Date post: | 07-Jan-2017 |
Category: |
Education |
Upload: | andrew-preater |
View: | 774 times |
Download: | 0 times |
User experience at Imperiala case study of qualitative approaches to Primo usability studiesAndrew PreaterHead of Library Information Systems
@preater@imperiallibrary EPUG-UKI 2015
These slides:
x.preater.com/primoux
Slides and notes
• Two iterations of user testing
• Redesign Primo UI
• Re-launch
• Groundwork for third iteration of
testing
Summary January – September 2015
Round one: usability. January 2015
• “Discount usability testing” (Nielsen, 2009)
• Student Placement: Sherif Khedry of UCL Qatar
Round two: user experience. April-May 2015
• Primo user experience: focused, qualitative approach
• Student Placement: George Bray of UCL DIS
@NexGenGB
Usability and user experience testing
Nielsen, J. (2009) ‘Discount usability: 20 years’. Available at: http://www.nngroup.com/articles/discount-usability-20-years/
Usability round 1: results
• Library Search meets expectations
• Discovery happens elsewhere• User interface issues
User Experience testing: round 2
• 14 April planning
• 27 April UCL placement
student
• 5-8 May interviews & analysis
Research Questions: themes
• Purpose, construction, and use of search and resources
• Presentation of information: what matters to the user when selecting the right results?
• Grounded theory approach
• Coding of qualitative audiovisual data from:
1. Interviews2. Card sorting
Grounded theory as a UX method
• Acknowledge & work with our subjectivity as researchers
• Create abstract understanding from observing users
• Support a critical approach to library systems praxis
Constructivist grounded theory
Charmaz, K. (2014) Constructing grounded theory. 2nd edn. London: Sage
[edited]
[This slide originally showed a screenshot showing how we record video of the user and their screen]
Questions for open coding“What is this data a study of?What do the data suggest?
Pronounce? Leave unsaid?From whose point of view?What theoretical category does this
specific [data] indicate?”
Questions to inform initial / open coding quoted from Charmaz (2014) p.116.Charmaz, K. (2014) Constructing grounded theory. 2nd edn. London: Sage
“What can it look like?”authority provides filtering techniqueage of journal is part of authoritycontext sensitivity of search: importance of age of material “depends on what you are doing
with it”human skill in judgement: “it is about your own judgement and experience”importance of recommendations from peers and seniorsaccumulation of small things peers say is importantlibrary is not a starting point for general infoproblem with our methodology: interviewee does not seem to want use Primo for thisgoogle is a starting pointguessing textbook names, there is often a textbook called the name of the discipline.use of location facetcampus as a factor “I want to stay in the Central Library”use of material facettitle: looks at titles first to judgeskimming through titles to see what is thereassessing if something is beginner-leveluncertainly: knowing i am not an expert
Questions for focused coding
Which work better overall as categories?Which give a better direction in developing
an overall theory from the data?How might you create a theoretical
framework about discovery user experience to help inform changes to the system? Which codes fit the data “snugly” & help you to do this?
Focused coding approach based on chapter 6 of Charmaz (2014) pp.138-161.Charmaz, K. (2014) Constructing grounded theory. 2nd edn. London: Sage
Results: main themes
• Searching should be as fast as possible
• Searching should be painless
• Information is prioritised in selecting results
Redesign timeline
• July Complete redesign work on
sandbox
• 3 August acceptance testing
• 6 August cut over
• 6 August onward “many eyes” help
us find & fix bugs and issues
Tweaking language, removing jargon
• E-Shelf “Favourites”
• Advanced Search “More search
options”
• “Expand my results”
• Imperial house style changes
• Changes in scope and schedule
• Advanced Search
• A-to-Z dilemma
• Prioritising search results
• Inconsistent metadata
Key issues after cutover
• Involve staff early in UX Project
• Staff development
• Acceptance testing adds value
• Going live != success
• Be prepare to justify design decisions
• Open communication
Summary lessons
[edited]
[This slide originally showed a screenshot of our Primo relaunch Trello board with current issues]
• Quantitative surveying
• “IOUX” UX investigation with
Bodleian Libraries. Focus on
PGT medics & NHS users
Round 2 ½ and Round 3 UX work
Charmaz, K. (2014) Constructing grounded theory. 2nd edn. London: Sage
Connaway, L.S., White, D., Lanclos, D., and Le Cornu, A. (2013) 'Visitors and residents: what
motivates engagement with the digital information environment?', Information Research, 18
(1), March. Available at: http://www.informationr.net/ir/18-1/paper556.html
Glaser, B.G. & Strass, A.L. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: de Gruyter
Nielsen, J. (2009) ‘Discount usability: 20 years’. Available at:
http://www.nngroup.com/articles/discount-usability-20-years/
Pickard, A.J. (2004) Research methods in information. 2nd edn. London: Facet
Preater, A.J. (2015) ‘UX for the win! at #CityMash’, Ginformation Systems, 11 June. Available at:
http://x.preater.com/uxftw
Stohn, C. (2015) ‘How do users search and discover?’. Available at: http://
www.exlibrisgroup.com/category/UserStudiesWhitePaper
Select bibliography