1 / 15

The Usability of Electronic Finding Aids during Searches for Known Items

The Usability of Electronic Finding Aids during Searches for Known Items. Society of American Archivists Annual Meeting August 22, 2003 Los Angeles, California. Christopher J. Prom Assistant University Archivist University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. introduction.

amal-conway
Download Presentation

The Usability of Electronic Finding Aids during Searches for Known Items

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Usability of Electronic Finding Aids during Searches for Known Items Society of American Archivists Annual Meeting August 22, 2003 Los Angeles, California Christopher J. Prom Assistant University Archivist University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

  2. introduction • development of descriptive standards • materials centric process • not inherently user centered • but lays groundwork for easy reformatting • how to best present archival data for ease of use?

  3. study goals (the why) • user interactions with finding aids • looking for known collection • look for folder on a given topic • make inferences regarding best type of designs–usability • what is outside scope? • manuscripts only, not corporate • not a report on descriptive standards

  4. methodology (the how), slide 2 • developed website • survey • 9 usability tasks with controlled searches • collection-level interfaces • 11 option (links) • 3 option (search, subject browse, provenance) • 2 option (search and alpha list) • 1 option (alpha list) • folder-level interfaces • PDF (Adobe) • non-searchable EAD w/ nav bar (Cookbook) • HTML, top table on contents • searchable EAD w/ two pop up windows • administered both on and off site

  5. methodology, slide 2 • during the test • used control on info searched for • system recorded answers/times • on site—post test interviews • after the test • coded data coding • tabulated, queried and analyzed • correlated times to survey results • transcribed interviews

  6. results, slide 1 • respondents • 89 participants; 35 on site, 54 off site • on site mostly students (77%), off site archivists librarians (51%) • 72% claim to have use archives last year, 75% w/ electronic finding aids • experienced computer users 69% self rate as highly experienced computer users or above (“I can install software or hardware, develop web pages, use databases.”)

  7. results, 2 • collection tasks • tasks w/ fewest search options most successful • alpha lists worked well

  8. results, 3 folder-level tasks, plotted search times* *on-site users only

  9. survey/task correlations • will not discuss in detail—table on handout • speed in using electronic finding aids correlates more to computer experience than archival/library experience.

  10. suggested design features, 1 (based on observations, interviews and, comments) • factors specific to finding aids • need complete description and context • is some info available on line for every collection? • provide browse option alongside search boxes • people use a search box if available • . . . but actually find known items faster w/ lists • search boxes for single finding aids • 60% try browser’s “find in page” • don’t break ability to do this w/out a search box

  11. suggested design features, 2 • general factors • use standard technologies and formats • PDF? • no pop ups; beware complex javascript • use standard search algorithms • keep interfaces simple • clear labels and layout • “Where is the label?” (e.g. box number) • “detailed description” vs “folder list”

  12. linear format default visited color (hints CTRL-F will work) visual interest (could move to right) moderate number of links to series descriptions w/ hyperlinks to folder list

  13. conclusions? this presentation available from a link at: http://web.library.uiuc.edu/ahx/workpap/ I would like to thank the Research and Publication Committee of the University of Illinois Library, which provided support for the completion of this research. Christopher J. Prom Assistant University Archivist

More Related