Research Results: Undergraduate User Interviews (1 of 7)

Project details:

 

  • User Experience Project ID: UX-111C Interview Analysis & Presentation (Undergraduate Interview S1)
  • Purpose: To understand ways in which users approach and execute research projects with a slight focus on Virgo article searching. Also, to test library staff assumptions about definitions of an “engaging” library.
  • Stakeholders: All Library staff
  • Interview dates: November – December 2013
  • Test participants: 12 users (7 undergraduates, 5 faculty)
  • Methodology: Conducted 1-to-1 semi-structured interviews. Recorded voice and also screens as users demonstrated Virgo searching.
  • Project status: Transcription and video editing of this undergraduate interview complete. Six more remain, as well as final analysis. Engagement portions of faculty interviews transcribed (not yet in Box).
  • Highlights: User…
    • Is a relative novice with academic research. (Has written 2 papers while at U.Va. that required few sources.)
    • Is very comfortable asking questions and seems to have started all of her research projects by consulting with faculty and/or Library staff.
    • Changes keywords as a recovery strategy when she can’t find what she’s looking for in Virgo (no mention of facets).
    • Highly values Library printing services and some computers. Checks out DVD’s but does not generally use libraries as reading/study spaces.
    • Believes major challenge to using Virgo is identifying synonyms in keyword searches.
    • Defines engagement as moving from passive to active: Generally, thinks of the library as a place that is there when you need it for research.
    • Thinks Library could do a better job of conveying what it offers outside of research materials for papers.
    • Considers library-sponsored events as a way to convey that the Library is an active part of the University community.
    • Believes the “one-stop-shop” idea proposed by Library staff is unrealistic.
    • Doesn’t use libraries as study spaces, but nevertheless would value designated quiet areas.
    • Liked that staff would not give up on her research project even when she was willing to change topics.

Project fileshttps://virginia.box.com/s/8vp1gatn32411kylow8m

Contents:

Research Results: Dissatisfied Virgo User Interviews

Project details:

  • User Experience Project ID: UX-111D Dissatisfied Virgo User Interviews
  • Purpose: To better understand the underlying causes of negative Virgo rankings expressed in the User Survey.
  • Stakeholders: Library Public Services, Virgo Services Team, Web Services Team, Ask a Librarian web redesign team, Collections & Access Area of Focus, All Virgo users
  • Interview dates: February – March 2014
  • Test participants: 7 users (5 undergraduate students, 2 faculty)
  • Methodology: Conducted 1-to-1 structured interviews soliciting examples and detailed descriptions of the nature of problems experienced with Virgo.
  • Project status: Complete

Project fileshttps://virginia.box.com/s/oknwvh4wpha9t6nzy6os

Contents:

  • Results summary
  • Final protocol
  • Solicitation email template
  • User interview notes

Research Results: Ask a Librarian Webpage

Project details:

  • User Experience Project ID: UX-132 Ask a Librarian
  • Purpose: To gather user perspectives to inform a webpage redesign.
  • Stakeholders: Library public services, All users
  • Test dates: 4/11/14 – 4/18/14
  • Test participants: 6 students (4 undergraduate students, 2 graduate students)
  • Methodology: Conducted 1-to-1 structured interviews to gather feedback on prior experience with help sites and impressions of 5 library help pages (including U.Va. Library’s); Asked students to sketch their ideal help page.
  • Project status: Project manager and UI designer presentation delivered 4/22/14. Project managers will develop content to inform UI work. UI designer will execute design based on user feedback. Work should be completed during the summer and live site will be tested in the fall.

Project fileshttps://virginia.box.com/s/k4lb08p03b3hh3xw67ez

Contents:

  • Final protocol
  • Comparison site screenshots
  • User test notes
  • User test sketches
  • Final presentation

Registration Now Open for edUi!

Consider attending this outstanding conference organized by some fantastic people!

Register or learn more about edUi.

Why register for edUi?

  • Get to know your web brethren from higher-ed, libraries, and museums.
  • Intimately sized conference (approx. 250 people).
  • Practical sessions focused on skill building.
  • World-class presenters.
  • Learn tips and tricks for crafting great user interfaces and user experiences.
  • It’s affordable! Early bird registration is just $500.
  • One workshop is included with your registration.

What You Think You Know About the Web Is Wrong

2014.03.21_where people read online

Time.com published an interesting piece about what the author terms “The Attention Web.” I’d summarize The Attention Web as a new philosophy about how content producers and advertisers seek to engage audiences. Rather than measure users’ interest solely by what they click on, this new philosophy favors garnering their sustained interest, and is powered by sophisticated means of data collection and analysis.

As the author Tony Haile demonstrates, this new approach to data reveals common misconceptions about how users interact with web content. The graphic above demonstrates one such myth, that users don’t read below the fold. According to Haile, “66% of attention on a normal media page is spent below the fold.”

Other counter-intuitive findings include:

  • Myth #1: We read what we’ve clicked on – “In fact, a stunning 55% spent fewer than 15 seconds actively on a page.”
  • Myth #2: The more we share the more we read – “We looked at 10,000 socially-shared articles and found that there is no relationship whatsoever between the amount a piece of content is shared and the amount of attention an average reader will give that content.”

While the article is addressed primarily to advertisers, it reveals some applicable findings for general content development and website design.

Source: What You Think You Know About the Web Is Wrong | TIME.com

To focus group or not to focus group? That’s a great question!

Recently, I consulted with a colleague about conducting a focus group with users who could potentially benefit from a new collection. Given the type of collection it is, it also merits its own physical space in the library. The research issue at hand is how users would anticipate using this new collection, and how the space should be designed to support that kind of use.

One of my first thoughts was, is a focus group the best assessment tool for this question? My conclusion, ultimately, was yes. But why?

The research question is on the ‘fuzzy front end’ of service development, where there are many more unknowns than knowns about what users would like. A focus group can be a great tool for ferreting out ideas and letting them naturally build off one another, so that we can begin to understand the thoughts and feelings we should consider in developing this new offering. In this scenario, I’m not concerned about group members influencing one another, but rather, hopeful that the group dynamic will spur participants to generate many ideas and draw out underlying needs.

While there are many good reasons for employing focus groups, I rarely choose them for UX work. Most of my work concerns how individuals interact with systems in their natural environments. For that kind of research, I choose usability tests and personal interviews, so that I can understand how people behave without the interference of others.

I found that the presentation below has some good slides depicting how to best use focus groups and when to avoid them. (See slides 13-17 in particular.)

If you’re considering conducting a focus group, I also recommend consulting the document, “Guidelines for Conducting a Focus Group” from Duke University’s Office of Assessment. Slide 19 in the presentation also has a list of good moderator resources.

Slide from presentation

Source: BellaVia Research

Research Results: Web Scale Discovery Service User Tests

Project details:

  • User Experience Project ID: UX-111 WSDS Evaluation
  • Purpose: To determine user preference with respect to Primo, EDS and Summon products
  • Stakeholders: Library public services, Virgo users
  • Test dates: U.Va. Library staff – 2/26/14 to 3/31/14; U.Va. Faculty, Graduate Students and Undergraduate Students – 3/11/14 to 3/31/14
  • Test participants: All interested Library staff and U.Va. faculty and students (cross-disciplines). Faculty recruited via subject librarians and students recruited via Library and ITS solicitations.
  • Methodology: Test instances of EDS and Summon were established in development environment. Testers were asked to choose research topics relevant to them and conduct searches in existing Virgo (Primo) and the test products. Results are being gathered in SurveyMonkey.
  • Details: Searchdev was put behind EZProxy to facilitate access off grounds. Users could complete the test at their convenience and complete the survey prior to the deadline.
  • Project status: Testing closed 3/31/14. Staff presentation delivered 4/9/14.

Project fileshttps://virginia.box.com/s/n733sstrbnz30tt8ls4l

Contents:

  • Library Staff Test ‘n’ Lunch results (3)
  • Protocol for U.Va. faculty/student test
  • User test results (Excel)
  • User test results (PDF)

Staff presentationhttps://virginia.box.com/s/l1iqqefe5n0q5tte5i1f

 

Do we need a texting style guide?

Quote

I ran across this article that, to my utter surprise, announced that the plain old period (that seemingly innocent concluder of sentences), is now perceived as surly in text communications:

The period was always the humblest of punctuation marks. Recently, however, it’s started getting angry. I’ve noticed it in my text messages and online chats, where people use the period not simply to conclude a sentence, but to announce “I am not happy about the sentence I just concluded.”…

“In the world of texting and IMing … the default is to end just by stopping, with no punctuation mark at all,” Liberman wrote me. “In that situation, choosing to add a period also adds meaning because the reader(s) need to figure out why you did it. And what they infer, plausibly enough, is something like ‘This is final, this is the end of the discussion or at least the end of what I have to contribute to it.’”

As communication channels change, so too do the content of our communications. Perhaps we need to think about a style guide for texting/IM in the same way we do writing for the web, as apparently something as mundane as a period could have a profound effect on how users interpret their mobile and online service experiences.

What About Us?

Quote

I’m always thinking about how to engage users through personal connections with otherwise opaque services.

This Search Engine Journal article has a similar focus with respect to About Us pages: “25 Creative and Engaging About Us Pages“.

According to the piece there are some rules of thumb about what makes good About Us pages:

For starters, it should be informative. It doesn’t always have to tell the whole story, but it should at least provide people with an idea of who and what you are. Besides that, it should contain social proof, testimonials, and some personal information that viewers can relate to such as education, family, etc.

The article continues with some examples of stellar About Us pages and why they are successful.

One in particular that stood out to me as being somewhat analogous to libraries is National Geographic. Like our library, it has a long history, is an organizational vs. personal site, and has a great depth of information to convey about what it does due to its multifaceted activities.

The data fan in me also liked this graphic designer’s About page because he uses some unexpected visuals (a humorous bar chart) to communicate his skills. It made me wonder how we could visually portray ourselves with the user and collections data we’ve amassed.

I point out this article to encourage some thinking about ‘humanizing’ our web presence. As brought out in my recent user interviews, there is a strong desire to connect with people in addition to materials. Hopefully these examples will generate some ideas and tactics you could use for your own pages that would help users connect with the content in a more personal way.

UX Success: Medieval Studies LibGuide

As part of a new feature, I’d like to highlight Library staff UX successes as examples of user experience best practices we can emulate.

A recent example was announced last week with the availability of a new Medieval Studies LibGuide, which was modeled after the very popular Thomas Jefferson guide.

Here’s what works about this guide:

  • It’s highly curated (brief). Brevity serves the purpose of these guides by providing a shortcut to just the best resources on the topic, without dumping users into yet another list of resources they have to navigate. A key UX principle, particularly true of college students, is that if something looks hard, users will avoid it (see Myth 1). This guide appears easily manageable, increasing the likelihood users will take the time to explore it.
  • The sub-pages include extremely brief but useful annotations. Users are notoriously stingy about clicking on links unless they are confident that the click will be worth their efforts. These annotations explain the unique content users can find with each resource, but they are short and not necessarily complete sentences. It’s important to economize words, as users “typically see about 2 words for most list items; they’ll see a little more if the lead words are short, and only the first word if they’re long.”

Medieval Studies and Thomas Jefferson are topics that could merit an enormous number of resources. It takes great restraint to only focus on the most essential materials in the interest of users and increasing the chances of connecting them with what they seek.

If you’re wondering about how you could streamline your own guides, please contact me or stop by the drop-in User Experience Clinic on 3/20, Room 321 Clemons, between 1-3pm. We can review the web analytics for your page(s) to see what users are/are not clicking on and brainstorm possible revisions.