I'm very interested in the discussion and debates about how end-users access information via the web and digital libraries, as you may have guessed by my discussions on similar subjects in previous posts. With that being said I have to admit that I found all three of these readings rather dry.
Arms provides such a broad look into user interfaces that it's hard to get a detailed grasp of usability and it's importance. I think Arms' most important and relevant point is actually the one he makes in the very beginning of chapter 8, stating that usability is based upon the whole system working together smoothly and appropriately. Without a seamless system, it is kind of impossible for users to really get an idea of what they should expect from their digital library.
Accessing different page numbers using structural metadata is something I never really considered to be a "big deal" aspect of a digital library. But in fact, Arms points out that these small details are essential for seamless operation.
It's interesting that Arms talks about DLITE and CORBA, considering we use the DLITE interface for class lectures from the past. (And I do not think it is particularly easy to use...). These programs tie into interface design and the ways in which designing interfaces can be functional and easy for users or hard for users to "get".
Rob Kling and Margaret Elliott spoke to me a little more than Arms, although after finishing their article I still do not feel like I am fully grasping the ideas and concepts of usability and how it will affect the way I create a digital library (software-wise). "Design for usability", as Kling and Elliott propose is the new way to design digital libraries. Interface usability and organizational usability are apparently two different things, according to these authors. But why? In my humble opinion it seems that learnability, efficiency, memorability, and errors are all aspects of both interface usability and organizational usability.
Also, Kling and Elliott point out that a vast digital library could lead users to dread using it because there are too many results and it's hard to narrow down results to those that the user actually wants. This leads back to to Arms' point about seamless organization in a digital library. If the digital library that Kling and Elliott refer to, Gopher, was created in a most organized and accessible (aka seamless) manner, then the size of the library should not be daunting to the user. After all, the user has no idea how big it is- it is digital. They are not walking into a monstrous hall of a building and looking at vast rows and rows of books. All the user need do is enter their search terms and rely on the DL to pull the items they need. Sounds easy..... maybe too easy to be true.
I'm so glad that Tefko Saracevic decided to write about evaluation of digital libraries. While his writing was not necessarily the most conducive to my full understanding of the article...it was more of a challenge to understand how Saracevic described evaluation than his meanings behind the article. He mainly describes how digital libraries have been evaluated by subject in the beginning of his article. This is not important for me to know, is it? Afterall, the only thing I truly learned from the beginning of this article is that digital libraries that have been created by universities or museums, etc., have been exempt from this evaluation process for far too long.
Interesting fact: both system-centered approach to evaluation and human-centered approach to evaluation are based on finding results for users.
The criteria for evaluation is as follows:
- content
- process
- format
- overall assessment
- technology performance
- process/algorithm performance
- overall system
Saracevic writes some thoughts on why digital library evaluation is not more widespread, and I have to say that I agree with his reasonings on most points. The premature nature of digital libraries is obviously a large reason why they have not been evaluated so extensively yet. Also, who is to say that creators want their digital libraries to be evaluated by outside sources? If it is a small college DL that is providing information merely for it's own small group of users then they may not necessarily have any interest in the evaluation from someone who is not a member of the user group.
Obviously all of these evaluation and usability studies show that DLs have a long way to go before they will be considered to have main standards for input, upkeep, and evaluation.
Muddiest Points
Since we did not have class last week I just have a refresher for my muddiest point. I am wondering how many blog postings we need to do total for the semester.
No comments:
Post a Comment