How usable are operational digital libraries: A usability evaluation of system interactions

EICS'09 - Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 177-186

  Zhang, Xiangmin ^a   Liu, Jinjing ^a   Li, Yuelin ^b   Zhang, Ying ^c  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Digital libraries; Interaction design; Usability testing

Indexed keywords

INTERACTION DESIGN; SYSTEM INTERACTIONS; USABILITY EVALUATION; USABILITY PROBLEMS; USABILITY TESTING;

COMPUTER SYSTEMS; DESIGN; USABILITY ENGINEERING;

DIGITAL LIBRARIES;

EID: 77949356210     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1570433.1570468     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (38)

1. Belkin, N.J., Marchetti, P.G., Cool, C. 1993. Braque: design of an interface to support user interaction in information retrieval. Information Processing & Management. 29(3), 325-344.
2. Chang, S. L. 1995. Toward a multidimensional framework for understanding browsing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ.
3. Chen, S. Y., Magoulas, G. D. , Dimakopoulos, D. 2005. A flexible interface design for Web directories to accommodate different cognitive styles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(1), 70-83.
4. Chimera, R., Shneiderman, B. 1994. An exploratory evaluation of three interfaces for browsing large hierarchical tables of contents. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS). 12(4), 383-406.
5. Chin, J., Diehl, V. A., & Norman, K. L. 1988. Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the humancomputer interface. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp.213-218). Washington, D.C., May 15 - 19, 1988.
6. Chrzastowski, T. E., & Scheeline, A. 2006. ASDL: The Analytical Sciences Digital Library taking the next steps. Science & Technology Libraries, 26(3/4), 79-94.
7. Dakka, W., Ipeirotis, P. G., Wood, K. R. 2005. Automatic construction of multifaceted browsing interfaces, in: Chowdhury, A., Fuhr, N., Ronthaler, M., Schek, H.-J., Teiken, W. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management CIKM '05. ACM Press, New York, pp. 768-775.
8. Davis, F.D. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 3, 319-340.
9. Doll, W.J.; Hendrickson, A.; and Deng, X. 1998. Using Davis's perceived usefulness and ease of use instruments for decision making: A confirmatory and multigroup invariance analysis. Decision Sciences, 29, 4, 839-869.
10. Egan, D.E., Remde, J.R., Landauer, T.K. 1989. Behavioral evaluation and analysis of a hypertext browser, in: Bice, K., Lewis, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of CHI'89 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, New York, pp.205-210.
11. Hartson, H. R., Shivakumar, P., & Perez-Quinones, M. A. 2004. Usability inspection of digital libraries: a case study. International Journal of Digital Library, 4, 108-123.
12. Hearst, M., Elliot, A., English, J., Sinha, R., Swearingen, K., & Yee, K.P. 2002. Finding the flow in Website search. Communications of the ACM, 45(9):42-49.
13. Hertzum, M., Frøkjær, E. 1996. Browsing and querying in online documentation: a study of user interfaces and the interaction process. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI). 3(2), 136-161.
14. Hill, L.L., Carver, L., Larsgaard, M., Dolin, R., Smith, T. R., Frew, J., & Rae, M.-A. 2000. Alexandria Digital Library: User Evaluation Studies and System Design. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(3):246-259.
15. Hinton, P. R., Brownlow, C., McMurray, I., & Cozens, B. 2004. SPSS Explained. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
16. Hong, W., Thong, J. Y.L., Wong, W.-M., & Tam, K.-Y. 2001-2002. Determinants of user acceptance of digital libraries: An empirical examination of individual differences and system characteristics. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3), 97-124.
17. Kani-Zabihi, E., Ghinea, G., Chen, S. Y. 2006. Digital libraries: what do users want? Online Information Review, 30(4), 395-412.
18. Kengeri, R., Seals, C. D., Harley, H. D., Reddy, H. R., & Fox, E. A. 1999. Usability study of digital libraries: ACM, IEEE-CS, NCSTRL, NDLTD. International Journal of Digital Library, 2, 157-169.
19. Lesk, M. 2005. Understanding Digital Libraries, 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
20. Marchionini, G. 1995. Information Seeking in Electronic Environments. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.
21. Marchionini, G., Norman, K., & Morrell, K. 1992. Final project report: Computer interface design for intermediate results for Grateful Med. Report to the National Library of Medicine. Bethesda, MD: NLM.
22. Notess, M., Kouper, I., & Swan, M. B. 2005. Designing effective tasks for digital library user tests: lessons learned. OCLC Systems & Services, 21(4), 300-310.
23. Paynter, G. W., Witten, I. H., Cunningham, S. J., Buchanan, G. 2000. Scalable browsing for large collections: a case study, in: Nürnberg, P. J., Hicks, D. L., Furuta, R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth ACM Conference on Digital libraries. ACM Press, New York, pp.215-223.
24. Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. 2007. Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. New York: John & Wiley Sons, Inc.
25. Resnick, M.L. & Vaughan, M.W. 2006. Best practices and future visions for search user interfaces. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 57(6), 781-787.
26. Saracevic, T. 2000. Digital library evaluation: towards an evolution of concepts. Library Trends, 49(3): 350-369.
27. Shiri, A. and Molberg, K. 2005. Interfaces to knowledge organization systems in Canadian digital library collections. Online information Review, 29(6), 604-620.
28. Shneiderman, B., & Plaisant C. 2005. Designing the user interface. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
29. Shneiderman, B., Byrd, D., & Croft, B. 1997. Clarifying search: A user-interface framework for text searches. D-Lib Magazine, January 1997. Retrieved January 20, 2008, from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january97/retrieval/ 01shneiderman.ht ml.
30. Tague-Sutcliffe, J. 1992. The pragmatics of information retrieval experimentation, revisited. Information Processing & Management, 28(4), 467-490.
31. Theng, Y. L. 1999. "Lostness" and digital libraries. Proceedings of the fourth ACM conference on Digital libraries, 250-251.
32. Thong, J. Y. L., Hong, W., & Tam, K.-Y. 2002. Understanding user acceptance of digital libraries: what are the roles of interface characteristics, organizational context, and individual differences. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 215-242.
33. Tsakonas, G., & Papatheodorou, C. 2006. Analysing and evaluating usefulness and usability in electronic information services. Journal of Information Science, 32 (5), 400-419.
34. Tsakonas, G., & Papatheodorou, C. 2008. Exploring usefulness and usability in the evaluation of open access digital libraries. Information Processing and Management, 44, 1234-1250.
35. Yee, K.P., Swearingen, K., Li, K., Hearst, M. 2003. Searching and organizing: Faceted metadata for image search and browsing, in: Cockton, G., Korhonen, P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, New York, pp. 401-408.
36. Xie, H. 2006. Evaluation of digital libraries: Criteria and problems from users' perspectives. Library & Information Science Research, 28, 433-452.
37. Zhang, J., Marchionini, G. 2005. User interfaces for integrating web-based information: Evaluation and evolution of a browse and search interface: relation browser, in: Delcambre, L. M. L., Giuliano, G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2005 National Conference on Digital Government Research. Digital Government Research Center, California, pp.179-188.
38. Zhang, X., Li, Y., Liu, J., & Zhang, Y. 2008. Effects of interaction design in digital libraries on user interactions. Journal of Documentation, 64(3), 438-463.