Analytical usability evaluation for digital libraries: A case study

被引:27
作者
Blandford, A [1 ]
Keith, S [1 ]
Connell, I [1 ]
Edwards, H [1 ]
机构
[1] UCL, London WC1E 7DP, England
来源
JCDL 2004: PROCEEDINGS OF THE FOURTH ACM/IEEE JOINT CONFERENCE ON DIGITAL LIBRARIES: GLOBAL REACH AND DIVERSE IMPACT | 2004年
关键词
digital libraries; usability evaluation; heuristic evaluation; cognitive walk-through; CASSM; claims analysis; scenarios; personas; scenario-based design;
D O I
10.1145/996350.996360
中图分类号
TP [自动化技术、计算机技术];
学科分类号
0812 ;
摘要
There are two main kinds of approach to considering usability of any system: empirical and analytical. Empirical techniques involve testing systems with users, whereas analytical techniques involve usability personnel assessing systems using established theories and methods. We report here on a set of studies in which four different techniques were applied to various digital libraries, focusing on the strengths, limitations and scope of each approach. Two of the techniques, Heuristic Evaluation and Cognitive Walkthrough, were applied in text-book fashion, because there was no obvious way to contextualize them to the Digital Libraries (DL) domain. For the third, Claims Analysis, it was possible to develop a set of re-usable scenarios and personas that relate the approach specifically to DL development. The fourth technique, CASSM, relates explicitly to the DL domain by combining empirical data with an analytical approach. We have found that Heuristic Evaluation and Cognitive Walkthrough only address superficial aspects of interface design (but are good for that), whereas Claims Analysis and CASSM can help identify deeper conceptual difficulties (but demand greater skill of the analyst). However, none fit seamlessly with existing digital library development practices, highlighting an important area for further work to support improved usability.
引用
收藏
页码:27 / 36
页数:10
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1999, INMATES ARE RUNNING
[2]  
[Anonymous], P JCDL 2002
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2000, GUTENBERG GLOBAL INF
[4]  
ATTFIELD S, 2003, J DOC, P430
[5]   The cascade of interactions in the digital library interface [J].
Bates, MJ .
INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, 2002, 38 (03) :381-400
[6]   THE DESIGN OF BROWSING AND BERRYPICKING TECHNIQUES FOR THE ONLINE SEARCH INTERFACE [J].
BATES, MJ .
ONLINE REVIEW, 1989, 13 (05) :407-424
[7]   RESEARCH PRACTICES OF HUMANITIES SCHOLARS IN AN ONLINE ENVIRONMENT - THE GETTY ONLINE SEARCHING PROJECT REPORT NO-3 [J].
BATES, MJ ;
WILDE, DN ;
SIEGFRIED, S .
LIBRARY & INFORMATION SCIENCE RESEARCH, 1995, 17 (01) :5-40
[8]  
BLANDFORD A, 2002, SIGIR B
[9]  
BLANDFORD A, 2003, IEEE CS TECHN COMM D
[10]  
BLANDFORD A, 2001, P 1 ACM IEEE CS JOIN, P179, DOI [10.1145/379437.379479, DOI 10.1145/379437.379479]