Team JSTOR/Group 1:

Morgan Burton Isabela Carvalho Stan (Tze-Hsiang) Lin Leo (Lei) Shi

Data for Research (DfR) for JSTOR

Introduction to DfR

System that includes metadata, information visualization, and

article retrieval for JSTOR articles

JSTOR is a major database of scholarly articles

Provides “facets” or “selectors” that allow the user to filter their search

based on specific elements such as journal, author, and discipline

Provides graphs that update dynamically based on search query

User base:

User might be a researcher such as a doctoral student in linguistics, or a

more casual researcher interested in comparing trends across disciplines

(not exhaustive)

MethodsInteraction map

Provides a map of the sections of the site

Personas and ScenariosA glimpse at what the typical user and situation might be for the system

5 Interviews conducted on potential usersComparative Analysis

We assessed several competitive systems including Google Scholar and NINES

SurveyWe surveyed over 20 target users

Heuristic EvaluationAn evaluation of general usability principles

Usability Testing of 5 target users

Chart for interaction map

RefinedData Set

WholeData SetOf DfR

Narrowing Down by USER

Diff. Views: Charts, GraphResults ListKeyterm Cloud

Finding: The overall purpose of DfR is clear to users at first glance – prior to interacting with the system

Usability testing result: we tested prior finding from heuristic analysis that purpose of site might be unclear at first glanceWe asked users to fill out pre-task assessments where we asked them to answer questions about their expectation of the system

Form asked users about what their general idea of the site was

Result: User expectation matched what site was about and accurately inferred relationship to JSTOR

Evidence and recommendation

Some answers provided by users:

“The statistics about the publications, categorized by publication year, discipline.”

“I think it's a site that gives information about articles published on certain topics.”

“Searching for scholarly articles by date and discipline/area.”

“This is a websites showing some statistics about paper publications and properties in JSTOR.”

Recommendation: (contrary to prior finding) do not include an explanatory sentence on the main page about DfR

Users have a good sense of what DfR is and what its relationship to JSTOR is

6

Finding: lack of visual indication of interrelationship between search and select features   ’Results list’, ‘key term’, and ‘references profile’ features are tightly linked to the main search

Current layout does not give an indication that ‘results list’,

‘key term’, and ‘reference profile’ are not separate content, but

are about the search query done on the main page

There is a hierarchy

Evidence: usability test

Some users did not understand that under the article list they would see

the results of the search done on the main page

Comparison of versions

Current Version

Previous Version

Location indicates incorrect hierarchy

Appearance of being in the same frame indicates closer relationship

Older version took advantage of proximity

Recommendation Move search bar to a higher level in order to indicate the hierarch between search and given search elements: the given elements are under the search level

Have the links placed under the search bar, inside the grey box.

• Cognitive model & usability- Designer v. User

• “It’s like Google Scholar”

• Instances of expectations v. reality using Data for Research- Search- Key Terms

Finding: The cognitive model of users and design of DfR are divergent.

• The way people think for the purposes of comprehension and prediction

• Significance: for people to understand how to use the Data for Research tool, designers must understand the way they already think

• Usability: After purpose, there must be positive interaction in function for repeat use

Cognitive Model: Defined

“It’s like Google Scholar” (but it isn’t!)

RefinedData Set

#1

WholeData SetOf DfR

Search #1

WholeData Set

RefinedData Set

#2

Search #2 IF NOT “Clear All”

Search in DfR

Other Database Search

RefinedData Set

#1

RefinedData Set

#2

Search #2

Search #1

Instance: Search aggregation - search terms accumulate, rather than reset on new search(EXCEPT WHEN going directly to index)

Instance: Keyword searching + blank spaces

- all produce DIFFERENT search results - punctuations have different treatment in the DfR interface

Recommendations

• Search aggregation:

• Clearer path for new search vs. adjusting current search (“New Search” button)

• Keyword punctuation:

• Choose & specify one punctuation as AND operator

• Clarify how search results are accumulated (using all terms? listing by articles and journals with higher frequency?)

• Search record is crucial to researchers - must keep track of information they gather

• Duplication of search in results view indicates system action to users

• Instances

• After-search feedback

• Facets/Selectors

Finding: A lack of DfR system feedback left searches with unclear meanings.

Lack of system feedback before and after making a search

- No tracking or matching of search terms No indication that anything has happened! - Selection criteria box is not prominent enough to notice

Facets/SelectorsNew version:

Not intuitive that the NAMES are links

Further, cannot determine what they are doing to the results(start with selection ALL included?)

Older version:

Check and “X” boxes

Much clearer• intuitive as to what is happening when “checking” (adding) or “X”-ing (subtracting) aspect of information

Recommendations• Search Feedback:

• Additional feedback after search that indicates search has been performed

• Google Scholar model: redundancy WORKS!

• Header renaming to “Search Results”

• Facet/Selector Appearance:

• Reinstate the "X" function for all selectors (option to eliminate from results or from search entirely)

• Reinstate "checkmark" function for facets that have been eliminated or are not included in the results.  

Summary

• For (finding 1)...for marketing purposes, a description of DfR is NOT needed on the main page - it’s intuitive to users!

• For (finding 2)...take advantage of X to Y. <-- not sure what to put here.

• For (finding 3)...similar cognitive models will lead to positive interactions between the system and new users.

• For (finding 4)...clear feedback leads to discernible meaning of search results.