[Web4lib] RE: library automation vendors

[H. Frank Cervone]

One of the things we have done at Northwestern is to reallocate a staff 
position so that we do have someone who spends a large part of their time 
looking at issues related to usability across all of our web based services.

Given that changes in what you do or don't do tend to be subtle and evolve 
over time, it's difficult for me to say specifically that we are spending 
x% less time doing this or that as a result of this change. However, given 
other changes we've put into place in the last few years we've been able to 
optimize the way we perform existing tasks, which in turn makes it possible 
to devote more resources to usability testing. For example, we distribute 
software to client machines using advanced tools, which makes this process 
much more efficient and we've standardized the OS platforms we use within 
the library to eliminate redundancy in maintenance activities. The 
combination of these types of activities, just within the IT division, has 
allowed us to put more emphasis on usability.

Also, we've established a standing work group, drawn from all areas of the 
library, to perform usability testing activities. We set pretty high 
expectations for this group of people, but we think it is important to 
develop a group of usability experts that represent all of the major 
functional areas of the library. My experience is that an ad-hoc group does 
not perform usability testing very effectively. It's better than nothing, 
but sometimes not much better. There is a large body of research and 
knowledge related to human-computer interaction. People performing 
usability tests need to be intimately familiar with this knowledge and that 
takes time and dedication. It's not something that can be treated lightly. 
When it is treated casually, what I've seen happen in several cases is that 
the results are questioned. This is justified because the appropriate 
investigative rigor wasn't applied to the study and the results really are 
questionable.

Basically, it seems to me that it does come down to saying, "Yes, this is a 
significant issue for us and we have to dedicate resources to it." On the 
positive side, most of the high-level library administrators I've talked to 
understand this. The question is what do we "stop" doing?

Libraries have gone through many changes through the years in what we do. 
Tasks that used to be critical have been discontinued or relegated to a 
niche activity. For example, many years ago before cooperative cataloging 
practices were in place, ALL material acquired by a library went through an 
original cataloging process. Introducing cooperative cataloging practices 
was very disruptive and very controversial at the time. Many people were 
opposed to it, yet today, we don't even give it a second thought; original 
cataloging only occurs for truly unique items.

The same is true with usability testing. While many people may not think it 
is a critical function of the library, this is rapidly changing. Usability 
testing is just the latest new activity we have to introduce to the mix, 
but it's also important to note that we can learn much from other 
researchers. Libraries that cannot, for whatever reason, do in-depth 
usability testing can learn a lot about how to move forward with their 
interfaces using the large body of good practice in usability that has 
already been developed. We need to ensure that our vendors and our internal 
developers use this knowledge in developing future interfaces. Eventually, 
usability will either become so ingrained that we don't even think about it 
as a separate process (it's just part of the "natural" workflow) or it will 
become irrelevant because of other advances that supplant it. Hopefully, 
when that time comes, we will have the insight to see how we need to adapt 
our processes again.

Frank

At 11:21 AM 7/19/2005, Suzanne M. Gray wrote:
>So I wonder what is it that libraries are going to stop doing to invest in 
>usability testing and interface development?  Cataloging?  Reference? 
>Material Selection?
>
>It seems that a lot of this work is being done on an ad hoc basis by 
>committees.  I would be interested in learning how many libraries have 
>dedicated staff that focus on usability testing.  We do ours by committee 
>here, and most of the folks on these committees are non-tech staff. Having 
>committees do this work seems to limit the frequency and number of tests 
>that can be completed, and extends out the time that it takes to pull the 
>results together.  It seems to work fine for one-shot tests, but I think a 
>usability testing program integrated into the development process may not 
>be well served by this model.
>
>I also wonder how sustainable it is to build all our own interfaces 
>through API's.  I know that we are fortunate to have two full-time web 
>programmers here, but I am not sure to what extent we would be able to 
>build and support these interfaces, along with a content management system 
>for the rest of what we need to present to patrons.
>
>It seems that staffing models in many libraries have not yet shifted 
>enough resources toward the systems/web programming areas to accomplish 
>all the work that needs to be done to integrate and improve these systems 
>for our patrons.
>
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>Suzanne Gray
>Web Services Manager
>University Library
>University of Michigan
>sgray at umich.edu
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Frank Cervone
Assistant University Librarian for Information Technology
Northwestern University
1970 Campus Drive
Evanston, IL 60208-2300
847.491.8304