[Web4lib] RE: library automation vendors

Wed Jul 20 12:52:53 EDT 2005

There is a usability professionals' association described at
http://www.upassoc.org/ It sponsors an annual conference described at
http://www.upassoc.org/conferences_and_events/upa_conference/2005/index.html
 The same site lists a number of usability and design professionals at
http://www.upassoc.org/upa_projects/voting_and_usability/consultants.html

My favorite recent example of the degree to which usabilty can be
improved through better design is what happened this year to the
prescription pill bottle, as a result of the remarkable initiative of
one 29-year old graphic designer, as described in the article at
http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/health/features/11700/ 

If usability is a prerequisite to effective use, then why not include
usability testing as a mandatory requirement in every RFP?  Why not
require the successful bidder to demonstrate that it has subjected the
proposed product to usability testing with a representative group of
users and has already made any design changes dictated by the results of
that testing (or is willing to contractually commit to doing so before a
contract is signed)?  Ideally, the testing would be done by an
independent "lab" that has special expertise in this (see above).  In
the absence of doing usability testing beforehand, you will inevitably
be doing it after the system goes live, which is obviously not the best
time to be doing it.  The intent is to increase the accessibility
(including comprehensibility) of the system for all users, and to do so
from day one.  It could solve a lot of post-implementation problems for
new systems.  

Bill Sullivan

____________________________________
William Sullivan, Administrator
Connecticut Digital Library   www.iconn.org
Connecticut State Library    www.cslib.org
786 South Main Street, Middletown, CT  06457
wsullivan at cslib.org   tel:  860-344-2038 or 888-256-1222 (toll-free)

>>> "H. Frank Cervone" <f-cervone at northwestern.edu> 7/20/2005 11:45:56
AM >>>
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  

_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4lib at webjunction.org 
http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/