I don’t normally post news items, but I was really excited to hear about the new version of evergreen (here’s the list of new features). I have been taking a library automation course, so I have been learning more about ILS, particularly OpenSource (OS) ones. I didn’t know how many OS systems were available, so I was interested in reading and hearing more. I was a bit disappointed when I heard there was no OS ILS suitable for large libraries, but even if the new version of Evergreen doesn’t quite meet those needs, I’m happy to hear that it’s moving in that direction.
When Basic Tutorials Go Defunct?
Documentation, tutorials, and user guides must evolve and be updated as technology and software move ahead, but when so many web-based applications use the same basic WYSIWYG, are basic tutorials even needed anymore?
This issue was brought up recently with our wiki’s update to the newest version of MediaWiki. If you use wikipedia at all, you’ve probably been using the new version for quite some time now. One of the greatest improvements for the end-user is the new toolbar.
It covers all your basic formatting needs including tables (which is not the easiest for new users to figure out). The help section is really nice too (since MediaWiki is not a WYSIWYG) showing the user how something will display (of course there’s always the preview button).
After this update, I realized that users will unlikely need as much guidance in editing their wiki pages and the basic tutorials that I created don’t really seem to be needed anymore, or do they? I haven’t exactly polled my users on this issue or anything. For the moment, I have kept it live and updated as it’s being used as a general help article as well. Maybe some users need a bit more structure via a linear method of creating pages, but it would be interesting to know…
Happy New Year!
A little belatedly, but a Happy New Year and belated Happy Holidays (whichever you celebrated)!
Usability Testing
Last week (was it really just last week?), I did my first usability test and I thought it went well enough, but there are of course improvements needed. I looked up some resources (which I will put up on a later date), but while there is a general outline, no resource can give you specifics on how to conduct a usability test for a particular site.
Methodology
- 5 participants, 1-2 from each user group
- Each participant was given the choice of using a PC or MAC.
- Each participant was given a scenario of working on assignments by themselves without facilitators to help with the task itself.
- Participants were given 5 tasks to do, presented one at a time.
- Participants were asked to voice their thoughts and were asked questions about their process during a task, after a task, and/or after all tasks were completed.
- Each session was recorded using video, audio, and screencapture programs.
Results Analysis
Results were compiled for completion rate, but no other metrics were found useful. For example, time completion did not work in this case since users were asked to voice their thoughts and some did so very thoroughly, while others did very little.
Most of the analysis then was drawing conclusions based on behavioural trends and repeated comments made by users.
Results
The results might have been as expected. Users tended to be either novice or expert users, which may seem fairly obvious, and 1 of 2 types:
- selective user: tends to look over things carefully, choosing that which seems to best fit what he/she wants. Unlikely to click on unfamiliar things.
- explorative user: tends to click on the first link that looks like it might be what they are looking for. Does not mind making mistakes. More likely to click on unfamiliar things.
Recommendations were made about the site in an attempt to make the site user-friendly to both types of users, and to ensure both types navigate the site as it was designed.
A number of recommendations were also made revolving around content, as there were numerous content issues and content is not taken care of by the developers (which includes me).
Reflections & Improvements
Overall, I thought the sessions went fairly well. There were a couple of improvements that we implemented in the middle of the study. Although in a more academic-based research study, this might be considered taboo, we thought it would produce more useful results.
Some improvements we made:
- printed copy of tasks
- added to script that task completion is user determined (not determined by facilitator)
- made sure to clear browser cache for every session (browsers can be set to do so automatically of course)
- minor rewording of tasks to make examples as unambiguous as possible
For the next usability test, further improvements can be made:
- more context for scenario to give participants appropriate perspective
I think it is also very valuable to have a second facilitator since each facilitator tends to catch/see and focus on different aspects of the user experience, so each will contribute to the questioning of the participant.
Conclusion
The usability test was very valuable in seeing whether the design and organization worked for our users. It also helped to identify various problems and what’s better, how we might improve them (as some tasks were purposefully chosen because they might be problematic elements on the site). Some improvements of the site will depend on others, but hopefully, the results of the study will convince them that the improvements need to be made.
What’s your Purpose?
So one of the things we’ve been asking a lot lately is:
What is your purpose?
In asking others that, we have also been asking ourselves that. Not necessarily why are we using a tool, but for what purpose are our users supposed to be using the tool. We effectively have no policy surrounding the usage of any of our tools or any guidelines for how staff on creating content in these tools.
I have recently been asked by a number of staff members about whether our department has any guidelines on how things should look on the website, and I can’t answer anything except “no, not as far as I am aware.” It’s one thing if people refuse to use it, it’s another not to have any sort of documentation when people are looking for it. Staff members are not web designers, and may know little about designing content for the web. Most of them will do a handout version of something and simply put that online. That does not always “translate” well.
So, a recommendation for all:
- have a document that presents guidelines on how to present content on the web
- include a template
- and CSS style stuff so that users don’t have to think (or can’t mess up) the little details
I’m sure those seem obviously for most people, but I am amazed sometimes at how little the first one is done. The last one is normally implemented, but what’s a pretty page if people don’t want to read what’s on it?