ALIA home | Online home | search | papers | keynotes | program | sponsors | satellite events
|
Roslyn A Raward, Lecturer, School of Information Management and Tourism, University of Canberra, rab@comedu.canberra.edu.au
The library profession is now heavily involved in providing access to information through library websites and it is a challenge to design a website that has reliable content and a user interface that is intuitive to those who use it. As accessibility and usability are major issues in the design of library websites, they should be tested early and often during the design and redesign process.
The researcher has drawn on the Human-computer Interaction and usability engineering literature to establish standard usability guidelines for web design and has developed a usability analysis tool to test library websites during the design and redesign process. This paper presents the results of an evaluation of a representative sample of Australian academic library websites, using the usability analysis tool, to establish the extent to which they meet standard usability design guidelines.
This paper reports on research undertaken for a master's thesis entitled A Study of Best Practice Design Guidelines and the Development of a Usability Analysis Tool for the Evaluation of Australian Academic Library websites. The research examined the library literature and discussed the changing role of the librarian in the electronic environment and their new responsibilities in the design and development of library websites. The literature suggested that lack of training, scarcity of resources, tight time frames, conflicts of purpose, resistance to change, lack of consultation with users and reluctance to test, adversely affected the design of library websites. The research examined the usability engineering literature to establish usability and accessibility standards in the design of library websites, and the Human-computer Interaction literature, to establish a simple usability analysis tool that would assist library web managers to test websites for usability. A summary of library usability design guidelines as based on the literature, has been included as an Appendix (Appendix III). On the basis of this research a usability analysis tool, modelled on the Keevil (1998c) web usability checklist, was designed to assist library web managers to test their websites early and often during the design and redesign process. The tool was then used to evaluate a random sample of Australian academic library websites to establish the extent to which they met usability design standards.
The aims of this study were to:
In Australia, at the time of the research, all university libraries had a web presence indicating the importance that the library placed on providing an enhanced electronic service for its clients. The involvement of librarians in the development, design and redesign of websites is now commonplace and Pedley (2001), Duberman (1999), Evans (1999), Block (1998), and Garrod (1997) showed that librarians increasingly were expected to diversify their roles to encompass web development skills. However, the pressure to produce a website in a limited time frame, with little training, few support resources and a resistance to change, precluded any involvement with the client community and sometimes resulted in websites that rarely reflected what the client wanted or needed. Library web development teams developed their own methods, agendas and priorities for developing websites, but often these evolving web pages, driven by technology and internal pressures rather than client needs, lacked direction and usability (Taylor, 2000; Duberman, 1999; Evans, 1999; Block, 1998).
A personal interest in library website design developed as the researcher, working in an academic library, became involved with the technology of Gopher from its inception in 1992. At that time, awareness developed for the potential of this new method of communication and many hours were spent exploring the possibilities of designing subject specific resources. It was evident that the ability to access subject resources electronically would revolutionize life for the academic and also for the librarian. With the advent of Mosaic and then Netscape it was even more evident how useful to the academic community these resources would be, especially if some order could be brought to it by the specialized skills of a librarian.
This interest intensified when the researcher was asked to design the library's first website. Excited by the possibilities, but unskilled and untrained, a site was developed that reflected the then accepted interface design for a site, that is, a website that consisted mainly of an aesthetically pleasing hierarchical menu of resources. Shneiderman (1998, p.560) commenting on proper web design said:
It is largely a matter of balancing the structure and relationship of menu or home pages and individual content pages or other linked graphics and documents. The goal is to build a hierarchy of menus and pages that feels natural and well-structured to the client and doesn't interfere with their use of the website or mislead them.
At that time there was pressure from the researcher's library management to conform to some overseas website designs that had personal appeal. These designs were not based on the needs or wants of the client, in fact the suggestion that a user needs survey be conducted with the institution's clients was actively discouraged. As time went by it became evident, following informal criticism from clients, that the design of the library website was not as useful as it was first thought and that the design process should have included some client input.
As a library web manager, with a growing awareness of the amount of time and resources that were spent developing a website, it was frustrating not knowing whether the website was of use to the clients. It became clear that some feedback was needed from clients to determine the level of usability of the website before further redesign was carried out. This viewpoint, supported by Clausen (1999), who, commenting on the cyclical nature of the web design process, said:
Quality as a goal for web information involves a continuous process of planning; analysis, design, implementation and development, to ensure that the information meets client needs in terms of both content and interface.
Librarians have traditionally been the custodians and organisers of information, expertly providing access to information. As has already been mentioned, the design and content of library web pages were initially driven, not by client needs, but by library management (Evans, 1999) and reflected a traditional informational organisational approach to content and interface design. The literature showed that librarians were reluctant to ask users for their opinions in case they differed from their own (Ensor, 2000, p.11). The literature also showed, that librarians designing websites at that time, were largely self-taught, were under-resourced and often performed their web duties after their usual duties were finished. For these reasons, by necessity, library websites were often designed with little or no reference to the client or to established usability guidelines.
The role of librarians has been evolving since ancient times and while the goal of providing an excellent information service has remained a constant, the nature of the tools and the role of the librarian as an information provider has changed markedly and the organisation of information needs to change in response to the changing electronic environment. As McMullen (2001, p.7) commented, an intuitive library information gateway is critical to meeting the information needs of library users in the digital age.
Today the provision of a high-quality reference service is dependent upon the successful interaction between the client and the library professional with a range of sophisticated information skills and some comprehensive tools, particularly in the form of electronic indexes.
A major consideration in the design of academic library websites is the multiplicity of users and information needs that exist in the university environment. An academic library website requires an interface that can accommodate the different needs, scholarly disciplines and capabilities of the many and varied users within its institution (Raward, 2001, p.124).
Palmer (1996, p.166) stated:
Librarians are participants in the networks of research activities and are responsible for helping to advance the research process. With researchers and scholars extending their range of enquiry into multiple disciplines, fitting information to the needs of the individual becomes a greater challenge, in part because interpreting the client's world is much more difficult.
In the early days of the World Wide Web libraries began to develop simple websites that provided digital links to subject specific resources to meet the research and teaching needs of their users. These library websites followed the gopher hierarchical menu system in both its content and interface design. This model fitted comfortably with librarians who were already familiar with a hierarchical subject classification arrangement. So, in those early days, the design of the library website was driven more by traditional information management guidelines rather than by fitting information to the needs of the individual, as Palmer (1996, p.166) foreshadowed.
Academic library clients include scholars, students, general staff and other information seekers engaged in the work of finding, using and creating information. Because the nature of their work is research, the scholarly process itself should be considered when designing an online tool or system. Academic library systems need to reflect as much of the existing user habits and work practices as possible. The challenge is not just at a technical level, but also at a fundamental traditional library paradigm level, where assumptions about how information is identified, obtained, organised, disseminated and consumed must be challenged. Balas (1998), commenting on design said:
If your library has a website or is planning to develop one, it's essential that you pay attention to the site's design. Users will return to only those sites that are inviting and easy to use. Learn the guidelines of good web design, but also learn the don'ts and make your site one that users will visit frequently.
Morville (1999) commented that librarians needed to escape from their own mental models of organisation, as there was a danger, without user input, that librarians would design from their own perspective and with the jargon of their field. Anderson (1995) also argued that creating usable academic library websites would require that system design, development and deployment be grounded in practical application and completed collaboratively with users.
As libraries move further forward into the digital age, their web presence becomes increasingly important in meeting user needs. McMullen (2001) and Clausen (1999) both emphasize that the university library is obligated to provide information resources in support of the intellectual pursuits of faculty and students and the library web interface represents a critical meeting ground between the information professional and the individual who is seeking information. Lynch (1997, p.46) commented:
The diversity of materials on the Internet goes far beyond the scope of the traditional library and because of the great volume of networked information, net users want guidance about where to spend the limited amount of time they have to research a subject.
Having shown the importance of the role of library websites in an academic institution it is important to consider best practice design guidelines for web usability. Much has been written about website design in general, but little has been written to provide academic library website managers with the relevant guidelines required to design usable websites that meet international usability standards. Similarly, much has been written about usability testing and the evaluation of websites in general and many studies have been done on the information seeking behaviours of readers. Surprisingly little has been discussed in the literature of the methods that are available to provide academic library web managers with a simple usability analysis tool that can be used throughout the design and redesign life cycle of the website design process.
The research conducted was significant because it examined the usability literature to determine best practice design guidelines for web design. It also examined the Human-computer Interaction literature to find a suitable usability analysis tool, that, given the limited time and resources placed on academic library web designers, would be suitable for the analysis and evaluation of their websites to determine the extent to which they meet usability standards.
The study was also significant because it not only developed a usability analysis tool to assist library web managers to design and evaluate their library websites, it used the tool to examine a random sample of Australian academic library websites. This study provided for the first time in Australia, a detailed study of the degree to which these websites met best practice design guidelines.
The Human-computer Interaction (HCI) user-centered design guidelines, address the challenge of usability. Gullikson et al (1999, p.294), commenting on the visual appeal and impact of a website and its usability, said:
In essence, a site may be visually appealing, contain all the resources that meet the site's objectives, but still be humanly unusable.
The proliferation of pages with poor usability suggested that most of the designers of World Wide Web pages have little knowledge of usability or user interface design. This is a serious problem because pages with poor usability waste the user's time and ultimately deter the user from returning to the page. The word usability has begun to appear in web vernacular and while usability studies first appeared in the early 1980s, many web developers are only now beginning to discover the concepts of usability and ensure that they become an integral part of website design and redesign.
The International Standards Authority (ISO, 1998) define usability as the extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specific goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specified context of use. The Standard further defines efficiency as the effort required to accomplish a goal, effectiveness as the extent to which the goal is achieved and satisfaction as the level of comfort that the user feels when using the product. Morgan (1999), states that usability has always been associated with the interaction between a user and a product or service. He (Morgan, 1999) further noted:
Understanding usability is a combination of understanding the user's needs, desires, and abilities, combined with the goals, functions and limitations of the product or service. To understand the user, usability must take into account things like experience, domain knowledge, cultural background and disabilities, as well as age and gender.
But what do the users feel is a usable site? Spool (1998), presenting his findings from groups of users, commented on usability:
We started wondering what made a website usable. We had heard the opinions of experienced designers about what they felt it took to create a good site. We looked at books and magazines that talked about how to make a 'cool' site. But no matter where we looked, we couldn't find any data - based on real user experience - about what it takes to make a usable site.
It is clear from these comments, that central to the design of user-centered interfaces, is the requirement for usability. As Head (1997, p.157) stated, at the core of designing user-centered interfaces is the need for usability and Cooper (1995, p.16) noted that usability is about making the interaction between the user and the interface more effective through the determination of user context, tasks and goals.
Nielsen (1995, p.281) identified five attributes of a usable interface that encompassed how users thought about a site, how they interacted with it and how they retained information essential to its operation. The five attributes that he suggested were:
Further, Nielson (1998) said that it was important for web usability to be addressed at both the site-level and the page-level.
Site-level usability includes information architecture, navigation, and search; linking strategy; internal and external designs; overall writing style; page templates, layout, and site-wide design standards; graphical language and commonly used icons. The page-level usability includes clarity of headlines, links, and explanations; intuitiveness of forms and error messages; inclusion or exclusion of specific information; and individual graphics and icons (Nielson, 1998).
Keeker's (1997) research on usability of websites theorizes that there are five main guidelines that increase site use and appeal. Appeal in this context refers to whether people enjoy and become engaged in an experience and translate directly into repeat website visits (Keeker, 1997). The five guidelines that Keeker (1997) suggested were:
These guidelines, while relevant to the usability of websites in general, are rather broad and do not reach into the heart of design for academic library websites. It could be argued that while academic library websites may provide unique experiences, and at times evoke emotions, the primary reason for the existence of an academic library website is to provide easy and immediate access to high-quality scholarly content. Stover and Zink (1996) assumed that libraries would be exemplary models of well-organised sites. However, after evaluating 40 university and college library websites throughout Canada and the United States they (Stover and Zink, 1996) found that many of the pages were badly designed, difficult to navigate and a poor reflection of the institution.
So how then does the library determine if the library website is successful, that it is meeting usability and accessibility standards and is meeting the needs of the user? The usability engineering literature suggests that usability testing should be an integral part of the design process.
Usability testing has been a method for improving product usability and design in the computer industry for years and the concept is not an unfamiliar one to librarians who have long had an interest in studying users and their interaction with all kinds of catalogue systems. However the concept has been slow to make an impact on the design of academic library websites. Klein (2000, p.37), discussing the lack of usability testing in the design and promotion of library websites, said:
In the library community, no one gave layout and design much of a thought. Flyers went out, pathfinders were printed, people would check for typos, and that would be it. Pieces did not come back marked 'aesthetically unacceptable and impossible to use'.
Usability testing is often an afterthought in the design process when it should be integrated into the process from the beginning and to make usability testing successful designers must be willing to take the results of the tests seriously. Feldman says (1999, p16), if you as a librarian want people to use your system, then you must see to it that it is designed for their needs and Allen (2002, p.40) noted that usability testing of web interfaces for virtual libraries is a crucial factor in the continuing development of the user interface.
Dickstein and Mills (2000) suggested that there were a number of reasons that libraries may have been reluctant to conduct formal usability studies in the past. First, librarians have not traditionally viewed themselves as designers of systems, seeing this as the province of the human factors experts. However, as the web changes and users' needs change, librarians must be continually involved in designing systems that are usable. Second, it was presumed that tests were too costly and time consuming and were difficult to conduct and librarians were way too busy anyway. Nielsen and Sano (1994) reported on two studies that involved usability testing. These methods required that a number of evaluators be involved but proved to be too expensive, complex and time consuming. For these reasons they were considered to be of limited value to library web designers who, as has already been shown, are limited in time, resources and training when it comes to website design. Third, the librarian often does as he or she sees fit and while the librarian knows best syndrome often appears to be anecdotal, the literature shows clearly that it does exist (Dickstein and Mills, 2000, p.144).
Hohmann (2001, p.58) said, librarians must step outside of their insular library world and involve users in the design of websites. Discussing the Ohio University library's website, Marmion (2001, p.2) found that while librarians are accustomed to this type of arrangement it is confusing to users and he suggested that library websites could no longer use a traditional library model. He explained:
We in Library Land tend to want to transfer the physical layout and classification structure of our traditional libraries to our websites. In doing this we librarians assume that our users know and understand our ways of classifying and separating pathfinders, reference materials, indexes, databases, websites etc. We let our library training and our traditional library experience exert an influence on our website design. We think just because we know how to organise the stuff in our physical libraries we can bring the same approach to our library websites.
One of the important issues that must be addressed in the discussion about usability is the need to consider users with disabilities. To do this, specific guidelines have been designed by Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA, 2000) so that people with disabilities do not have access to online services impeded. W3C (1999) guidelines suggest that content designers should consider a range of different situations during their web page design and take into consideration users who may not necessarily be suffering from an identifiable disability.
However accessibility guidelines are provided to ensure that web content is available to all users, not just those with a disability. Accessibility guidelines that encompass a range of situations, that benefit several disability groups at once and the web community as a whole, is now mandatory when designing library websites in order to avoid disability discrimination.
The Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) (2002) website draws attention to resources that will help authors and designers make their World Wide Web documents accessible to the broadest possible audience. In these Advisory Notes HREOC (2002) aims to provide advice about how people can avoid disability discrimination without sacrificing the richness and variety of communication offered by the World Wide Web. The Australian Commonwealth Government has provided $1.5 million, in each of 1998-1999 and 1999-2000, to fund the AccessAbility program of the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA), to support innovative projects that help people with disabilities gain improved access to online information and communications services. The Australian Library Association (ALIA, 2002) provides the National Library of Australia's (NLA) guidelines on library standards for people with disabilities and its Education Services Section addresses library services for people with disabilities.
The researcher looked at the Human-computer Interaction literature to identify a method of testing that:
A number of methods involving users were considered, however an inspection-based method of usability analysis seemed to best fit the criteria of this research.
An inspection-based method is a method of improving usability by using low-cost observations. This method includes heuristic evaluations. Sears (1997, p.213), commenting on inspection methods, noted that:
Inspection methods are popular for a number of reasons: some of them require less formal training than other methods, they can be used throughout the development process, they do not require user testing or specialist facilities, and they find a large number of usability problems.
A heuristic evaluation is a commonly used inspection-based method that evaluates the design of a user interface based on established usability guidelines. It requires that a small team of evaluators check the interface to judge its compliance with recognized usability guidelines. Nielsen (2000b) suggested that three to five evaluators were needed to carry out the evaluations and warned that the use of fewer evaluators could bias the evaluation. Nielsen (2000b) raised the following important issues to consider:
Ideally the evaluators should have experience in performing such evaluations, although Nielsen (1994) did concede that non-experts could also achieve useful results and, with experience, quite rapid tests could be conducted on a website. Instone (1997) said that heuristic evaluation is well suited to the web because it can be easy, fast and inexpensive and Nielsen and Sano (1994) suggested that this proved that limited budgets and lack of time were not solid excuses for inflicting difficult sites on users.
Keevil (1998a) noted:
Heuristic evaluation involves the study of a user interface by a small set of evaluators (3-5 is recommended) who look for violations of common usability guidelines. The problems identified in a heuristic evaluation could be tackled right away, leading to a redesign; might be used to focus a usability test; or could be used elsewhere in the user-centered design process.
One heuristic evaluative method that met all of the criteria for this research was the usability checklist method. A checklist, according to Keevil (1998a), is a heuristic evaluation method that can measure the usability index of a website and determine, expressed as a percentage, how closely the features of a particular website match generally accepted usability guidelines. Keevil (2002), a teacher in web-based quality and production and project management courses in the Technical Writing Program at Humber College, one of Canada's largest and most respected community colleges, follows closely the web page design concepts proposed by Neilsen.
Keevil's checklist contains a list of questions that require either a Yes or a No answer, and is designed to assess certain quantifiable features of a web document. Keevil (1998a) noted that testing for usability was not often an integral part of website development and he suggested that a checklist was a simple, efficient method that could be integrated into the entire development process, enabling website developers to evaluate their site in an ongoing way without the time and costs that were involved in other evaluation methods.
Unlike other heuristic evaluation methods this checklist was designed to be administered by one evaluator. Keevil believed that the question and answer method overcame the problems that Nielsen (1993, p.156) argued would result, if only one evaluator was used. It would provide a more consistent question and answer method (Keevil, 1998a, p.273) using only one evaluator, who would test the website a number of times in its developmental life cycle. Depending on the questions included in the checklist this method could then be adapted to a variety of website types.
Keevil (1998b) noted:
Our checklists use the question and answer method because we believe it more accurately tracks continuous enhancements to a website over the life cycle of the product or service it describes. The question and answer method is also more consistent when only one evaluator tests a website at different times in the development life cycle. A scoring system is open to interpretation by the evaluators and we often found a wide variance of scores among different evaluators.
Keevil (1998b) noted also that the important advantages of using a checklist to measure the usability index of a website were, that it:
The questions that Keevil (1998b) used in his checklist were based on the concepts developed by Chignell and Keevil (1996), Mehlenbacher (1993), and Nielson (1990) and were grouped into the following five usability categories:
The usability tool designed for this research builds directly upon Keevil's (1998a) model, adopting also his five usability categories. Each category contains a series of questions that relate to established usability guidelines but reflect the needs of academic library websites.
The Keevil Usability Index Checklist (Keevil, 1998c) was intended primarily for the evaluation of commercial or business websites, but with some application for scholarly websites. In the opening description of the checklist a possible site purpose that was suggested was to sell products or services, advertise jobs, conduct research, upgrade products, display information (Keevil, 1998a). While none of these purposes applied specifically to Australian academic library websites many of the questions contained within the checklist were suitable because they could be adapted, with some modification, to the evaluation of Australian academic library websites.
The final checklist questions were designed after a number of modifications were made. These modifications evolved after some consultation with three experts in the field and also after conducting some trial evaluations with several student groups. The final modification, the Raward library usability analysis tool (Appendix VI), was a compilation of all the changes suggested by the experts, the student testers and an analysis by a group of postgraduate students. Terms used in the Keevil usability checklist were not defined (Keevil, 2000), so definitions have been added as an Appendix (Appendix IV).
In order to evaluate the content and interface design of Australian academic library websites, 50 per cent of the 38 Australian academic library websites (Appendix I) were chosen as a random sample. This sample included large and small, country regional, and metropolitan institutions. The selected sample ranged between states, cities, and country, old and new universities. The sites selected were not dependent on any specific geographic or historical parameters, but were rather a random sample of all Australian academic library websites.
Each of the 19 Australian academic library websites (Appendix II) was assigned a random number from one to 19. When evaluative or qualitative comments have been made about individual sites included in this study they have been referred to by the random number that has been assigned to each website.
Universities in Australia share similarities and diversities. They differ historically, geographically, socially and technologically, however within this diversity they can be grouped by similarities. In grouping the universities a set of descriptors have been developed by the Commonwealth Department of Finance and Administration (DETYA, 1998, p.21), which places Australian universities into institutional archetype categories. The categories group the universities in terms of their structural location in the system as a whole. The categories as suggested by DETYA (1998, p.21) are:
The results presented here have been divided into the five usability categories used in the usability analysis tool.
The mean Question Usabiltiy Index for this category was 97 per cent indicating a high level of usability. The guidelines grouped in this first usability category related to the user's ability to find information on the website by means of indexes, site maps and search tools and whether it provided information to staff and directories. It looked for the currency and authority of information and who had responsibility for both the content and graphical interface. It also examined the ability to find basic answers to library services and to submit comments to library staff. It is interesting to note in the following table the heavy pattern of No answers in the question sets 1.2.1-1.5.4 and 1.9 and the pattern of Yes answers in 1.1.1-1.1.4 and 1.6.1-1.7.3. This indicates that all of the libraries provided clear links to staff details and services and reliable, authoritative links to other resources. This is not a surprising response as the literature has shown that from the beginning, library websites focused on providing access to basic services and links to other scholarly resources. However, the heavy pattern of No answers indicates that there is room for improvement in the inclusion of purpose statements, indexes, site maps and search engines. It also indicates that many pages did not indicate who had responsibility for the page or include e-mail, phone, fax or postal address details. These usability guidelines have come to prominence more recently and in the early era of web design were perhaps not considered to be important. It could be concluded from this that librarians excel at providing access to information and the authority of the content but are still learning about the technical tools that aid in these tasks.
The following table shows the total Yes and No answers for Category 1 - Finding the information. There were 26 questions in this category, with 336 Yes answers and 158 No answers.
Table 1: Total Yes and No answers for Category 1- Finding the information
In summary, the following usability errors were noted:
The mean Question Usabiltiy Index for this category was 97 per cent indicating a high level of usability. The guidelines in this category looked at the use of headings, the organisation of the site, the style and text of the content, the terminology used and the mechanics or spelling and grammar. The text style, grammar, punctuation and sentence construction were perfect, terms were highlighted and consistent, and abbreviations were spelled out. It is not unexpected that librarians would perform highly in these areas. This category was handled extremely well and out of a possible 627 answers, there were only seven no answers. Table 2 shows the total answers for this category.
However the following area of poor usability was noted:
Table 2 Total Yes and No answers for Category 2 Understanding the information
In this category the mean Question Usability Index was 32 per cent, indicating that the level of usability errors was high and that major improvements were needed. This category examined whether transactional tools, such as interactive forms, hindered or helped users in finding information or seeking help. As has been discussed earlier, librarians excel in providing access to quality information but improvement is needed in the use of the electronic tools that are the vehicle for getting help or feedback. Table 6.22 (p.143) shows the total answers for this category and it is easy to see from this table the heavy pattern of No answers. Out of 95 possible answers, 27 were Yes and 68 were No.
Table 3 Total Yes and No answers for Category 3 - Supporting user tasks
The following usability errors were noted:
The mean Question Usability Index for this category was 94 per cent. This category examined cross platform compatibility, display and download time and HTML format. There were some questions that were not applicable to all libraries and questions 4.2.3-4.2.4 about the graphical interface and size of files were handled badly and need to be addressed. Otherwise the category was handled well with a total of 257 Yes answers out of a possible total of 314. Table 4 shows the total answers for this category.
Table 4 Total Yes and No answers for Category 4 - Evaluating technical accuracy
The following usability mistakes were noted and some recommendations have been made with reference to the literature:
The mean Question Usability Index for this category was 99 per cent indicating a very high level of usability. This category examined the links between the home institution and the library web page, the disability access, quality of the links, the navigational tools, the format of the text and the ability to print. This category was also handled well, with hyperlinks included on every page and mostly error free. Clear navigation tools were included to and from the top-level page and the text format was consistent, white space was used effectively and tables were aligned correctly. Table 5 provides the total answers for this category and it is interesting to note that questions 5.5.1-5.5.6 had a perfect Yes score indicating that the organisation of the content was handled extremely well. Out of a possible total of 342 answers, 292 were Yes and 50 were No. Question 5.4.3 that examined navigational links within the page was handled the least well.
The following table shows the total Yes and No answers for Category 5 - Presenting the information. There were 18 questions in this category, with 292 Yes answers and 20 No answers.
Table 5 Total Yes and No answers for Category 5 - Presenting the information
The following usability mistakes were noted and some recommendations have been made with reference to the literature:
After having evaluated the random sample of websites the researcher analysed the usability mistakes that all libraries tested had in common. Those questions that were answered well have been noted, with some discussion. However in those areas where the usability index measured was below 95 per cent it was considered that some improvement was necessary and in those areas where the usability index measured was below 80 per cent major problems were identified. For the purposes of this study the researcher considered that a good usability index should have a rating of 95-100 per cent and below that there was a need for improvement. In general, except for some individual questions, which will be discussed later, the findings of the usability Categories 1, 2, 4 and 5 indicated that the websites did meet most of the international guidelines. However, major problems were indicated in usability Category 3.
Cooper (1995, p.16) said that usability is about making the interaction between the user and the interface more effective through the determination of user context, tasks and goals. It is clear from the following table that in the usability Category 3, Support for user tasks, there were major usability problems across the whole sample tested.
Table 6 Comparison of the mean Question Usability Index for the five usability categories
The previous section examined the findings of the questions in the usability evaluation providing a Question Usability Index for each usability category. This section looks at the findings of the representative sample of Australian academic library websites and determines a Library Usability Index for each if the usability categories. Table 7 shows the measured usability index for the 19 libraries from the highest to the lowest scores. The highest usability index was 90 per cent and the lowest usability index was 73 per cent with a mean usability index of 82 per cent.
Table 7 Total library usability index
Table 8 shows the usability index of the 19 libraries grouped into the institutional archetype categories as suggested by the Australian Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA, 1998, p.21). It is interesting to see that there is no pattern or correlation in the indexes between the archetype categories.
A complex table goes here...
Table 8 Library websites by assigned numbers grouped in archetype categories
Tables 7 and 8 show the mean Library Usability Indexes categorized within the five institutional archetypes. The highest category was the Unitechs, that is, the institutions in the tradition of universities of technology with an average usability index of 85 per cent. It is not surprising with the technical resources and expertise available at these institutions that this category had the highest usability index. However, the Redbrick (84 per cent), Sandstone (82 per cent) and New Universities (81 per cent) followed the Unitechs closely. The institutional archetype with the lowest average usability index of 73 per cent, was the Gumtrees, or those universities established in the 1960s and 1970s.
The results of the evaluation of the libraries indicated that there was no correlation between the institutional archetypes and in fact the results were randomly distributed. Before doing this study the researcher expected that there would be similarities in results within groups and that the resources of the larger, older, well established institutions might reflect in the quality and usability of the design of the library web pages. However the results indicated the contrary. It is to be expected that the web provided a whole new start for all institutions and the design of early websites was not based on the size or the past history of the institution and it was possible for some newer and/or smaller institutions to do well in the evaluation. While the more established and better-funded institutions could invest more money into projects such as web design, the complexity of the institutional structure and the long traditions could have been inhibiting factors. It was interesting to note that the best and the worst websites came from the Gumtrees, those institutions that were established in the 1960s and 1970s. However, on average no archetypical group fared better than another, all had a mixture of good and not so good sites.
It was also interesting to note that the two websites that shared the top score, 90 per cent, performed differently within the usability categories. One website was the only website to perform well in the third usability category, Supporting user tasks, while the other website outperformed in the first usability category, Finding information. Overall it seemed clear that the results did not relate simply to the institutional level, that is, by size or money, location or age, but most probably was related to the individual staff involved, library or information technology policies, level of training and resources provided by each individual library. The literature reviewed in this research showed clearly that the design of library websites is adversely affected by the pressures that library web managers are under and it is clear from the results of this study that these factors did explain the outcome. To elucidate on all of these factors would require some detailed case study work and is obviously a subject for further research.
The recommendations for the profession, for librarians and in particular for library web managers in this study were:
Allen, M 2002, 'A case study of the usability testing of the University of South Florida's virtual library interface design', Online Information Review, vol.1, pp.40-53.
Anderson, WL 1995, Socially grounded engineering for digital libraries.
Session 2: How we do user-centered design and evaluation of digital libraries: a methodological forum, viewed 20 October 2000, http://edfu.lis.uiuc.edu/allerton/95/s2/anderson.html.
AUS Standards for accessible web design 1997, viewed 26 November 2001, http://www.lawlink.nse.gov.au/lawlink.nsf/pages/aus_standard.
Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) 2002, Welcome to disability rights home page, viewed 7 June 2002, http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/.
Australian Library Association (ALIA) 2002, Guidelines on library standards for people with disabilities, National Library of Australia, viewed 19 June 2001, http://www.alia.org.au/publishing/papers/disability/plan.html .
Balas, JL 1998, 'Debating public access to the Internet', Computers in Libraries, vol.18, pp. 42-44.
Bernard, M 1999, Site map design: alphabetical or categorical? viewed 26 November 2001, http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/1S/sitemap.htm.
Block, M 1998, 'Making it up as I went along: a webmaster's saga of trial and error', Searcher, vol.6, pp.53-59, viewed 10 December 2000, http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/oct98/block.htm.
Borges, JA, Morales, I and Rodriguez, NJ 1996, 'Guidelines for designing usable World Wide Web pages', Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems '96, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, ACM/SIGCHI.
Chignell, MH and Keevil, B 1996, 'Developing usable online information for a web authoring tool', in SIGDOC96 Conference in Research, Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Clausen, H 1999, User-oriented evaluation of library and information centre websites, viewed 30 July 2001, http://clorinda.mcb-jonline.com.
Clyde, LA 1996, 'The library as information provider: the home page', The Electronic Library, vol.14, pp.549-558.
Cohen, Laura B and Still, JM 1999, 'A comparison of Research University and Two-Year College library websites: content, functionality and form', College and Research Libraries, vol. 60, pp.277-289.
Commonwealth Department of Finance and Administration (CDFA) 2000, Guidelines for Commonwealth information published in electronic formats, viewed 8 October 2001, http://www.dofa.gov.au/infoaccess/guidelines/guidelines_for_commonwealth_in.html.
Cooper, A 1995, About face: the essentials of user interface design, Foster City, CA, IDG Books Worldwide, Inc.
Dahm, T 1999, 'Load time tip: using HEIGHT and WIDTH', Webmaster Tips Newsletter, vol.2, viewed 5 December 2001, http://www.netmechanic.com/news/vol2/load_no1.htm.
Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) 2000, AccessAbility : online access for people with disabilities, Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, viewed 2 July, 2002, http://www.dcita.gov.au/accessability/graphics_welcome.html.
Dickstein, R and Mills, V 2000, 'Usability testing at the University of Arizona Library: how to let the users in on the design', Information technology and Libraries, vol.19, pp.144-151.
Duberman, J 1999, 'Reflections in a fun house mirror: web trends and evolving roles for information specialists', Infotoday, viewed 20 October 2001, http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/feb/duberman.htm.
Ensor, P 2000, 'What's wrong with cool?' Library Journal, vol.125, pp.11.
Evans, B 1999, 'The authors of academic library home pages: their identity, training and dissemination of web construction skills', Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, viewed in Emerald database, Emerald (MCB UP Ltd), 21 August 2000, http://www.emerald-library.com/brev/17209df1.htm.
Feldman, S 1999, 'The key to online catalogs that work? Testing one, two, three', Computers in Libraries, vol.19, pp.16.
Garrod, P 1997, SKIP: skills for new information professionals, viewed 14 November 1999, http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue11/skip/.
Gram, C 1996, 'A software engineering view of user interface design. Engineering for human-computer interaction' in the Proceedings of the IFIP TC2/WG2.7 working conference on engineering for human-computer interaction, eds. Bass, LJ and Unger, C, Yellowstone Park, USA, Chapman and Hall.
Gregory, G and Brown, MM 1997, 'World wide web page design: a structured approach', Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery and Information Supply, vol.7, pp. 45-59.
Gullikson, S, Blades, R, Bragdon, M, McKibbon, S, Sparling, S and Toms EG 1999, 'The impact of information architecture on academic website usability', The Electronic Library, vol.17, pp.293-304.
Head, AJ 1997, 'Web usability and essential interface design issues' in the Proceedings of the 18th Annual National Online Meeting and IOLS, New York, May 13-15 1997.
Hohmann, LK 2001, 'Prescriptions for usable library websites', Online, vol. 25, pp.58, viewed in Expanded academic ASAP Int'l Ed. Article No. 76334766, 7 June 2002.
Instone, K 1997, 'Site usability evaluation', Webreview, viewed 5 October 2000, http://webreview.com/wr/pub/97/10/10/usability/index.html.
International Standards Authority (ISO) 1998, 'What is Usability?' ISO 9241-11, International Standards Authority, viewed 8 July 2002, http://www.usabilitysa.co.za/usability.htm.
Keeker, K 1997, Improving website usability and appeal: guidelines compiled by MSN usability research, viewed 8 July 2002, http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnsiteplan/html/improvingsiteusa.asp.
Keevil, B 1998a, 'Measuring the usability index of your website', ACM
SIGDOC 1998: Conference proceedings 98: the 16th Annual International Conference on Computer Documentation: scaling the heights: the future of information technology, Quebec City, p.271-277.
Keevil, B 1998b, Measuring the usability of your website, presented at SIGDOC98, the annual Special Interest Group on Systems Documentation conference in Quebec City, Province of Quebec, Canada, September 24 to 26, 1998, viewed 17 September 1998, http://www3.sympatico.ca/bkeevil/sigdoc98/index.html .
Keevil, B 1998c, Measuring the usability of your website: the checklist, viewed 17 September 1998, http://www3.sympatico.ca/bkeevil/sigdoc98/checklist/WebCheck_Sep13.html.
Keevil, B 2000, e-mail 28 August, bkeevil@sympatico.ca Definitions for usability checklist.
Keevil, B 2002, Humber College Technical Writing Certificate Program, viewed 8 October 2002, http://www3.sympatico.ca/bkeevil/humber/index.html.
Klein, LR 2000, 'Web design and sin', School Library Journal, vol.46, pp. 37-39.
Lynch, C 1997, 'Searching the internet', Scientific American, vol.276, pp.44-48.
Lynch, Patrick J and Horton, S 1997, C/AIM WWW Style Guide, Yale, viewed 9 September, 1999, http://info.med.yale.edu/caim/manual/contents.html.
McMullen, S 2001, 'Usability testing in a library website redesign project', Reference Services Review, vol.29, pp.7-22.
Maddux, CD 1998, 'The world wide web: some simple solutions to common design problems', Educational Technology, vol.38, pp.24-28.
Marmion, D 2001, 'Library web page design: are we doing it right?' Information Technology and Libraries, vol.20, pp.2-3.
Mehlenbacher, B 1993, 'Software usability choosing appropriate methods for evaluating online systems and documentation', SIGDOC93: The 11th Annual International Conference Proceedings, New York, NY, The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).
Morgan, EL 1999, 'Marketing through usability', Computers in Libraries, vol.19, pp.52-54.
Morville, P 1999, 'Information, architecture and usability', Webreview.com, viewed 12 March 2000, http://www.webreview.com/1999/03_12/strategists/03_12_99_3.shtml.
Nielsen, J 1990, 'Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces,' ACMSIGCHI'90: The Conference Proceedings. The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), Special Interest Group on Computer Human Interaction, ACM New York.
Nielsen, J 1993 Usability engineering, Boston, Academic Press.
Nielsen, J 1994, Guerrilla HCI: using discount usability engineering to penetrate the intimidation barrier, viewed 10April 2000, http://www.useit.com/papers/guerrilla_hci.html.
Nielsen, J 1995, Multimedia and hypertext: the Internet and beyond, Boston, Academic Press.
Nielsen, J 1997, Be succinct! (writing for the web), Alertbox, viewed 8 November 1999, http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9703b.html.
Nielsen, J 1998, Cost of user testing a website, viewed 6 June 2001, http://www.useit.com/alertbox/980503.html.
Nielsen, J 1999, Web research: believe the data, viewed 10 November 2000, http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990711.html.
Nielsen, J 2000a, Designing web usability: the practice of simplicity, Indianapolis, Indiana, New Riders Publishing.
Nielsen, J 2000b, How to conduct a heuristic evaluation, viewed 19 September 2000, http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_evaluation.html.
Nielsen, J and Sano, D 1994, 'SunWeb: user interface design for Sun Microsystem's internal web', Electronic Proceedings of the Second World Wide Web Conference: Mosaic and the Web, viewed 8 June 2000, http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/SDG/IT94/Proceedings/HCI/nielsen/sunweb.html.
Palmer, C 1996, 'Information work at the boundaries of science: linking library services to research practice', Library Trends, vol. 45, pp.165-191.
Pedley, P 2001, 'The information professional of the 21st century', Managing Information, vol.8, pp.8-9.
Raward, RA 2001, 'Academic library website design principles: development of a checklist', AARL, vol.32, pp.123-136.
Sears, A 1997, 'Heuristic walkthroughs: finding the problems without the noise', International Journal of Human-computer Interaction, vol.9, pp. 213-234.
Shannon, R 2001, Further attributes, viewed 5 December 2001, http://www.htmlsource.f2s.com/images/furtherattributes.html.
Shneiderman, B 1998, Designing the user interface: strategies for effective Human-computer Interaction, Reading, M.A., Addison-Wesley.
Spool, J 1998, website usability: the big picture, viewed 5 October, 2000, http://webreview.com/pub/web98east/23/spoolx.html.
Stover, M 1997, 'Library websites: mission and function in the networked organisation', Computers in Libraries, vol.17, pp.55-57.
Stover, M and Zink, SD 1996, 'World Wide Web home page design: patterns and anomalies of higher education library home pages', Heuristic (Expert) Evaluation, Tec-Ed., viewed 5 October, 2000, http://www.teched.com/ue-he.html.
Taylor, MK 2000, 'Library webmasters: satisfactions, dissatisfactions and expectations', Information Technology and libraries, vol.19, pp.116-124, viewed in Electronic Journal- Infotrac Computer Database RN A66356228, 23 March 2001.
Tollett, J and Williams, R 1998, The non-designers web book: an easy guide to creating, designing and posting your own website, Berkeley, California, Peachpit Press.
Toub, S 1999, Visual designer: how to design a table of contents, viewed 12 September 1999, http://www.webtechniques.com/archives/1999/02/design.html.
User Interface Engineering (UIE) 2001, Why on-site searching stinks, viewed 24 June 2002, http://world.std.com/~uieweb/searchar.htm.
W3C 1999, Web content accessibility guidelines 1.0: W3C recommendation 5-May-1999, viewed 26 November 2001, http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html.
Adelaide University - http://library.adelaide.edu.au/
Australian Defence Force Academy - http://www.adfa.edu.au:85/
Australian Catholic University - http://www.acu.edu.au/library/
Australian National University - http://anulib.anu.edu.au/
Bond University - http://www.bond.edu.au/library/index.htm
Central Queensland University - http://www.library.cqu.edu.au/
Charles Sturt University - http://www.csu.edu.au/division/library/index.htm
Curtin University of Technology - http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/library/
Deakin University Library - http://www.deakin.edu.au/library/
Edith Cowan University - http://www.cowan.edu.au/library/live/index.htm
Flinders University - http://www.lib.flinders.edu.au/
Griffith University - http://www.gu.edu.au/ins/lils/frameset2.html
James Cook University - http://www.library.jcu.edu.au/
La Trobe University - http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/home/
Macquarie University - http://www.lib.mq.edu.au/
Monash University - http://www.lib.monash.edu.au/
Murdoch University - http://wwwlib.murdoch.edu.au/
Northern Territory University - http://www.ntu.edu.au/library/
Queensland University of Technology - http://wwwlib.qut.edu.au/
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology - http://www.lib.rmit.edu.au/
Southern Cross University - http://www.scu.edu.au/library/
Swinburne University of Technology - http://www.swin.edu.au/lib/welcome.html
University of Ballarat - http://www.ballarat.edu.au/library/
University of Canberra - http://www.canberra.edu.au/library/
University of Melbourne - http://www.lib.unimelb.edu.au/
University of New England - http://www.une.edu.au/~library/library.htm
University of New South Wales - http://www.library.unsw.edu.au/
University of Newcastle - http://www.library.newcastle.edu.au/
University of Queensland - http://www.library.uq.edu.au/index.html
University of South Australia - http://www.library.unisa.edu.au/
University of Southern Queensland - http://www.usq.edu.au/library/
University of Sydney - http://www.library.usyd.edu.au/Home.html
University of Tasmania - http://www.utas.edu.au/library/
University of Technology, Sydney - http://www.lib.uts.edu.au/
University of the Sunshine Coast - http://www.usc.edu.au/library/library1.html
University of Western Australia - http://www.library.uwa.edu.au/
University of Western Sydney - http://library.uws.edu.au/
University of Wollongong - http://www-library.uow.edu.au/
Victoria University - http://w2.vu.edu.au/library/
Australian Defence Force Academy (http://www.lib.adfa.edu.au:85/)
Australian National University (http://anulib.anu.edu.au/)
Central Queensland University (http://www.library.cqu.edu.au/)
Curtin University of Technology (http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/library/)
Griffith University (http://www.gu.edu.au/ins/lils/frameset2.html)
James Cook University (http://www.library.jcu.edu.au/)
Macquarie University (http://www.lib.mq.edu.au/)
Northern Territory University (http://www.ntu.edu.au/library/)
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (http://www.lib.rmit.edu.au/)
Swinburne University of Technology (http://www.swin.edu.au/lib/welcome.html)
University of Canberra (http://www.canberra.edu.au/library/index.html)
University of New England (http://www.une.edu.au/~library/library.htm)
University of New South Wales (http://www.library.unsw.edu.au/)
University of South Australia (http://www.library.unisa.edu.au/libhome.htm)
University of Tasmania (http://www.utas.edu.au/library/)
University of Technology, Sydney (http://www.lib.uts.edu.au//)
University of the Sunshine Coast
(http://www.usc.edu.au/library/library1.html)
University of Western Sydney (http://library.uws.edu.au/index.phtml)
University of Wollongong (http://www-library.uow.edu.au/)
In Chapter 3 the literature was reviewed to establish best practice usability guidelines. To ensure that the design guidelines that were suggested met international standards they were buttressed by scholarly research and a discussion, based on the literature, was provided for each guideline. The following is a summary, presented in the five usability categories used in this research, of those web design guidelines that should be adhered to when designing an academic library website.
In summary, in the first usability category, Finding the information, the following features should be included:
In the second usability category, Understanding the information, the following guidelines should be followed:
In the third usability category, Supporting user tasks, the client can be offered a significant service by providing user support. In summary each library website should ensure that the following services are included:
In the fourth usability category, Evaluating technical accuracy, the following guidelines should be considered:
In the fifth usability category, Presenting the information, the following presentation guidelines should be considered:
Keevil (2000) does not provide definitions for the questions that he included in his 1998 checklist (1998c), therefore the following section provides definitions for terms used in this study. These definitions, while they may be defined differently in another context, relate to the words as they appear in the context of this study and refer to web design as it relates to academic library websites. Where appropriate, some definitions have been provided from the Macquarie Dictionary 3rd Edition (1997). Other definitions have come from Nielsen (2000a), Keevil (1998b) and Gram (1996).
Browser A multi-platform software application, such as Netscape Navigator, for searching and displaying documents on the Internet.
Checklist A list of questions that require a yes or no answer. The checklist questions are designed to assess certain quantifiable features of Web documents, such as the conciseness of their writing style and the degree to which their organisation is user-centered.
Heuristic A general principle or rule of thumb that can guide a design decision or be used to critique a decision that has already been made.
Heuristic evaluation A heuristic evaluation applies human factors design principles to a prototype or released human interface in order to identify usability problems.
Human-computer Interaction Dix et al (1993, p.xiii) define Human-computer Interaction as the study of people, computer technology and the ways these influence each other. We study HCI to determine how we can make this computer technology more usable by people.
Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) A markup language that assigns attributes and links in a Web document.
Link A tag in a HTML document that allows users to jump from one topic to another, from one Web page to another or from one website to another.
Maintainability A design property that ensures that (i) system installation and administration is easy, and (ii) detection and correction or errors is easy (Gram, 1996, p. 299).
Observability or browsability A design property that ensures that all relevant information potentially available to the user (Gram, 1996, p.296).
Predictability A design property that ensures that information supplied in a reasonably complete, systematic and consistent way (Gram, 1996, p. 296).
QuickTime A multimedia (video or sound) file format allowing Macintosh and Windows users to create and view QuickTime movies if they have the appropriate authoring or viewing software.
Uniform Resource Locator (URL) An address that a web browser uses to locate, retrieve and display a document.
Usability Usability refers, in this study, to how easy it is to find, understand and use the information displayed on a website.
Usability index A measure expressed as a percentage of the total of all the scores of the index, of how closely the features of a website match generally accepted usability guidelines.
Usability test In system development, a test to determine that an implemented system fulfills its functional purpose as determined by its end users.
Use of standards A design property where the designer includes a standard layout for windows, keys, communication between applications and database communication (Gram, 1996, p.297).
User In this research a person who requires the services of a computing system.
User agent Software to access Web content, including desktop graphical browsers, text browsers, voice browsers, mobile phones, multimedia players, plug-ins and some software assistive technologies used in conjunction with browsers such as screen readers, screen magnifiers and voice recognition software.
User interface The hardware, software, or both that allows a user to interact and perform operations on a system, program or device.
User interface integratability A design property where the interaction techniques, example, the menus and the use of the mouse, must work in a manner which is intuitively the same as in systems already in use (Gram, 1996, p.298).
Web manager or author (Library) The person directly responsible for running the library's web operations. Typically the web manager works in conjunction with a committee that decides on things like overall web policy and the general design of the site. It usually falls on the web manager to deal with the day-to-day operation of the site. It may be a full time position but is usually part of a number of duties.
Web document The document files stored on a web server. The document can contain text, graphics, sound, video, or links to other documents.
Web site The documents stored on a web server that display information about a particular company, topic or event. A website can be a simple document that announces a community meeting or hundreds of documents that contain detailed support information for a software application. To view the documents web browser software, running on a workstation is used.
World Wide Web (WWW) An Internet service that allows users to browse linked documents. Also can simply be referred to as the web (Keevil, 1998b, p.276).
70 K (Kilobytes) This refers to the file size that has been chosen as a medium size allowing for a response time that fits within the guidelines to keep users attention.
25 K (Kilobytes) This refers to the file size of a graphic that is recommended as a size that will allow for a download time that fits within the guidelines to keep users attention.
33.6 Modem 28.8 or 33.6 kbps (V.34) modems, under ideal phone line conditions, will transmit and receive data at 28 800 or 33 600 bits per second, and 56K (X2, K56, or V.90 modems) will typically transmit data at up to 33.6 kbps, and receive data at up to about 50 000 kbps
Abbreviations A shortened or contracted form of a word or phrase (Macquarie, 1997, p2) for example, put it on reserve refers making a reservation or adding to the Short Loan or Reservation collection.
Acronyms A word formed from the initial letters of other words (Macquarie, 1997, p.18), for example, ILL - a library term that stands for Inter Library Loan or DocDel (Document Delivery).
Active and passive voices Grammar, denoting a voice of verb inflection, in which the subject is represented as performing the action expressed by the verb. For example, She writes the letter (active) the letter was written (passive) (Macquarie, 1997, p. 20). websites should be written in the active voice.
ALT attributes A text description that verbalizes the meaning or role of an image on a Web page. An example of an ALT attribute in HTML coding is:
img src="cat.gif" height="50" width="50" alt="A picture of a cat"
Average screen Knowledge of the size of users screens can play an integral role in the development of content for WWW sites as site designers need to optimize graphics to fit the majority of user's screens. The most common screen size (diagonal) falls between 14 and 18 inches, with 25.50 per cent of the users reporting having a 14" monitor, 24.97 per cent reporting having a 15" monitor, and 22.77 per cent reporting having between a 16" and 18" monitor. Laptops, which typically have screen sizes under 13" accounted for 5.7 per cent. Europeans, males, and baby-boomers (26-50 yr-olds) tend to have larger screens.
Borrow a book In Australian library terms this is generally accepted as the activity of acquiring a book from a library. Some patrons also refer to this activity as lending. This difference in terminology demonstrates one of the difficulties in seeking or of finding information in a library website.
Comments In this context we refer to the ability of users to make comments about the site or the services offered on a particular website. An e-mail link, phone number or electronic form should be provided.
Cross-platform compatibility The ability to view web pages in different browsers or on a Mac, Windows or other operating system.
Currency of information This refers to how current the website information is or how recently the website has been updated on the website. It also refers to new information that has been added. For example, information on a What's new page should be kept current.
Date of last update When was the last time that content was added or altered on the page?
Displays The speed with which a web page displays, appears or downloads on the browser screen. Ten seconds (10.0) is about the limit for keeping the user's attention focused on the dialogue.
Feedback A web page where feedback can be given and received by users of the website by the provision of an e-mail link or an electronic form.
Forms Transactional forms have been used on some websites to provide an electronically equivalent service to a manual library service such as requesting a document delivery or reserving a book.
Frames A frame is a stationary part of a web page that stays put while you scroll through another part (which is also a frame). Some web pages contain three or more frames and are called a frameset. Each frame is a separate web page and requires a separate HTML file.
Frequently asked questions A user service which some websites provide which attempts to answer questions which new readers often ask
Graphics A multimedia object on a website that includes photographs, icons, video clips, maps.
Headings Headings should clearly indicate the content of the sections within a web page. Text should be organised so that the hierarchy is no deeper than four levels. When writing body text use the journalistic inverted pyramid structure. Give the main points first and then work downwards offering more detail in each paragraph. The introductory lines should discuss what is contained in the rest of the story. Users will scan the top paragraph first, and if interested progress downwards. It is important that headings are user friendly, intuitive, jargon free and task based.
Height attributes A HTML attribute that denotes a height in pixels of tables or images.
An example of HTML coding for height is:
img src="dog.jpg" height="250" width="175" alt="Dog"
Help screens Sometimes users have to refer to help information, although most Internet users are impatient and dislike reading documentation pages. It is important that instructions should be task-oriented and emphasize how to do things step-by-step and that lots of examples are given.
Home institution The website's parent body organisation, for example, a university is the home institution for an academic library.
HTML Stands for Hyper Text Mark Up Language - the coding language used to create Hypertext documents for use on the World Wide Web. HTML is the lingua franca for publishing hypertext on the World Wide Web and can be created and processed by a wide range of tools, from simple plain text editors - typed in from scratch- to sophisticated WYSIWYG authoring tools. HTML uses tags such as h1 and /h1 to structure text into headings, paragraphs, lists, hypertext links etc.
Image map An image map is a graphic that has several different links on it called hot spots. This is a useful way to provide a number of links within a single graphic.
Index In this context an alphabetical list of keywords that link to documents within that a particular website.
Library services Information about or an electronic version of those services that the library provides for its clients offered through a Web interface.
Links Links are the most important part of hypertext. Links are used to navigate within and between web pages.
Metadata Metadata is data about other data. It is the Internet-age term for information that librarians traditionally have put into catalogues, and it most commonly refers to descriptive information about web resources.
Navigation Navigating a web document differs from navigating the web. A web document fits within one or more web pages and covers a focused topic. When writing a document for the web, use links to guide the reader through the document. Linking as the quickest means to get the user to the most relevant information.
Outside resources Many academic library websites provide links for their users to other websites that contain useful subject specific resources.
Page size The sum of the file sizes for all elements that make up a page, including the defining HTML file as well as all embedded objects, for example, image files with GIF and JPG pictures) (Neilsen, 2000a, p. 48).
Purpose statement An outline of the goals of the organisation sometimes referred to as a mission statement or a service mandate.
Reading level In this context we refer to a level of reading that is consistent with the scholarly content of the page.
Responsibility for page In this context this refers to the person or persons who have the primary responsibility for the publishing of the web page, but not necessarily responsible for the content.
Scannability The ability of users to scan text quickly on a web page, picking out keywords, sentences and paragraphs of interest while skipping over those parts of the text that are not of interest.
Search Tool In this context the search tool is a program that enables users to search for keywords on web pages within the website.
Second person Distinguishing between the speaker (first person) and the one being addressed (second person) (Macquarie, p. 1602).
Secondary index entries This refers to second level web pages that are linked from the top level page on a website.
Site map A textual representation of the contents of the website, arranged alphabetically or by subject.
Staff contact details A list of all staff within the organisation, including phone and e-mail contact details.
Style In this context style refers to a style of writing that is suited to the institution, in this case an academic institution as opposed to a primary or K-12 level of writing.
Tables The HTML table model allows authors to arrange data - text, preformatted text, images, links, forms, form fields, other tables, etc. - into rows and columns of cells. Each table may have an associated caption that provides a short description of the table's purpose. A longer description may also be provided (via the summary attribute) for the benefit of people using speech or Braille-based user agents.
Technical terms In this context technical terms can refer to library jargon or computer terms that are not well defined. For example, the meanings of enhance information literacy skills and bibliographic tools and networked resources, for some users should not be assumed.
Tertiary index entries Of the third order (Macquarie, 1997, p.2187) for example, this refers to third level pages within the website.
Text equivalent A plain web page that only has text, with the absence of any graphics.
Text format This refers to the way that the text has been presented on the web page - its consistency, use of white space, layout and alignment of figures and tables.
Thumbnail pictures A thumbnail picture is a reduced-size picture that points at a larger original picture.
Top level This refers to the very first level of pages within the hierarchy of the feb site.
Topics appropriate Those topics which are relevant to the web page in question. For example, within an academic library web page all topics included would be relevant to the resources or services offered by a library for its clients.
Transactional tasks Refers to interactive forms within the website, for example, a form to request the reservation of a book or the request for a document delivery.
What's new page A page that can include an overview of the latest information on a website and it can be a place to advertise new services or new information.
White space White space can guide the eye and help users understand the grouping of information. If two segments of content need to be separated it is usually best to use white space rather than a heavy line, which will also download faster.
Width attributes Browsers can only draw down the top of a Web page quickly if it has all the information it will need for its layout. To ensure this, WIDTH and HEIGHT attributes must be included on all images and table columns.
The following checklist is the one designed by Keevil (1998c). It can be found at the following URL: Measuring the Usability of Your website, http://www3.sympatico.ca/bkeevil/sigdoc98/checklist/WebCheck_Sep13.html.
| Usability index checklist for academic library websites | |
| Usability Index | |
| What is the name of the website? | |
| What is the location of the website? | |
| What is the main purpose of the site? | |
| When was the usability index measured? | |
| Checklist questions | |
| Category 1 - finding the information | |
| 1.1 | Contents |
| 1.1.1 | Does the site include staff contact details? |
| 1.1.2 | Are services clearly stated? |
| 1.1.3 | Is there a purpose statement? |
| 1.1.4 | Does the site have a web interface to the catalogue? |
| 1.2 | Index |
| 1.2.1 | Is an index included? |
| 1.2.2 | Are the entries in alphabetical order? |
| 1.2.3 | Are secondary and tertiary entries included? |
| 1.3 | Site Map |
| 1.3.1 | Is a site map included? |
| 1.3.2 | Are the links in the site map correct? |
| 1.4 | Search Tool |
| 1.4.1 | Is a search tool of the site included? |
| 1.4.2 | Choose a topic, eg. How do I borrow books? - was it easy to find? |
| 1.5 | Currency of Information |
| 1.5.1 | Is the date of the last update included on every page? |
| 1.5.2 | Is new information indicated in some way? |
| 1.5.3 | Is there a 'What's New' Page? |
| 1.6 | Finding an answer |
| 1.6.1 | Choose a simple fact - can a user find it in less than 10 minutes? |
| 1.7 | Authority of information |
| 1.7.1 | Are links to outside resources reliable? |
| 1.7.2 | Are links to outside resources appropriate? |
| 1.7.3 | Are resources current? |
| 1.8 | Comments page |
| 1.8.1 | Can comments be made about the site? |
| 1.8.2 | Is it possible to get feedback? |
| 1.8.3 | Is it possible to ask questions? |
| 1.8.4 | Is it possible to get help? |
| 1.9 | Responsibility for page |
| 1.9.1 | Is it clear who has responsibility for the page? |
| 1.9.2 | Are phone, fax, or postal address included on the top page? |
| 1.9.3 | Are contact details, such as e-mail, included on each page? |
| Category 2 - understanding the information | |
| 2.1 | Headings (Choose 2 pages at random) |
| 2.1.1 | Are headings user friendly? |
| 2.1.2 | Are headings jargon free? |
| 2.1.3 | Are headings intuitive? |
| 2.1.4 | Are headings brief and informative? |
| 2.1.5 | Are headings within pages labeled correctly? |
| 2.1.6 | Do headings stand out on the page? |
| 2.1.7 | At least one heading on every page? |
| 2.1.8 | Heading levels appropriate to level of detail? |
| 2.1.9 | Accurately reflects tasks or information? |
| 2.1.10 | Are headings task based? |
| 2.2 | Organisation of the content |
| 2.2.1 | Structure of lists parallel? |
| 2.2.2 | Each paragraph has main idea? |
| 2.2.3 | Presentation moves from general to specific? |
| 2.2.4 | Presentation moves from simple to complex? |
| 2.2.5 | Limited to appropriate and necessary topics? |
| 2.2.6 | In correct sequence? |
| 2.2.7 | Procedures task oriented? |
| 2.3 | Style of Text |
| 2.3.1 | Style conforms to the home institutions desired style? |
| 2.3.2 | Active and passive voices used appropriately? |
| 2.3.3 | Second person used appropriately? |
| 2.3.4 | Present tense predominates? |
| 2.3.5 | Reading level acceptable? |
| 2.3.6 | One-sentence paragraphs used sparingly? |
| 2.3.7 | Sentences simple but not terse? |
| 2.3.8 | Is scannability good? |
| 2.3.9 | Is text simple, concise, clear? |
| 2.4 | Terminology |
| 2.4.1 | New terms highlighted and defined when first used? |
| 2.4.2 | Consistency of terms used? |
| 2.4.3 | First occurences of abbreviations follow spelled out words? |
| 2.4.4 | Level of technical terms appropriate to audience? |
| 2.5 | Mechanics (Choose 5 pages at random) |
| 2.5.1 | Are spelling, grammar and punctuation correct? |
| 2.5.2 | Capitalisation, spelling and punctuation correct? |
| 2.5.3 | Acronyms avoided where possible? |
| Category 3 - supporting user tasks | |
| 3.1 | Transactional tasks |
| 3.1.1 | Are reply forms shorter than one page? |
| 3.1.2 | Are forms easy to follow? |
| 3.1.3 | Is a print equivalent form been made available? |
| 3.2 | User questions |
| 3.2.1 | Are Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) included for the site? |
| 3.2.2 | Are Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) provided at a task level? |
| 3.2.3 | Are Help Screens included at a task level? |
| Category 4 - evaluating the technical accuracy | |
| 4.1 | Cross-platform compatibility - Does the site view and load equally well in: |
| 4.1.1 | Internet Explorer? |
| 4.1.2 | Netscape? |
| 4.1.3 | On a Windows-based machine? |
| 4.1.4 | On a Macintosh? |
| 4.2 | Display and Download Speed (Choose 3 pages at random) |
| 4.2.1 | Home page displays within 10 seconds with a 33.6 modem? |
| 4.2.2 | If not, is there feedback indicating the delay? |
| 4.2.3 | Is each page size under 70k? |
| 4.2.4 | Are graphics under 25k in size? |
| 4.2.5 | Are 'alt' statements included if graphics are turned off? |
| 4.2.6 | If more than 5 graphics on a page, are they 15k or smaller? |
| 4.2.7 | Is there visual appeal? |
| 4.2.8 | Is there advance notice before downloading large files? |
| 4.2.9 | Are thumbnail pictures at least 2.5x5.0 cm? |
| 4.2.10 | Do the pages display on an average sized screen? |
| 4.2.11 | Does the top level fit on one screen? |
| 4.2.12 | If image maps are used are redundant text links provided? |
| 4.3 | HTML Format - (Choose two pages at random) |
| 4.3.1 | Is standard HTML code used? |
| 4.3.2 | Has metadata been used? |
| 4.3.3 | Is the page HTML error free? |
| 4.3.4 | Are width and height attributes included on all images? |
| 4.3.5 | Are width and height attributes included on all tables? |
| Category 5 - presenting the information | |
| 5.1 | Relationship to the Home Institution |
| 5.1.2 | Is their a clear link from the library to the Institutions home page? |
| 5.1.2 | Is their a clear link to the library from the Institutions Home page? |
| 5.1.3 | Does the library website follow the Institutions Home page? |
| 5.2 | Disability Access |
| 5.2.1 | Does the page provide a text equivalent for every non-text element? |
| 5.2.2 | Is information conveyed with colour also available without colour? |
| 5.2.3 | Are documents organised so they may be read without style sheets? |
| 5.3 | Links |
| 5.3.1 | Is there at least one link on every page? |
| 5.3.2 | Are links error free? |
| 5.4 | Navigation |
| 5.4.1 | Are there clear navigation tools included on all pages? |
| 5.4.2 | Is there Navigation back to home page? |
| 5.4.3 | Is there Navigation up and down within a page? |
| 5.5 | Text Format |
| 5.5.1 | Format consistent throughout the site? |
| 5.5.2 | Figures and tables aligned correctly? |
| 5.5.3 | White space used effectively? |
| 5.5.4 | Information presented in readable blocks? |
| 5.5.5 | Major topics begin on separate pages? |
| 5.5.6 | Are sentences complete within the web screen? |
| 5.6 | Printing? |
| 5.6.1 | Do all the text and graphics print on A4 paper? |
| [This checklist has 103 questions in total] | |
| Calculating the usability index | |
| 104 x (Total Yes Answers)/(Total Yes and No Answers) x per cent | |