Executive Summary: NWDA Usability Testing Round 3

 

Overview

This study was focused on users’ perceptions and reactions to finding aids.

Participants were asked a predetermined set of questions about the NWDA finding aid pages and were asked to navigate the page for answers. Several questions asked participants to compare the NWDA to other union databases; finding aids from the Online Archive of California (http://www.oac.cdlib.org/) and the A2A database (http://www.a2a.org.uk/) were used for comparison. Participants were asked to find the same general information in both databases; then, based on their search, were asked for feedback on the presentation of the information, ease of use, and any other reactions they wanted to share.

 

The Test Logistics

 

Participant population

This study tested 11 participants, with varying levels of experience with archival research.

• Educator: college/university = 2
• Historian = 1 (also labeled herself as an educator)
• Student (college/university) = 5
• Other = 5 (staff at a university library, archivist at a university library, library patron with no archival experience, recent college graduate in Sociology, special collections research assistant)

 

What happened during the study?

Participants used a laptop computer in a conference room in library to answer a series of questions about different finding aids. The sessions were recorded.

 

Timeframe

Testing took place at the Oregon State University Valley Library from February, 2007 through April, 2007. Each test took approximately 45 minutes, with 15 minutes for questions and discussion. Tiah Edmunson-Morton performed all tests, transcribed interviews, and processed data.

 

Findings

General findings are included in this summary; however, a more detailed summary, as well as the data from the tests can be found in this report.

 

General layout

Most participants were satisfied with the general color scheme. Complaints focused on length of the webpage, the need for a search box, and general difficulty with the subdued colors in the sidebar.

 

Searching/finding in page

The majority of the users simply skimmed, scanned, or scrolled, regardless of the length of the page; most said they weren't reading for content. Few went all the way down to the bottom of the page. Most participants wanted and expected a search box, requested/expected hyperlinks (to other pages, to digital objects), and asked for an easier way to find information on the individual repositories website. Most were confused by having the keyword search terms found within the finding aid in red font (most thought they were hyperlinks).

 

Sidebar

Most participants did not use the sidebar. When asked, several said they thought it was general administrative information for the NWDA and ignored it completely. There wasn’t any consensus about whether the sidebar should travel: some thought it would be annoying and distracting, while others thought it would be helpful for navigation.

Terms/jargon

There were many comments about the words (jargon) used for the elements of a finding aid (i.e. biographical note, administrative information, acquisition information) and most thought they were confusing. Subject terms were also confusing; for those who commented on them, most couldn’t understand how they were supposed to be used or useful.

 

Level of detail expected

The first question in “Section 2: The Search” was about expected level of detail from online finding aids. Users were split relatively evenly on how much detail they expected and how much detail they actually wanted. Predictably, expectations ranged from brief description to digitization of images/documents. Please see the detailed summary for more information on this subject.

 

UTWG Recommendations

 

1. Participants expressed the need a search box to search the finding aid by keyword. Keep it simple with clear results. [Note: Is this already in development? Is this a stylesheet issue or website redesign issue?]

 

2. The Sidebar is a major issue. It needs to be more prominent, with terms in bold and with clearer language to signify that it is a search tool for the finding aid. Perhaps terms could be underlined to indicate that they are hyperlinks. Changes to "Contents": use larger, more pronounced font, and change to a more descriptive phrase: ie "Contents of the Jane Jones Collection." Do not use capital letters for listing in the sidebar. Create a discernable hierarchy, for example:
   1. Overview of the Collection
   2. Biographical Note
   3. …
   4. Use of the Collection
   5. Restrictions on Access
   6. Restrictions on Use
   7. Preferred Citation

 

3. Add an expand/collapse function to elements in the sidebar. If the sidebar remains as it is, where it is, allow user to compress or expand information included. These headings could be hyperlinked or have an “expand” tag that allows users to see more information about them on the page if they’d like. For example, by default the information in the "Detailed Description of the Collection" would be compressed; however, if the user wanted to view the detailed list, they could expand the section. Another example would be to collapse all “Administrative Information” not immediately required by the user (i.e. “Acquisition Information,” “Processing Note,” “Custodial History”). The UTWG also discussed collapsing the “Related Materials,” “Bibliography,” “Preferred Citation,” and other non-essential headings. The group concurred that we should not collapse the “Use of the Collection” section.

 

4. Include section break(s) in front matter. This could be accomplished with a dark line between headings. This is particularly important between the “Overview of Collection” section and the “Biographical Note.”  It would indicate for the user where the finding aid begins.

 

5. Re-sequence the display of the elements in the “Overview of Collection” section so that the information that is most important to the user appears first. One recommendation was that the order should be Creator, Title, Dates, Quantity, Summary, Repository, Language, and Sponsor.

 

6. Provide a direct link to the homepage of the repository. The “Repository Information” in the “Overview of Collection” should have a link to the homepage of the repository. This should be active and hyperlinked so that it opens in a separate window and doesn’t take you out of the finding aid.

 

7. Move the “Subjects” section to the very end of finding aid (after “Detailed Description of the Collection”). The UTWG found that this information was confusing and distracting to researchers and considered useful only for librarians; it was not essential for researchers.

 

8. Because of the overall user confusion, keyword search terms found within the finding aid should be highlighted, not in red font. [Note: Is this something that can be resolved by the stylesheet or is it a website issue?]

 

9. All series, subseries, and sub-subseries headings (etc.) need to be in bold within the “Detailed Description of the Collection” to indicate new sections of the finding aid.

 

10. Add "bread crumbs” to the top tool bar to provide a “map” for users.

 

11. If it is not already in process, change tabs at the top to reflect researcher needs. Suggestions included a help tab, contact us tab that connects to repository for finding aid, and information for researchers.

 

12.  Noting that most users navigate to this page via Google or another search engine, include all pertinent administrative and instructional information on the finding aid page (about NWDA, how to do research in an archive, how to use a finding aid, etc). In light of some comments from users who assumed they would find more administrative, website-wide information in the sidebar, this information could be included in that space.

 

UTWG Explorations

 

We explored the idea of creating brief and full view options (similar to those offered on the OAC site). This may require the creation of two separate stylesheets: one would harvest the "brief" data (whatever we define that to be) for display and the other would allow the users to view the full finding aid.    

1. This may accommodate larger finding aids, allowing for easier loading and presentation.
2. Taking into account participants’ concern about the length of each webpage, the initial brief display would mimic what users expect from a webpage.
3. Given the participants’ propensity to scroll rather than read, this would provide all pertinent information on the first page.