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 12th, 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.
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).
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment