1

Some Findings from WorldCat Local Usability Tests Prepared for ALA Annual, July 2009

Test goals 2

Test methods 2

Test partners 2

Combining local, group, and global scope 2

Journal article content 2

Simple search box 2

Advanced search options 2

Search result pages 3

• Orderofsearchresults 3

•What“relevance”means 3

• Theinterplayoflocationandrelevance 3

• Detailsonsearchresultpages 4

• EditionsandFRBR 4

• Facetedbrowsing 5

Item Details pages 5

• Gettingprintitems 6

• Linkstoelectronicresources 6

• Rearrangementofhigh-value 7 bibliographicdata

Collaboration and personal workflow tools 7

• Reviews 7

• Recommendations 7

• Tags 7

• Ratings 7

• Lists 7

Navigation 8

213941

WorldCatLocalprovideslocallybrandedaccessthroughasimplesearchboxandadvancedsearchoptions

tolocal,groupandglobalholdings,print,non-printandelectronicresources(includingfulltextfrom

electronicsubscriptions)foracademicandpubliclibraryusers.Searchresultsincluderelevanceranking,

FRBR-basededitionclustering,andfacetedbrowsing.Itemdetailsincludecollaborativeandworkflow

features:lists,tags,reviews,andratings.

OverthepasttwoyearsOCLChasconductedclosetoadozentestsofWorldCatLocal,mostwithacademic

libraryusers,somewithpubliclibraryusers,andmanyincooperationwithpilotlibraries.Thissummary

assemblessomekeyfindingsfromourongoingtestingprocess.

Contents

2

Test goalsOftenourusabilitytestsaresummative:thegoalistovalidatedesignsorchangeswe’vemade.Sometimesourtestsareformative:thegoalistoprovokeorcorrectourthinkingaboutanemergingapproachordesignatapreliminarystage.

Test methodsWe’vedoneusabilitytestsinanumberofways:oftentask-basedsessionswithprototypeorproductionsystemsfollowedbyquestionnairesandinterviews;sometimescontextualinterviews,wherethetestparticipanttrainstheobserver.Someofthesewererelativelylargetests,withapproximatelyfifteenparticipants,andothersweresmalltestswithonlyfiveparticipants.Oftenweconducttestsatcolleges,universitiesorpubliclibraries.Sometimestheuseristhereorathome,butweconductthetestfromOhioorCalifornia.

AnagiledevelopmentmethodologyisusedforWorldCatLocal:wedesign,test,pilot,test,design.Itisaniterativeandongoingprocess.

Test partnersWedothesetestsincollaborationwithstaffatpilotsiteswhoareoftenveryinvolvedinplanningthetestsandanalyzingthefindingswithus.TestpartnershaveincludedtheUniversityofWashington,theUniversityofCalifornia(Berkeley,DavisandIrvinecampuses),theOhioStateUniversity,thePeninsulaLibrarySysteminSanMateo,California,theFreeLibraryofUrbanaandtheDesPlainesPublicLibrary,bothinIllinois.LaterinJulywe’llbetestingwithNortheasternIllinoisUniversityandtheUniversityofIllinois,Springfield.

Usabilitytestslikethesehavesomeadvantages.Weseewhatpeopleactuallydo(inanartificialsetting)ratherthanhearwhattheysaytheywoulddo.Wecanprobeinteractively,andgetparticipantstoreflect.Wecanobservebehavioracrossdifferentinstitutionsandovertime.

Thesetestshavesomelimitationstoo.Oursamplesareinsomewaysdiverse:theycomefromdifferentinstitutions,buttheyarenotreliablyrepresentative.They’rejustlooselyalignedwithourdevelopingpersonasandprofilesforWorldCatLocalbyrank,discipline,ageandgender.Testparticipantsarepredominantlyfromthesocialsciencesandhumanities;afewhavebeenfromthesciences,engineeringandnursing.

SurveysandfocusgroupsthatcangiveaviewofbroaderandmorereliablyrepresentativesamplesthantheusabilitytestssummarizedherearealsoconductedbyvariouspartsofOCLC.

Combining local, group and global scopeAcademicusershaveastronglyfavorableresponsetosearchinglocal,groupandworldwidecollectionstogether.

Forsomepubliclibrarypatrons,localmeansthisparticularbranch,nottheirwholecitysystem.

Publiclibrarypatronsareinterestedinwhat’s“nearby”thattheycanget,withoutalwaysrecognizingtheinterlendingpartnershipthatsupportsit.

Journal article contentBothundergraduateandgraduatestudenttestparticipantsrecognized,understoodandwelcomedthebasicconceptofcombiningarticlesformdifferentsourcesandcombiningthemwithbooks.Theyrepeatedlymentionedtheinclusionofjournalarticlecontentassomethingtheyvaluedhighly.However,mostacademicparticipantsinonetest(nineoffourteen)wronglyassumedthatjournalarticlecoverageincludesallthelicensedcontentavailableattheircampuses.

TheadditionofmorelicensedcontenttoWorldCatandsupportforfederatedsearchingofdatabasesoutsideWorldCatwillenlargethesetofsourcestosearch.Wehavetestedmetasearchprototypes;however,thoseresultsarenotincludedhere.Metasearchingandmulti-databasesearchinginasingleinterfaceintroduceusabilitychallengesandneedfurthertesting.

Simple search boxFacultypraiseditas“Googly.”Veryfewparticipantsdemonstratedanyconcernaboutwhethersurnamesshouldprecedeforenames.Repeatedly,academicusersexpressedappreciationforasearchboxwheretheycan“justtypeanything.”Mostfaculty,studentandpubliclibrarypatronsuseditoften,searchingfromwhateverpagetheyhappenedtobeoneitherwithinWorldCatLocaloralibrary’shomepage.

Advanced search optionsInatestwith14participants(sevenundergraduatesandsevengraduatestudents)onlyhalfofparticipantseverusedtheadvancedsearchscreen,andinfewerthanhalfofthetotalsearches—ninetimesin66searches.

Whenparticipantschosetouseadvancedsearch,theyoftenmentionedadesiretoavoidatoo-largeresult.Inthisandotherteststheystatedapreferenceforsearchingbyauthor

Some Findings from WorldCat Local Usability TestsPrepared for ALA Annual, July 2009

3

toavoidworksaboutaperson,ortitletoavoidfindingcommontitlewordsassubjects.

Whenjournalarticlecontentwasinvolved,academictestparticipantsoftenmentionedadesireforajournaltitleindex.Wehavenowbuiltthatjournaltitleindex.

Wehavealsomadesomelanguageadjustmentsforacademicusers,saying“journal”insteadof“serial,magazine,newspaper.”

We’vecausedsomeproblemswithpromptedvalues,andsolvedsomeproblems.Earlyonwemadesearchtermspersistonadvancedsearchscreen(becausewebsearchengineshavetheuser’ssearchtermspersistintotheadvancedsearchform),butreceivedmanycomplaints.Nowthosetermsarenotpersistent.Wearealsolookingatalternativesforrevisingasearchorstartinganewsearch.

Search result pagesWehadquestionsandgotfindingsabouttheorderofsearchresults,editionsandFRBR,whatdetailsweshow,andfacets.

Search results, May 2007

Search results, July 2009

Order of search results

Weinvestigatedwhatthedefaultordershouldbeinanacademicsetting,whetheritdiffersbetweenadvancedresearchersandundergraduates,whatthedefaultordershouldbeinapubliclibrarysetting,howwellthedefaultrankingsupportsfindingknownitems,andhowwellitsupportstopicalsearching.

Wefoundthatbothforstudentsandforscholars,inboththeknownitemcaseandthetopicalsearchcase,theexpectedandpreferredorderwasrelevance.Nearlyallparticipantsexpectedit;alargemajoritypreferredit.Asmallminoritypreferreddatedescending,andthoseparticipantswereabletochangethesortorder.MostacademictestparticipantsrecognizedtheorderofsearchresultsinWorldCatLocalas“relevance.”

Forpubliclibraryusers,itisnotyetclearfromourtestingwhattheexpectedorderis.Somepubliclibrarypatronshadahardtimedeterminingwhatordersearchresultswerein.

Whensearchingforknownitems,testparticipantsexpectedtheitemtobeonpageoneofthesearchresults.Whenitwasn’t,themostcommonbehaviorwastosearchagain,usingmorewordsorquotationmarks.

What “relevance” means

Fortopicalsearches,testparticipants—advancedresearchers,facultyandgraduatestudents—statedthatthe“best”itemswouldbeatthetopofthelist.Thisis“relevance”inaspecialsense,onethatincludessomethinglikerenown.

Academictestparticipantsdemonstratedmoretrustthancuriosityabouthowthismightbeaccomplished.Mostfacultyandgraduatestudentscouldsuggestseveralfactors—relevance,popularity,andlocation—thatmightbeinvolved.Butattentiontothatwassomethingtheysaidtheyregardedaslibrarians’expertise,nottheirs.Theytrusttheirlibrariestohavemadetherightchoicesabouthowtodothisforthem.

Someparticipantsremarkedwithsurpriseonthedesireditemnotbeingfirstinsearchresultsorbeingprecededbyanitemwheretheycouldn’tseethematchingtermsinthebriefsearchdisplay(becausetheywereincontentsnotesorelsewhere).Thisranking,however,wasnotusuallyanobstacletoparticipantsgettingthedesireditem.

The interplay of location and relevance

Thedefaultresultrankinginourfirsttestswasasubtleone.Localholdingswerelistedfirst,goingfrommosttoleastrelevant,followedbygroupholdingsgoingfrommosttoleastrelevant,followedbyworldwideholdingsgoingfrommosttoleastrelevant.

Some Findings from WorldCat Local Usability TestsPrepared for ALA Annual, July 2009

4

Undergraduatetestparticipantsgenerallyreportfeelingwellservedbythisrankingthatputsitemsfromthelocalinstitutionatthetopofthelist.Participantsweregenerallynotawarethatitemsfromthatcollectionwerepromotedtothetopofthelist.

Facultyandgraduatestudenttestparticipantsgenerallydidnoticethatlocalmaterialswereatthetopofthelist.Buttheygenerallydidnotanticipatethatrankingbybothlocationandrelevancewouldunpredictablyputhighlyrelevantitemsoutofsight,afterlessrelevantones.Thiswasaconcernforscholarlytestparticipantswhowereoftennotinterestedonlyinlocalmaterials.

Inresponse,wecreatedasortoptionforrelevancewithoutlocation,stillweightedbyholdingsbutwithoutlocal,groupandglobalgrouping.Nowthatoptioncanbesetbyaninstitutionasthedefault.Atthesametime,weaddedamoreovertcontrolforlocation:apull-downmenunearthesearchbox.Insubsequenttests,someundergraduateparticipantsusedthepull-downmenutoscoperesults.Forthosewhodid,itdidwhattheyexpected.Allgraduatestudentsandfacultyusedthiscontroloftenandproficiently.

Details on search result pages

Manyparticipants,frombothacademicandpubliclibraries,statedthattheyexpectedtoseetheirsearchtermsintheitemsatthetopofthesearchresultpage.Matchesintitlesarevisible,butmatchesinsubjects,whichhappenoftenandcanbeequallyimportant,arenotvisiblenow.Testparticipantsexpectedtheevidenceofmatchingtobevisible,andtendedtodisregarditemsinwhichtheirsearchtermswerenotvisible.

Testparticipantsatpubliclibrariesoftenneededtoseeholdingsforthelocalbranch,notthewholecitysystem,onthesearchresultspage.Loadinglocalholdingsrecordsisaremedywhenthisisaproblem.

Anindicationofwhat’savailableisabasisforselection.Severalparticipantsinvarioustestsexpressedapreferencetoseeanindicationofcirculationstatusonthesearchresultspage.However,nearlyalltestparticipantswereabletodeterminewhetherlocallyheldmaterialswereavailablebyexaminingtheitemdetailspage.

Manyparticipantsexpressedadesiretoseeanabstractorsummaryonthesearchresultspage.Thisisachangeweareevaluatingnow.

Authorswereanimportantbasisforselectionforadvancedscholars.Facultyandgraduatestudentsindicatedthatrecognizingareputableauthorintheirfieldwassomethingtheyusedtodecidewhetheraniteminasearchresultshouldbelookedintofurther.Noneoftheundergraduate

studentsinourcontextualinterviewsindicatedthiswasafactorintheirselectionprocess.

Editions and FRBR

Weinvestigatedwhethertestparticipantsweremisledbyseeingonlyonemanifestationonsearchresultsrepresentingallothermanifestationsofthatwork;whetherweshowtherightmanifestationonsearchresultpages;whetherparticipantswereconfusedbyseeingmorethanonemanifestationonsearchresultpageswhenFRBRizationisimperfect;whetherparticipantsgetthelatesteditionofaworkwhentheyknowtheyneedthelatestedition,butdon’tknowtheyearofthatedition.

Wefoundthatingeneralwork-levelgranularityforsearchresultsbasedonFRBRratherthanedition-levelgranularityfittheexpectationsofbothacademicandpubliclibrarytestparticipants.Evenscholarshaddelegatedattentiontowhicheditiontostartwithtous.Puttingthedetailsofoneeditioninsearchresultsdidn’tstopstudentsorscholarsfromfindingothereditionswhentheywantedthem.IncompleteFRBRizationhasanegativeimpactonperformance,notunderstanding.

Undergraduatetestparticipants,primarilyinthehumanitiesandsocialsciences,reportedthattheyseldom(sevenparticipantsoftenparticipants)ornever(threeparticipants)lookedforaspecificeditionofabook.

Werepeatedlyheardeditionssometimesmattertoscholars—thelast,thefirst,thelastduringtheauthor’slifetime.Historiansexpressedapreferenceforthefirsteditionofprimarysourcesandthemostrecenteditionofsecondarysources.

Wefoundthatthedefaulteditionmatters.Evenadvancedresearchersacceptedthedefaultwhennotdirectedtofindaspecificedition,withoutrecognizingthatitwasnottheeditiontheylaterdescribedaspreferring(i.e.,theearliestorlatestedition).Wearenowinvestigatingwhetherthisdefaultshouldbethemostrecenteditionthat’savailablelocallyorthemostwidelyheldeditionthat’savailablelocally.

Whenparticipantsdidhaveaspecificeditioninmindandhadinformation(publisher,date,editor)toidentifyit,theygenerallysearchedwiththatinformationandsawthecorrespondingeditioninthesearchresult,sinceweshowthematchingedition.Nearlyallacademictestparticipants—bothundergraduatesandgraduatestudentsorfaculty—havebeensuccessfulatthissortoftask.

However,inourfirsttestsnoundergraduatesorgraduatestudentsweresuccessfulatfindingthelatesteditionofaworkiftheydidn’talreadyknowthedate.Thistaskisoneinstanceofidentifyingaparticulareditionwithoutknowingin

Some Findings from WorldCat Local Usability TestsPrepared for ALA Annual, July 2009

5

advanceanywordsthatcouldbeusedtofinditbysearching.Performancewasalmostuniformlypoorforfaculty,too.

Weaddeda“viewalleditionsandformats”link,firstatthetopoftheitemdetailspage,andthenalsoonthesearchresultspage.Afterthat,undergraduatesaswellasadvancedresearchersgenerallyfoundthelatesteditionwithoutknowinginadvancetheyearofthatedition(evenwhen,asoftenhappens,thateditionisnottheoneshowninbriefsearchresults).

Mostadvancedresearchersexpressedadesiretohaveallavailableeditionslisted(ontheeditionstab,asitthenwas)inreversechronologicalorderwithoutregardtolocation.Publiclibrarypatronsdidn’texpecttoseenon-Englisheditions,especiallynotatthetopofthatlist.Wecreatedaneweditionspage,whereuserscansortbydateandlocation,refinebyformat,seelanguagesandscopebylocation.Wechangedsortofeditionstoremovegroupingbylocal,thengroup,andthenglobalholdings.Weareconsideringaddingmoreeditioninformationforhighlyused/searchformatsandeditionsontheitemdetailspage.

Faceted browsing

Weinvestigatedwhetherfacetsarenoticedbytestparticipants,whethertheyworkasexpected,andwhetherthereareanyobstaclestouse.

Participantssaidanddemonstratedthattheynoticedfacets.Theysometimesusedfacets,andfacetsgenerallyworkedasexpected.

However,facetsweremoreoftenpraisedthanused.Insubjectsearchinginparticular,facetswerenotoftenusedbyundergraduateorpubliclibrarytestparticipants.Threeoutoftenusersinatestofsubjectsearchingusedfacets.Thefacetstheyusedwerelanguage,formatandyear.Participantsinthistestdidnotusethesubjectfacet(thencalledContent).Whenaskedwhy,severalsaidtheycouldn’tbesurewhattheywouldbeeliminatingiftheydid.

Subjecttermsatfirstappearedinafacetlabeled“content.”Nowthatfacetislabeled“topic.”Weaddedawaytoreversefacetchoicesundereachfacet.Wechangedtheorderoffacetstoputthemore-often-usedonesclosertothetopofthepage.

Item details pages

Item details, May 2007

Item details, July 2007

Item details, July 2009

Some Findings from WorldCat Local Usability TestsPrepared for ALA Annual, July 2009

6

Somethingsworkedwellevenwiththeearliestversionswetested,includinggettingprintitemsfromthelocalcollection,atleastforacademiclibraryusers.Somethingswereproblematic,includinglinkstoelectronicversionsandsupportingacademicworkflowsforcopingandpastingcitations.Weundertookamajorrevisionofthispage,testinghigh-fidelityprototypespartwaythroughthedesignprocess.

Getting print materials from the local collection

Canusersidentifywhat’savailableandwhere?

Foracademiclibraryusers,thisworkedwell.Whileafewtestparticipantsexpressedapreferenceforseeinginformationaboutavailabilityonthesearchresultspage,goingontotheitemdetailspageforthisinformationprovednottobeanobstacle.Locationandavailabilityinformationwasvisibleandrecognized.

Publiclibraryuserswantedtoseeholdingsfortheirlocalbranch,notthewholecitysystem.Thisgranularitycanbeanissue,asitwasinourearlypubliclibrarytests,dependingonhowholdingsarerepresented.Loadinglocalholdingsrecordsisaremedy.

Getting print materials from the group collection

Inourearlytestsparticipantscouldn’ttellwhethercopieswouldbeavailablefromtheconsortialcollection.

Weaddedcapacitytogetavailabilityinformationandsetthefulfillmentpolicyandworkflowforconsortialholdings,soWorldCatLocalcanofferabuttontogetacopyfromtheconsortialcollectionwhenitisavailableandproposeanotherapproachwhennoconsortialcopyisavailable.

Academictestparticipantsingeneralhadahighawarenessof—andrelianceon—thegroupcollectionsupportedbyaconsortiumorstatewidesystemtheirinstitutionmightbeapartof.

Somepubliclibraryuserswereconcernedalmostexclusivelywithwhatwasheldintheirlocalbranch.Othersregardedallmaterialstheycouldhavespeedyandsureaccesstoasequivalent.Notalltheseusersrecognizedtheconsortialarrangementsthatmadethatpossible.

Getting print materials from the worldwide collection

Undergraduatetestparticipantssawthewaytorequestitemsfromoutsidethelocalconsortiumbut,inearlytestsdidn’tseeminterestedindoingit.Thatwasprobablyanissuewiththetestdesign.Therearesomebarriersandsomeformstofillout.Theseparticipantswerenot,infact,deeplyinterestedintheitemswehadthemsearchfor,nordidtheyreallyexpecttogetthem.ActivitylogsshowthatinterlibraryloanisquiteaccessiblethroughWorldCatLocal.Interlibrary

loanwasoflimitedinteresttomostofourpubliclibrarytestparticipants.

We’vemovedthecontrolsforgettinglocal,groupandglobalmaterialstoclarifywherethematerialiscomingfrom.We’retestingtheminthesummerof2009inpublicandacademiclibrariesinIllinois,andwe’lltestthemagainwiththeUniversityofCalifornia.

Links to electronic resources

Inearlytests,accessingelectronicresourcesprovedtobeveryproblematic.Atfirst,halfofourtestparticipantsoverlookedthebigbuttonforviewingonlineorcheckingforelectronicresources.Wemovedthatbutton.

Inthenextroundoftests,participantsdemonstratedpatternsofmisunderstandingaboutthemanylinksandiconsassociatedwithelectronicresources.Thoselinkswerestilldispersedonvariouspartsofthepage.Participantswerenotverysuccessfulinknowingwhenelectronicresourceswereavailable,orretrievingthemwhentheywere.

Weredesignedtheitemdetailspagetogathertogetherandprioritizepreviouslyscatteredlinksforelectronicfulfillmentandinformationaboutavailability.Weremovedsomeconfusingicons.Also,WorldCatLocalnowallowsforcustomizationofthewordsshownontheopenURLresolverbuttonsotheyresonatewithwhatauserseesonotherpagesformtheirlibrary.

Wetestedjpegprototypesofthereviseddesignwithsixgraduatestudentsfromavarietyofdisciplines.Wesawimprovements.Thatdesignisinproductionnow,buttherearestillsomeproblems.Therecanstillbeamixoflinksonthispage:onesthatleadtofulfillmentbecausealibraryhasasubscriptionorbecausethey’reopenaccess,andonesthataredeadends,becauseneitherofthoseisthecase.Werecognizethatthisisausabilityissuethatcanmisleadusersintothinkingtheyhaveaccesstosomethingthatwedon’t,andwe’veinitiatedactiontoresolvetheissue.Wecontinuetolistentofeedbacktomakethedisplayofelectroniclinksaccurateforusers.Thisposesmanychallengesaswetrytoaccommodatedifferentlibrarycatalogingpracticesaswellasmeettheexpectationsoftheusersofthesystem.Inaddition,therehavebeencommentsabouthowweshowandhidelinksontheitemdetailspage.Bydefault,weshowthreelinksandiftherearemoretheyarecollapsedandtheusermustclickon“showmore”toexpandandseethem.We’renowinvestigatingwaystoindicatewhichlinkscarrythelocallibrary’sguaranteeofreliabilityand,whentherearemore,howtoshowmore.

Some Findings from WorldCat Local Usability TestsPrepared for ALA Annual, July 2009

7

Rearrangement of high-value bibliographic data

Inourredesignofitemdetailspageswealsoaimedtopromotehigh-valuebibliographicdetails.

Whenparticipantsexamineditemdetailspages,thesummaries,abstractsandtablesofcontentsonthosepageswerehighlyvalued.Participantsoftenselectedthemwiththemousepointerandsometimesreadthemaloud.Subjectheadingssometimesplayedasimilarrole,supportingevaluationratherthandiscoveryofrelateditems.

Wemovedsummaryinformationtothetopofthepageintheredesignoftheitemdetailspage.Weareevaluatingmovingotherinformation–perhapscontentsandphysicaldescription–tothetopofthepage.Surveydatawillhelpusdeterminewhatinformationismostvaluabletousersinthisarea.

Collaboration and personal workflow toolsWedidsomeformativetestingofcollaborationandpersonalworkflowtoolswithjpegprototypesandgraduatestudents.Ourchallengesinintroducingthesecollaborativefeaturesarenotunique.IdentityandresponsibilityarecriticalpiecesforallWebsitesandnotuniquetoourtestsortolibrariesingeneral.However,academicsareanaudienceespeciallyawareofreputation,andacademicusershavespheresinwhichtheseidentitiesandresponsibilityarecreated,outsideofthelibrarycatalog.

User-contributedreviewsgotmixedreactionsfromgraduatestudents.Responsetoreadingreviewswasmostlypositive.Sixofsevenparticipantswouldreadone.Onlyoneofsevenwouldwriteone.Itmatterswhodoeswritethem.Wesawastrongpreferencewhatparticipantscalled“editorial”reviewsoveruser-contributedreviewsinseveraltests.Amongpubliclibrarypatrons(eightofthemintwoIllinoislibraries),halfsaidtheywouldcontributereviews.

WechangedthedesignoftheItemDetailspagesothatreviewsarecollapsedbydefault.

“Readersrecommend”(based,atthetime,onrecommendationsfromWeRead)gotlessmixed—largelynegative—reactions.Onegraduatestudenthadapositivereactionbecause,hesaid,theserecommendationsmightbebasedonconnectionshecouldnototherwisehavemade.Fivegraduatestudentparticipantshadnegativereactionsthatrangedfromdoubttoasenseofviolation.Negativereactionshadmoretodowithwhotheotherreadersmightbethanwiththeideaofrecommendations(whichwerepraisedinMedLine)orwiththespecificitemsrecommended(whichwereignored).Tobevalued,recommendationsneedtocomefromameaningfulsource.Whatweoftenheard

matteredwasnotjustlevel—facultyrecommendationsoftenmeantmorethanstudentrecommendationstotestparticipants—butalsoinstitutionanddepartment.Andnotonly—orevenmainly—thesearcher’sowninstitution,butratheraninstitutiontheparticipantrecognizesashighlyregardedinhisorherparticulardiscipline.

WeremovedWeReadrecommendations,andinsteadweaddedarecommenderthatlooksatauthor,subjectandseriestitletorecommenditems.Thesefindingspromptedustoconductfocusgroupswithlibrarianstoexplorepossiblesourcesofmoreauthoritativereviewsandrecommendations.

Graduatestudents’reactionstotagsasawayofdiscoveringrelateditemsweremixed,butmostlypositive.Fiveoutofsevenparticipantswoulduseothers’tagsasawaytosearch.(Threeparticipantsbeganwithanegativeviewandmovedtoapositiveone.)Testparticipantssaidtheyvaluedthewaytags“gobeyondofficialsubjects.”Theyhaddifferentideasaboutwhatthiswaymightbe:someparticipantsexpectingtagstobebroader,othersnarrower,ormorecurrent,thanlibraryterms.Twoofsevenparticipantswouldnotusetagsprovidedbyothers;bothquestionedtheexpertiseorviewpointofthoseunknownandtoovariousothers.Oneparticipantsaidshewouldaddtagsofherown,onesaidshewouldnot.Themostcriticalusers—scholars—sawmorepromiseintags.Theonetestparticipantwithastrongpreferenceforthe“official”subjectsprovidedbylibrarianswasanundergraduate.

Wetestedstarratings.Graduatestudentreactionstoratingswerealmostallstronglynegative.Sixparticipantswouldnotrelyonarating.Fiveparticipantswouldnotrateanitem.Themainobjectionherewasnotaboutwhoisspeaking,butoneaboutpurpose.Participantspointedoutthattheywerenotreadingforleisure(acontextinwhichtheymightrelyonratings)butratherconstructinganargumentordevelopingaposition.Thefactthatsomethingisdisagreeableormistakenwouldnotmakeituseless.Publiclibraryusers,whosegoalsincludeleisure,mighthaveverydifferentreactionstoratings.

WeremovedStarratingsfromthebibliographicareaforWorldCatLocal.

Graduatestudentsvaluedlists.Theywouldbevaluedmorehighlyiftheauthorwereknownorauthor’sinstitutionalaffiliationwererecognizedandrespected.Nevertheless,inonetestonlyoneoffouruserscreatedabibliographyinWorldCatLocalwithoutbeingtoldtodoso.Instead,userscutandpastedreferencesintoaMicrosoftWorddocument.Advancedscholarsexpressedthesamepreference.

Thenewdesignoftheitemdetailspagenowinproductionprovidesforahighlight/copy/pasteworkflow.

Some Findings from WorldCat Local Usability TestsPrepared for ALA Annual, July 2009

8

NavigationNavigationpastthesecondorthirdpageofsearchresultsdidnothappenoften,evenforscholars.Althoughwehadparticipantsdotopicalsearchesintheirareasofexpertise,wecouldnotgetthemtolookpastthefirsttwopagesofsearchresults.Completenessofthesesearchresultsandwhatwasgoingonatthetailoftherankingwerenotaconcernforourtestparticipants.

Selectionisoftenmadefrombriefsearchresultpages,withoutgoingfurther.Whenparticipantsdogofurther,summary,abstractandcontentsnotesaremostvalued.

Allparticipantsreliedheavilyonthebrowser’sbackbuttonfornavigation.Someparticipantsexpressedadesireforamoreexplicitwaybacktosearchresults.Weaddeda“returntosearchresults”linktotheitemdetails.

Werecognizethatacademiclibraryusersandpubliclibraryusershavedifferentneeds,goalsandexpectations.Manychangeswehavemadesofarhavebeenbasedontheneedsofacademicusers.Aswedevelopanddifferentiatepersonasandprofilesforacademicusersontheonehandandpubliclibraryusersontheother,weexpecttocreatedifferentdesignthemestoreflectthesedifferences.So,forexample,reviewsandratingscanbemoreprominentforpubliclibrariesusingWorldCatLocalthanforacademiclibraries.

Some Findings from WorldCat Local Usability TestsPrepared for ALA Annual, July 2009