Primo Usability:What Texas Tech Discovered When Implementing Primo

Lynne EdgarTexas Tech University Librarieslynne.edgar@ttu.eduhttp://onesearch.lib.ttu.edu/

ELUNA 2013

Purpose: to evaluate how well the OneSearch interface serves library patrons and identify ways it can be improved before it replaces the traditional library catalog

Evaluators: Texas Tech University Libraries Usability Task Force

Planning

Tasks Script Consent form Institutional Review Board Approval Pre-testing University-wide announcement for participation

Tasks

Find a book Find an e-book Find a database Find an article Find a digital collection Find a thesis/dissertation Find an image

Usability Methods Employed

Task observation: Morae software 1 laptop with Morae Recorder to capture video and audio and

Morae Manager for tagging 1 laptop with Morae Observer to observe the video and audio in

real time OneSearch Survey: conducted with Counting Opinions InformsUs

software

Methodology

One user at a time Test with one facilitator Use Retrospective Recall Demographic Pre-survey Post survey: System Usability Scale

Participants

8 students, based on their demographic profile, experience with existing library search tools and their status (undergraduates, graduate) 3 experts 3 intermediates 2 novices

Incentives

Pizza and sodas!

Results of the Study√ The novice users had the most success.

√ Intermediate users made tasks more difficult by performing more complex searches.

√ Experienced users looked at the dropdown limiters for each task.

System Usability Scale (SUS)

Problems Identified Databases A-Z link not visible Dropdown limiters misleading Articles by subject tab not visible

A-Z link needs to be changed to E-Journals A-Z

Additional Problems

Scopes need to be changed to something intuitive

OneSearch logo overlapping links

Primo Survey Results: Did you find what you were looking for?

Changes to Primo

Obstacles

Institutional Review Board Approval Budget: $0 Recruitment Implementing usability findings

Lessons Learned

Expect delays Term ‘usability’ often misunderstood Implementing changes may be difficult Show results instead of telling implementers

what changes should be made Do small usability tests and change a few small

things at a time

Conclusions

The OneSearch study and online survey results were positive, overall.

Problems identified were mainly cosmetic and inconsistent and can readily be fixed.

Functionality issues are separate and can be addressed by altering or removing the function.

References

Clark, Melanie, Esther De Leon, Lynne Edgar, Joy Perrin (2011). Primo “OneSearch” usability report. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University.

Clark, Melanie, Esther De Leon, Lynne Edgar, Joy Perrin (2012). Library usability: tools for usability testing in the library. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University.

Clark, Melanie, Esther De Leon, Lynne Edgar, Joy Perrin (2012). Library usability: tools for usability testing in the library (presentation). , Texas Library Association Conference, Houston, TX, April 19, 2012.

Krug, Steve. (2006). Don’t make me think! A common sense approach to web usability, Second Edition. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.

Sauro, Jeff. (February 2, 2011). Measuring usability with the system usability scale (SUS). Retrieved February 22, 2012 from http://www.measuringusability.com/sus.php

Schmidt, Aaron, Etches-Johnson, Amanda. (January 25, 2012). 10 steps to a user-friendly library website. Retrieved January 25, 2012, from https://alapublishing.webex.com

Still, Brian. (2010). A study guide for the certified user experience professional (CUEP) workshop [study guide]. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University.

Lynne EdgarSystems Librarian

Texas Tech University Librarieslynne.edgar@ttu.edu

http://onesearch.lib.ttu.edu/

Thank You!