LibraryFind: System design and usability testing of academic metasearch system

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 59, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 375-389

  Seikyung, Jung ^a   Herlocker, Jonathan L ^a   Webster, Janet ^a   Mellinger, Margaret ^a   Frumkin, Jeremy ^a  

^a OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

METASEARCH SYSTEM; OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY (OSU);

SEARCH ENGINES; WEB SERVICES; WEBSITES;

DIGITAL LIBRARIES;

EID: 39649124468     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.20749     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Augustine, S., & Greene, C. (2002). Discovering how students search a library web site: A usability case study. College & Research Libraries, 63(4), 354-364.
2. Baeza-Yates, R., & Ribeiro-Neto, B. (1999). Modern information retrieval.: ACM Press. New York, NY.
3. Battleson, B., Booth, A., & Weintrop, J. (2001). Usability testing of an academic library web site: A case study. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27(3), 188-198.
4. Belkin, N.J., Oddy, R.N., & Brooks, H.M. (1982). ASK for information retrieval: Part I. Journal of Documentation, 38, 61-71.
5. Boock, M., Nichols, J., & Kristick. L. (2006). Continuing the quest for the quick search holy grail. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 11(4), 139-153.
6. Bosman, J., Mourik, I., Rasch, M., Sieverts, E., & Verhoeff, H. (2006). The coverage and functionality of the citation database Scopus including comparisons with Web of Science and Google Scholar. Utrecht University Library. Retrieved January 20, 2007, from http://www.info.scopus.com/news/coverage/ utrecht.pdf
7. Boss, R. (2002). How to plan and implement a library portal. Library Technology Reports, 38(6). pp. 1-63, American Library Association.
8. Breeding, M. (2005). Reshuffling the desk. Library Journal, 131(6), 40-54.
9. Burright, M. (2006). Google Scholar. Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship, 45. Retrieved July 16, 2007, from http://www.istl.org/06-winter/ databases2.html.
10. Cervone, F. (2005). What we've learned from doing usability testing on OpenURL resolvers and federated search engines. Computers in Libraries, 25(9), 10-14.
11. Chisman, J., Diller, K., & Walbridge, S. (1999). Usability testing: A case study. College & Research Libraries, 60(6), 552-569.
12. Christenson, H., & Tennant, R. (2005). Integrating information resources: Principles, technologies and approaches. Oakland: California Digital Library. Retrieved February 26, 2007, from http://www.cdlib.org/inside/projects/ metasearch/nsdl/nsdl_report2.pdf
13. Cobus, L., Dent, V.F., & Ondrusek, A. (2004). How twenty-eight users helped redesign an academic library website. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 44(3), 232-246.
14. Cockrell, B.J., & Jayne, E.A. (2002). How do I find an article? Insights from a web usability study. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(3), 122-132.
15. Crestani, F., & Du, H. (2006). Written versus spoken queries: A qualitative and quantitative comparative analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(7), 881-890.
16. Crawford, W. (2004). Meta, federated, distributed: Search solutions. American Libraries Online. Retrieved November 14, 2006, from http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline.thecrawfordfiles/crawford2004/crawfordAug04.htm
17. Cunningham, H. (2005). Designing a web site for one imaginary persona that reflects the needs of many. Computers in Libraries, 25(9), 15-19.
18. Eliasen, K., McKinstry, J., & Fraser, B.M. (1997). Navigating online menus: A quantitative experiment. College & Research Libraries, 58(6), 509-516.
19. Hamburger, S. (2004). How researchers search for manuscript and archival collections. Journal of Archival Organization, 2(1/2), 79-97.
20. Hwang, S.-Y., Huang, J., & Srivastava, J. (1993). Concurrency control in federated databases: A dynamic approach. Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Washington DC (pp. 694-703).
21. Jacso, P. (2005). As we may search-Comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citationenhanced databases. Current Science, 89(9), 1537-1547.
22. Kuehl, R.O. (1994). Statistical principles of research design and analysis. Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.
23. Lee, J. (2006). Earth Sciences metasearch portal usability testing. Retrieved November 14, 2006, from http://www.cdlib.org/inside/projects/ metasearch/nsdl/UCLA_NSDL_062006.pdf
24. Lim, E.-P., Hwang, S.-Y., Srivastava, J., Chements, D., & Ganesh, H. (1995). Myriad: Design and implementation of a federated database prototype. Software: Practice and Experience, 25(5), 533-562.
25. Luther, J. (2003). Trumping Google? Metasearching's promise. Library Journal, 128(16), 36-39.
26. Marshall, P., Herman, S., & Rajan, S. (2006). In search of more meaningful search. Serials Review, 32(3), 172-180.
27. Meltzer, E. (2005). UC Libraries' use of Google Scholar. Retrieved November 14, 2006, from http://www.cdlib.org/inside/assess/ evaluation_activities/docs/2005/googleScholar_summary_0805.pdf
28. Meng, B., Yu, C., & Lie, K.L. (2002). Building efficient and effective metasearch engines. ACM Computing Surveys, 34(1), 48-89.
29. Mullen, L.B., & Hartman, K.A. (2006). Google Scholar and the library web site: The early response by ARL Libraries. College & Research Libraries, 67(2), 106-122.
30. Neuhaus, C., Neuhaus, E., Asher A., & Wrede, C. (2006). The depth and breadth of Google Scholar: An empirical study. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 6(2), 127-441.
31. Notess, G.R. (2005). Scholarly web searching: Google Scholar and Scirus. Online, 29(4), 39-41.
32. Notovny, E. (2004). I don't think I click: A protocol analysis study of use of a library online catalog in the Internet age. College & Research Libraries, 65(6), 525-537.
33. Randall, S. (2006). Federated searching and usability testing: Building the perfect beast. Serials Review, 32(3), 181-182.
34. Reeb, B., D'lgnazio, J., Law, J., & Visser, M. (2006). Federated search observed in the context of student writing: Taking steps towards improving user experience. College & Research Libraries News, 67(6), 352-355.
35. Reese, T. (2006). Metasearch: Building a shared metadata-driven knowledge base system. Ariadne, 47. Retrieved November 14, 2006, from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue47/reese/
36. Rieh, S.-Y. (2004). On the Web at home: Information seeking and Web searching in the home environment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(8), 743-753.
37. Stephan, E., Cheng, D.T., & Young, L.M. (2006). A usability survey at the University of Mississippi Libraries for the improvement of the library home page. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(1), 35-51.
38. Tallent, E. (2004). Metasearching in Boston College libraries: A case study of user reactions. New Library World, 105(1/2), 69-75.
39. Tennant, R. (2005). Is metasearching dead? Library Journal, 130(12), 28.
40. Tenopir, C. (2005). Google in the academic library. Library Journal, 130(2), 32.
41. Thomsett-Scott, B. (2005). Providing a complete menu: Using competitive usability in a home page usability study. Technical Services Quarterly, 23(2), 33-47.
42. Travis, T.A., & Norlin, E. (2002). Testing the competition: Usability of commercial information sites compared with academic library web sites. College & Research Libraries, 63(5), 433-447.
43. Yakel, E. (2004). Encoded archival description: Are finding aids boundary spanners or barriers for users? Journal of Archival Organization, 2(1/2), 63-77.