libr 251 evaluation seminar - jonathan leff › wp-content › uploads › 2010 › 12 › ... ·...

Homework 1

Running head: HOMEWORK 1

Homework 1:

Evaluation Seminar

Jonathan Leff

September 7-22, 2009

Web Usability

LIBR 256-01 – Fall 2009

School of Library and Information Science - San Jose State University

LIBR 251-01 LEFF HOMEWORK 1 2

Note

The exercises on the following pages are homework assignments that were

submitted via ANGEL. I have copied all the text and illustrations from ANGEL exactly

as they were submitted. Only formatting changes have been made for the purposes of

this document. No changes have been made to content.

Jonathan Leff

September 6, 2010


Part A – Comparison 1 – September 7, 2009

Explorable Interfaces: SFPL vs. Marin County Free Library

For the first "Fame/Shame" evaluation, I chose to look at Explorable Interfaces.

The two libraries I chose for this system where the San Francisco Public Library

(http://sfpl.org/, referred to hereafter as "SFPL"), and the Marin County Free Library

(http://www.marinlibrary.org//, referred to hereafter as "Marin County").

I chose to test how easy it would be for a user to navigate back and forth in the

library website, by testing how easy it was to get back to the home page after searching

the catalog. I chose the catalog query as I felt it to be one of the main functions of a

library's website. Each library's website had the catalog search interface displayed

prominently on the home page (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3). I did a search for "Gone With the

Wind" which is the first book that popped into my mind.

I tested the SFPL website first. The query result page clearly showed the SFPL

banner at the top of the page, below which were noticeably displayed the links for the

home page, as well as the Library's other services (Fig. 2). This combination of banner

and links was available on other pages of the Library's website, not just the query result

page.

I then tried the Marin County website's catalog search. I entered the same search

query as with SFPL. However, the result was a page from which the user could not

navigate directly back to Marin County's home page (Fig. 4). The only way I was able to

get back to the home page was to click on the "Start Over" link at the bottom of this page,

which brought me to another page which was for the MARINet Web Catalog (Fig. 5). On

this page there was a link for "MARINet Member Libraries" the page for which informed


the user that MARINet was a consortium of libraries in Marin County (Fig. 6). On this

page there was a link for the Marin County Free Library, which was the page from which

I started out. Basically, when the user queries the catalog from one of the member

libraries, he or she has left that library and entered another system with no way back.

To get back to the home page from the query result page in one step required my

clicking on my browser's back button. There was no one-step option provided by the

website itself. To get back to the home page using only the means provided by the site

required my going forward through two extra pages.

Seeing as many users today are accustomed to websites that let you navigate to

any page from any page within the site, it is rather inefficient as well as confusing to the

user to have a library website that only basically goes in one direction.

Therefore, in my comparison, the San Francisco Public Library is definitely in the

"fame" category, whereas the Marin County Free Library is definitely in the "shame"

category when it comes to Explorable Interfaces.


Figures:

Fig. 1: San Francisco Public Library Home Page

Fig. 2: SFPL query result page


Fig. 3: Marin County Free Library Home Page

Fig. 4: Marin County catalog query result


Fig. 5: MARINet Web Catalog main page

Fig. 6: MARINet Home Page (including link to Marin County Free Library)


Part A – Comparison 2

Metaphors, Use of: Harrison Memorial Library vs. City of Imperial - Public Library

September 7, 2009

The second principle of interaction design that I chose to look at was "Metaphors,

Use of". For this examination, I looked at the Harrison Memorial Library in Carmel, CA

(http://www.hm-lib.org/, hereafter referred to as "Harrison Memorial") and the City of

Imperial Public Library in Imperial, CA (http://www.imperial.ca.gov/dept.php?id=32,

hereafter referred to as "Imperial Public").

Bruce Tognazzini states that "Good metaphors are stories, creating visible

pictures in the mind." and "Metaphors usually evoke the familiar, but often add a new

twist."

Harrison Memorial's website makes use of illustrated icons across the top of all of

it's pages that are very colorful and user friendly. There are different icons for the

different sections of the library's web site. Furthermore, they appear at the top of each

page that the user navigates to. Of special interest is the Kids' Page (Fig. 1), in that the

sidebar is rendered with colorful icons that convey information that is of use to younger

users. On all the other pages in the site, the sidebar is rendered in a style that adults will

find easy to access, namely links that provide access to information about library services

and the community (Fig. 2).

The website for Imperial Public (Fig. 3), does not appear to be designed for easy

access by library users at all. It appears at first glance to merely a section of a website

about the City of Imperial in general, providing basic information about the website.

There is a link to the catalog page (Fig. 4), which itself is very plain, and which has links


to "Today's Headlines", as well as a changing hyperlinked graphic of a book cover. There

are tabs at the top which provide access to information about library services, though to

me, they did not seem to leap out due to their brown/beige color scheme. It seems that

while site provides the basic functionality required, it does not do so in a way that catches

the eye of the user, nor does it use make use of graphics that would tend to guide the user

towards particular pieces of information. In other words, it's boring and makes no effort

to engage the user via metaphor, or anything other than somewhat basic tenets of web

design. It also does not appear to have been updated in a while, as indicated by the fact

that it is copyrighted 2007 (I accessed this website on 9/7/2009).

Therefore, in this comparison, Harrison Memorial gets falls into the "fame"

category, whereas Imperial Public falls into the "shame" category.

Figures:

Fig. 1: Harrison Memorial Library - Kids Page


Fig. 2: Harrison Memorial Library - Home Page

Fig. 3: City of Imperial - Public Library Home Page


Fig. 4: City of Imperial Public Library (link from main page)


Part B – Heuristics – September 21, 2009

LOTSS Evaluation

Consistency and Standards:

Module 1 tutorial on Link+:

Instructions ask user to click on pull-down menu in Online Catalog to select

“Title”. There are three pull-down menus, and the Online Catalog is not labeled “Online

Catalog”. On the accompanying quiz, the choices are not actually labeled with the same

names in the example. As user has a hard time figuring out what the correct answer is.

Flexibility and efficiency of use

For Module 1, the tutorial opens a second browser and shrinks both windows to

fit on the screen. This is unnecessary as in Module 2, the tutorial uses frames, meaning

that the user does not have to go back and forth between multiple windows. The second

method is much more efficient and can easily be used throughout the entire tutorial.


Fig. 1:

Fig. 2:


Aesthetic and minimalist design

In the first question of Module 2, the information presented in the left-hand frame

does not necessarily match what the user sees in the right-hand frame. If a user is

successfully logged into the LOTSS system, he or she will not see a log-in screen and

will therefore not need log-in instructions.

The instruction for the ProQuest ABI/INFORM databases is incorrect. The

default status is NOT “all”. One has to click on the “Select all databases” link to select all

the databases. The actual default is that only one database is selected when the user

enters the screen. Incorrect information is very confusing and slows down the user’s

efficiency in using the site.

Fig 2 (repeated - note left-hand frame):


Recognition rather than recall

Module 2: In the tutorial on emailing articles, clicking on the email icon in the large

demonstration frame collapses the instruction frame. The user has to remember what the

instructions are for sending the email in the correct format, and how to get back to the

original tutorial afterwards. If the user wants to refer back to the instructions in the

middle of this process, he/she has to use the browser’s back button. There is no back

button on the page itself.

Fig. 3:


Fig. 4:

User control and freedom

After the user has started a module, there are no links to the other modules, or help

buttons of any kind. As an experiment, when I was in Module 3 I clicked on the LOTSS

logo in the upper-left-hand corner of the screen. At first glance, I thought this took me all

the way out of LOTSS, and I needed to log back in to get to the link for Module 3. It

turned out that it opened up LOTSS in a new window. A user should be able to leave a

single module without being forced out of the system altogether or being led in the wrong

direction.


Part C – Accessibility – September 22, 2009

Library Liaison Video

I chose to look at 1194.22 (b): Equivalent alternatives for any multimedia

presentation shall be synchronized with the presentation as it relates to the Library

Liaison video with Lorene Sisson. Here are three things that stood out for me:

1. A user can only view the transcript OR the video, but not both at the same time. If

the user wants to see the transcript, he/she has to navigate to a separate page. This

results in a hearing-impaired user not being able to "experience" the video in the

same way as would a hearing user. Reading text is a qualitatively different

experience than viewing a video. (Fig. 1)

2. The video does not have any captioning, meaning that a hearing-impaired user

cannot tell what the speaker is saying. The user is therefore cut off from the

content conveyed in the video. (Fig 2.)

3. There are no synchronized text tracks in the code for the video presentation

movie. Only RealPlayer supports SMIL 2.0 (see http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-

TECHS/SM12.html). This presentation uses QuickTime. (Fig. 3)


Fig. 1 - Transcript:

Fig. 2 - Main View (no captioning):


Fig. 3 - Code:


References

Quick Reference Guide to Section 508 Resource Documents. (2003). Accessibility Forum.

Nielsen, J. (2005). 10 Heuristics for User Interface Design. Retrieved September 2, 2009, from

http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_list.html

Tognazzini, B. AskTog: First Principles of Interaction Design. Retrieved September 2, 2009,

from http://www.asktog.com/basics/firstPrinciples.html