Revise, redUX, re-cycle: iterative website usability studies in an assessment cycle

IF 1.8 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Joyce Galletta DeStasio, Eric Jeitner
{"title":"Revise, redUX, re-cycle: iterative website usability studies in an assessment cycle","authors":"Joyce Galletta DeStasio, Eric Jeitner","doi":"10.1108/pmm-08-2023-0025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>The purpose of this paper is to share the process, findings and conclusions from one library’s iterative usability study of its website design to inform other libraries as they perform their own assessments.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>A task-completion usability study was conducted with eight undergraduate students across two iterations: the first gauged the usability of a redesigned library website and the second gauged the effectiveness of the first iteration’s findings.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>We found that users performed better when the site provided multiple access points to the same information, displayed a prominent chat feature, limited the amount of text on a given page and avoided library jargon. Not only was the second round of testing important for confirming that first-round recommendations were effective but also it proved useful in catching a problem with the site that was unintentionally created during the time between tests.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Research limitations/implications</h3>\n<p>No demographic data were collected during the study, thus hindering our ability to analyze our users through these data points.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>This study demonstrates the value of iterative usability testing, especially when untested changes made between site versions may produce usability issues.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":44583,"journal":{"name":"Performance Measurement and Metrics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Performance Measurement and Metrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/pmm-08-2023-0025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to share the process, findings and conclusions from one library’s iterative usability study of its website design to inform other libraries as they perform their own assessments.

Design/methodology/approach

A task-completion usability study was conducted with eight undergraduate students across two iterations: the first gauged the usability of a redesigned library website and the second gauged the effectiveness of the first iteration’s findings.

Findings

We found that users performed better when the site provided multiple access points to the same information, displayed a prominent chat feature, limited the amount of text on a given page and avoided library jargon. Not only was the second round of testing important for confirming that first-round recommendations were effective but also it proved useful in catching a problem with the site that was unintentionally created during the time between tests.

Research limitations/implications

No demographic data were collected during the study, thus hindering our ability to analyze our users through these data points.

Originality/value

This study demonstrates the value of iterative usability testing, especially when untested changes made between site versions may produce usability issues.

修改、再修改、再循环:评估周期中的网站可用性迭代研究
本文的目的是分享一个图书馆对其网站设计进行迭代可用性研究的过程、发现和结论,为其他图书馆在进行自己的评估时提供参考。设计/方法/途径一项由八名本科生参与的任务完成式可用性研究进行了两次迭代:第一次评估了重新设计的图书馆网站的可用性,第二次评估了第一次迭代结果的有效性。结果我们发现,如果网站提供了获取相同信息的多个入口、显示了显著的聊天功能、限制了特定页面上的文字量并避免使用图书馆术语,用户的表现会更好。第二轮测试不仅对确认第一轮建议是否有效非常重要,而且还有助于发现网站在两次测试之间无意中产生的问题。研究局限性/影响研究期间没有收集人口统计数据,因此妨碍了我们通过这些数据点分析用户的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Performance Measurement and Metrics
Performance Measurement and Metrics INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: ■Quantitative and qualitative analysis ■Benchmarking ■The measurement and role of information in enhancing organizational effectiveness ■Quality techniques and quality improvement ■Training and education ■Methods for performance measurement and metrics ■Standard assessment tools ■Using emerging technologies ■Setting standards or service quality
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信