked, how do we define an “effective” information system? Once again, it all comes down to the user.
                The problem with evaluating information systems or, as this week’s readings touch upon, websites, is that we can’t always see it from all sides. The technical folks responsible for the physical construction of the website may take a different view from the librarians responsible for its content, or from the users.  Take these three groups, and you might end up with three completely different sets of criteria for what makes a usable website. For that matter, try throwing in a fourth group – “usability experts,” operating outside of the technical structure, outside of the library administration, outside of the users. It is important, therefore, that when we construct systems like our library websites, we try to incorporate all perspectives, and that is largely the point of this week’s readings.

                As usual, there are three articles on the table, so I’ll take them in chronological order. The first article, by Beth Thomsett-Scott, is called “Yeah, I Found it! Performing Web Site Usability Testing to Ensure That Off-Campus Students Can Find the Information They Need” (2004). Thomsett-Scott basically  attacks the issue of off-campus students and their ability to navigate library websites effectively, before touching upon some of the ways of measuring a site’s usability in this context. As a mostly-off-campus student, I can definitely relate – even though I actually work in the library, work time is not research time, and it’s been really important for me to be able to search the CUA databases and catalog from my kitchen table at all hours.
                So what makes a site usable? Thomsett-Scott runs through a variety of definitions offered up by a wide variety of individuals who presumably bear some authority in the subject area; while they differ in some respects, these definitions are common in that they are all user-centric. After all, it makes sense; if the user can’t use a site, then how “usable” is it? (Try saying that 10 times fast!)  Thomsett-Scott excellently paraphrases an article by Collins and Aguinaga from 2001, saying that they “describe their amazement at how differently the study participants used the site than the staff or the designers of the site expected it to be used” (Thomsett-Scott 2004, p. 472). And that, I propose, is the major issue I mentioned earlier: users don’t always think like we do, and that different method of thought is not wrong. There is no room for wrong; what purpose do our materials have if they can’t be accessed? The users’ thought patterns must be accommodated. The way to do this, Thomsett-Scott lays out, is to determine usability, which can be done through formal, scientific studies (with users as subjects); through focus groups (seeking user input); or through cognitive walkthroughs (performed by experts).  The author actually appears to recommend at least a partial compromise here; while acknowledging the benefits of cognitive walkthroughs (experts will notice a lot of the errors straight away), she is loath to encourage a usability study that does not, in some way, include the user (Thomsett-Scott 2004, p. 482).

                Tolliver et al. touch upon the same ground in 2005, with a paper titled, “Website redesign and testing with a usability consultant: lessons learned.”  Tolliver’s group, it emerges, obtained their results solely through the expertise of usability experts – not Thomsett-Scott’s most recommended method, because really, (everyone say it together), “It’s all about the user.” The authors, however, single out some further benefits to the expertise part of the deal: “time saved in self-education, the input of an expert’s experience, and an unbiased viewpoint “(Tolliver et. al 2005, p. 158). At that statement, though, I kind of want to screech to a halt and say, “What do you mean by unbiased?” Fairly-innocuous term, that, and yet in this context it is eyebrow-raising. In a situation where user needs are on the line, I would hesitate to go for unbiased; what we really need is biased, towards the user.  A system may be functional in a beautiful, idealistic vacuum, but if it cannot meet user expectations (no matter how biased, uneducated, needy, etc.) then what good is it, anyway? Fortunately for the library’s users, in this particular instance the usability experts did consult with a modest amount of users in a few areas of interest. Key statement here on page 163: “Interestingly, this is a case where the library staff’s knowledge of the AAE Library users was important in choosing the best terminology, despite the concerns of the usability consultant who felt that the term might prove too ambiguous” (Tolliver et al. 2005, p. 163). Bingo.  Why? Because the usability consultant was, here, operating in a theoretical vacuum of what principles are generally best for usability, when users neither exist, nor use the library, in a principled vacuum.

                The final reading for this week was a 2008 article was Shu Liu, “Engaging Users: The Future of Academic Library Web Sites.” Right away I like this title because it ties in with what we have been saying about the importance of users. This article also, I think, offers an important perspective because in talking about, well, user usability, it goes beyond the typical statements of confusing vocabulary or users’ ability to navigate a site. Yes, Liu actually delves into the realm of expectations: “Librarians are facing a new generation of online users who are technologically savvy and integrate information access and use in all spheres of their lives to an unprecedented degree. They approach the traditional library with certain expectations which may conflict…”(Liu 2008, p.6)  We will put aside my many, many qualms with over-generalized statements about the technological savvy of the Millenials, which are clichéd and in many cases (many of whom I have met, personally) absolutely incorrect. No, instead, let’s focus on the expectations model. Library websites can fail users if they are too complex to use; but sometimes that complexity comes from a lack of similarity to other technologies. In the world of Web 2.0, many of the most-frequently used websites share similar functionality and similar interfaces. A library with a completely different, non-intuitive interface could be just as complex, or more so, to a tech savvy user as your basic Google search might be for my grandmother. This is very important to consider as we move into the age of Library 2.0, and as we concern ourselves with usability generally. Liu encourages librarians to improve their usability by incorporating Web 2.0 and making the library website an interface which is comfortable, familiar and personalized to each user (Liu 2008, p 14). Again,  the studies show that usability is not about how well a librarian likes their site, or how strong they think the functionality is: the only thing that matters is whether the USER finds the site functional, comfortable, and usable.

  

  

Sources Cited: 

Liu, S. (2008). Engaging users: The future of academic library websites.College & Research Libraries, 69(1), 6-27. Retrieved October 29, 2011, from the Wilson Web database.

Thomsett-Scott, B. (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). 471 – 483. Retrieved October 29, 2011 from the EBSCOHost Education Research Complete database.

Tolliver et al. (2005). Website redesign and testing with a usability consultant: lessons learned. OCLC Systems & Services. 21(3). pp. 156-166. Retrieved October 29, 2011, from the Emerald Library database.

The Web Generation, 2.0

This week in LSC 555, it’s all about the Internet (and let me tell you, as someone who just moved into a new apartment and has barely been connected this past week, these articles elicited both a new appreciation for the wonders of the web, and some serious consternation over the lack of Internet connection).

Here is a completely fun and frivolous discussion question for you (more-academic question(s) to follow later): Do you remember the first time you experienced the Internet? Personally, I’m a little fuzzy on the date (I think I was in 3rd grade), but I remember it happening. One day my parents came home with a Windows 1995, HP Pavilion PC, which was just a whole new world from the DOS-based IBM Tandy we had owned previously. They set it up and then a few hours later my dad was in a chat-room with some guys from Malaysia. That’s right, Malaysia. I don’t think I’d even heard of Malaysia before that. Anyway, he let me say hi, and type a smiley face to them, and it was just...amazing stuff for an 8-year-old, really. I remember going to bed thinking , “Wow! My dad has friends in Malaysia now!” (not really, but hey, I was a kid). And just like that, I was introduced to the wonders of the World Wide Web (all of this, of course, was over an old-fashioned dial-up connection. You should have been there when I discovered DSL).

It’s been well over a decade since I sent a handful of characters to a group of Malaysian strangers, and the Internet has become a completely different entity since then -- as the rise of Web 2.0 should make clear.  But the basic principles are the same (and still just as fascinating and impressive, I might add), which is why I was glad to find that the first of this week’s articles was a basic introduction to Internet connectivity: “How Internet Infrastructure Works,” written by Jeff Tyson for the HowStuffWorks website.  I would have preferred to see a date on this article (I couldn’t find one anywhere, not even in the metadata), just because anything related to web connections and speeds is necessarily very date-sensitive.  Still, it made for an informative read.  

Tyson steps through all of the basics an Internet user could need or want to know:  How is the Internet structured? What exactly are we connecting to, and how, when we get online? What is this IP address thing we are always hearing about, and what does it do? How do URLs work? How do servers work with the Internet?

Personally, I found the section on IP addresses and DNS look-ups particularly striking, in part, I’ll admit, because I vividly recall the online game I played in middle school, using a program called TelNet, that put me through the hassle of manually entering an IP address every time -- and now I finally understand what that was all about.  But I also found it striking because I had never really considered the “magic” (I suppose technology would be a more appropriate word, although less descriptive of my level of ignorance) behind URLs before. In all my time online, never have I questioned the fact that typing in “http://www.google.com” would lead me to Google. Nor, for that matter, did I really understand what the “http://” part was all about, or why some URLs lack the “www” but none of them lack the “http://” (because “www” simply refers to the World Wide Web host machine within a domain name, whereas “http://” refers to the protocol, or communication language, to which every website conforms). Cool stuff, and, I would venture, stuff that’s good to know. Most of us will never need to understand the inner workings of the Internet, because its interface is designed so that we can use it anyway; still, I think there is something to be said for having some grasp of the power behind the Internet, if only because we might be able to use it more effectively.  Besides, it certainly doesn’t hurt to maintain a healthy level of respect for the power of any tool, like the Internet, that is integral to our daily lives.

One article in, and this blog entry is already becoming a novel; go figure. I’ll try to be a little more succinct talking about our other two readings....
    ...Which is actually a little simpler because both of these articles take the Internet subject in a new direction, highlighting the wonders of Web/Library 2.0. What is Web 2.0? The simplest, common definition of Web 2.0 is that it comes out to the “next generation” of my chat with Malaysian strangers: the ultimate in communication and social networking. Or, perhaps this is a better example: in the late nineties, my dad built a website, http://dailydash.com (believe it or not, this page is still in existence, albeit not very functional), as a dissemination point for a daily e-newsletter that he was writing at the time. He typically sent this around through e-mail, but he wanted to have a central, stable place to share the information.  At that time, it was kind of a big deal, especially since this newsletter was really an amateur endeavor; today, my Dad can -- and does--post a note or link on Facebook, send out Tweets, or even post to a blog like this one.  And that, my friends, is the beauty of Web 2.0. Or one of them, anyway.

For a more detailed, information science-oriented perspective to Web 2.0, a good place to start is our second reading for this week, Paul Anderson’s 2007 article, “All That Glisters Is Not Gold.” Anderson’s title is meant to be a reminder that not every “gold” functionality of Web 2.0 is transferable to Library 2.0;  rather it is our task, as librarians, to devote critical thought to which features will work in a library context (Anderson, 2007, p. 195).  One of the great points of this article is Anderson’s description of  “Six Big Ideas” posited by Tim O’Reilly of O’Reilly Media, which Anderson presents as the core of the Web 2.0 framework--alongside “mature social applications” and currently-developing W3C technologies/standards, such as XML (Anderson, 2007, p.196).  What are these Six Big Ideas? :

1. Individual production and user-generated content  - For a real-life example, see this blog.

2. Harness the power of the crowd -  Despite what you’ve heard about the “mob mentality,” O’Reilly (as cited in Anderson, 2007, p. 197) posits that there is actually some value in “collective intelligence.”

3. Data on an epic scale - Whatever we do online, whether we intend to or not, we are creating HUGE amounts of data. Smart companies know how to collect that data and use it (take Facebook, for example, or even Gmail --using profile data/message contents to create targeted ads. We may not like it, but we have to concede it’s financially-savvy).

4. Architecture of participation -  Anderson cites Google Search as an example: not only do well-designed websites and tools encourage participation, but participation can actually help these architectures to become better-designed.

5. Network effects This means taking seriously questions and discussions about the logistics of the World Wide Web and the impact each user has.

6. Openness Open source code, open standards, open information access -- you name it.

(Anderson, 2007, p.197).  Of course, it is not sufficient for us, as aspiring librarians, to grasp the concepts of Web 2.0; we also have to be able to envision the role they will play in Library 2.0.  We have to be constantly aware of the swift evolution of technology.  We have to have always in mind the ethical implications of Library 2.0 with regards to copyright and intellectual freedom.

But we also have to discuss Library 2.0 among ourselves. Part of the problem Anderson sees is that there hasn’t been enough professional discussion about Library 2.0, or even a formal definition (Anderson, 2007, p. 196). So here’s some (pre-professional) discussion: what  can we, as aspiring librarians, do to get this discussion rolling? And, what thoughts do we have about the possibilities and implications of Library 2.0?  Anderson  says, that the ethical implications of Web 2.0 “actually [put] librarians in a strong position in terms of potentially being able to influence how new types of technology develop and are used within libraries, and maybe even more widely"(Anderson, 2007, p.197). Do you believe that this is true?

Finally this week, we have a report from some of our colleagues in Greece (Athens and Corfu to be exact), Dimitris Gavrilis, Constantia Kakali1, and Christos Papatheodorou.  They describe a prototype improvement on the OPAC system called OPACIAL, developed by Panteion University to take advantage of Web 2.0 technologies.  The report makes mention of a few other OPAC notables we may want to keep an eye on , including the Ann Arbor District Library and Hennepin County Library systems, open source programs such as Scriblio, and proprietary programs such as Aquabrowser (for an example of Aquabrowser, check out CUA’s own Discovery Catalog. Not my favorite, but definitely an interesting approach to catalog-searching) (Gavrilis, Kakalil and Papatheodorou, 2008, section 2).

But the real focus of the report, of course, is OPACIAL. The authors step through the system development process -- a little lengthy and complex to summarize here, but definitely a  fantastic example of the system development life cycle in action -- including a discussion of the components of their system.  OPACIAL has some really fantastic Web 2.0 features -- a user-created tag cloud (made searchable after user testing), faceted searching, and a list of potentially-related items.  My favorite part of OPACIAL, though, has to be the breadth of information in the catalog records: they contain not only bibliographic data, but also a space for users to tag and annotate, reviews, and (my personal favorite) an image of the library’s floorplan showing exactly where the book can be found (Gavrilis et al., 2008, section 3). Pretty amazing stuff, albeit maybe not as well-suited to a massive, complexly-organized library like CUA’s Mullen Library (I have no sense of the size of Panteion, I freely admit).  The authors conclude the article by describing the process of user-evaluation, including statistics, user suggestions, and some final comments on where OPACIAL stands now -- definitely in a good place, but definitely requiring revision (Gavrilis et al., 2008, sections 4-5).

    Some discussion points: OPACIAL looks fantastic, at least in my (still-beginner) opinion. As with any user interface, it is obviously going to be a point of personal preference. But beyond the limitations of personal preference, I tend to be idealistic. I’ll admit, I have grand visions of OPACIAL swimming around in my head right now, but going back to Anderson, is that realistic? Yes, OPACIAL implements some of the truly innovative possibilities that have come with Web 2.0, and yes it embraces the social, user-created mindset that Web 2.0 embodies.  But as Anderson pointed out in the second article, it’s our job to think critically about what is actually feasible for Library 2.0. Do you think OPACIAL is feasible? What might be the challenges for implementing Web 2.0 features in the catalog -- tag clouds, for example, or reviews--, and can we overcome those challenges? Should we even be trying to? 

Articles Cited:

Anderson, P. (2007). “All That Glisters Is Not Gold' — Web 2.0 And The Librarian”. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science,, 39(4), 195-198. Retrieved October 10, 2011, from the Sage Premier 2009 database.

Gavrilis, D., Kakali, C., and Papatheodorou, C. (2008). Enhancing Library Services with Web 2.0 Functionalities. In Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Research and Advanced Technology For Digital Libraries (Aarhus, Denmark, September 14 - 19, 2008). B. Christensen-Dalsgaard, D. Castelli, B. Ammitzbøll Jurik, and J. Lippincott, Eds. Lecture Notes In Computer Science, vol. 5173. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 148-159. Retrieved October 10, 2011 from http://www.wcl.ece.upatras.gr

Tyson, Jeff (n.d.). HowStuffWorks: How Internet Infrastructure Works. In HowStuffWorks: Tech. Retrieved October 10, 2011 from http://computer.howstuffworks.com/internet-infrastructure.htm