PAC Usability at NVDPL Michael DeKoven Mgr, Systems & Technology North Vancouver District Public...

PAC Usability at NVDPL

Michael DeKovenMgr, Systems & TechnologyNorth Vancouver District Public [email protected]

Pacific NW CODI Users Group Meeting August 5, 2005

PAC Usability at NVDPL Pacific NW CODI Users Group Meeting August 5, 2005

Credit Where it is Due

Thanks to a very hard-working team of staff who did the actual work and to NVDPL’s Internet Librarian Lisa McShan who led the project.


PAC Usability at NVDPL

About NVDPL/Background

Motivation for Survey/Testing

Surveys

Testing

What we found

What we are doing about our findings

What we will do differently next time


About NVDPL (demographics)

Bedroom community of City of Vancouver

Population (projected 2004) 86,000

2/3rds live in a single family home

4/5ths own their own home

2/3rds have a college or university degree

3/4ths have English as the first language 1/5th are members of visible minorities

From 2001 Canada Census


A Bit of Background

Switched from character-based catalogue to web-based system in 2002.

Character-based catalogue had been heavily customized.

Rapid deployment with some ad hoc decisions and known problems.

Promised staff a comprehensive re-evaluation one year after switch.


A Bit of Background

Switched from character-based catalogue to web-based system in 2002.

Character-based catalogue had been heavily customize.

Rapid transition with some ad hoc decisions and known problems.

Promised staff a comprehensive re-evaluation one year after switch.


Motivation for Survey/Testing

Some decisions (like Title Keyword as the default search) controversial with some staff.

Many known problems (e.g. inconsistent limits), but unsure if we should drop the feature or devote time to fixing.

Wanted to find out actual user needs, not what we think they need.


Surveys

Three separate surveys.

In-Library Public Survey on two days.

Web-based survey for those using the catalogue outside the library.

Staff survey to provide their feedback on catalogue deficiencies.


Testing

Fifteen 1 hour sessions Participants answered pre-test questionnaire on their computer background and post-test questionnaire on their experience during the test.Participants performed 12 typical library tasksParticipants talked about what they were doing and thinking about while going through the test tasks.


Test Environment

Booked off our Public Meeting Room (quiet space away from distractions).

Facilitator led participant through the test suite (without helping) on a computer set up for the testing.

2 observers watched on a separate monitor and made notes on what they saw and what the participant said.

Observers behind screen to reduce “performance pressure” on participant.


Testing

We attempted to find a cross-section in terms of survey source (library branch and online), age, and familiarity with the catalogue.

In practice the testers were all a bit skewed towards more sophisticated computer users who were quite familiar with the catalogue.


What we found

The majority of our users found our catalogue “Easy to Use.”

The majority did simple title or author searches.

Users tended to choose a search strategy (e.g. “Title begins with…”) and stick with it even if wasn’t working very well.

Everyone had problems with Suspending Requests.

Few Patrons will ask for help.


What we found – General

Frequency of Catalogue Use

Never 10%More than

once a week 17%

Once a week 16%

Two or three times a

month 20%

About once a month

16%

Less than once a

month 21%

53% of library visitors use the catalogue (in the library) more than once a month, but 10% of library visitors never use the catalogue at all.



64% of library visitors surveyed also use the catalogue via the Internet (outside the library).

Access the Catalogue Via the Internet

Less than once a month 12%

Never 36%

More than once a week 22%

Once a week 10%

Two or three times a month

11%About once a month 9%



Among test participants, 27% only used NVDPL’s catalogue. Among the other library catalogues used regularly the most popular were North Van City Library and Vancouver Public Libraries

Patron's Use of Other Catalogues

40%

7%

20%

33%

7%

20%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

North Vancouver C

ity

Outlook (Union Catal...

West Vancouver

Vancouver Public Library

Burnaby

University of BC


What we found – Ease of Use

Between 70% and 80% of the respondents found the catalogue easy to use.

Ease of Use by Frequency of Use

707580859095

Morethan once

a week

Once aweek

Two orthree

times amonth

Aboutonce amonth

Less thanonce amonth


What we found – Ease of Use

Around 28% (average) reported having had problems at some time finding information.

Problems with Catalogue

31 26

69 74

0

20

40

60

80

100

Online In Library

No

Yes


What We Found – Ease of Use

When Patrons had a Problem Searching the Catalogue they

would:

work things out themselve

s, 60%

ask a librarian,

20%

use online help or books, 20%


What we found – Searching

Most respondents had no preference with regard to screen style (e.g. drop-down list, multiple boxes, etc.).

Screen Navigation

38%

27%

35%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

No Preference Multiple Search BoxStyle

Drop-down Menu Style



The most popular search method was by known title or author.

Search Method

63%

19%14%

4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Known Author orTitle

Subject Rough Idea Other



The ability to search by category (e.g. DVD, New Material, Best-sellers) scored as important to almost 80% of in-library users and to over 95% of online users.

96%78%

4%22%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Online In Library

No, Not Important

Yes Important



Comments indicated that people were confused (and annoyed) by too many results in Title Keyword searches.

Our testing participants favoured using the “post-search” limiting and sorting drop down menus, particularly with browsing by format.

Less than 40% of respondents ever tried using the “power” or advanced search feature, and it wasn’t used regularly by anyone.


What we found – Features

Being able to place holds is a very popular feature. All online respondents, and 2/3 of in-library respondents placed holds.

Ability to Place Requests

100%

74%

0%26%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Online In Library

No, Not Important

Yes Important



Only a small minority use “My List,” although 39% of users thought it was a useful feature to have when it was explained.

Use "My List"

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Under 13 13-17 18-34 35-49 50-64 65 +

No

Yes



Few respondents reported problems with placing requests, but in testing we saw some confusion around the “Add to My List” button and the “Place a Request” button.

Problems with Placing Requests

No, 92%

Yes, 8%


What we found – Jargon

Almost every test participant stumbled over a bit of Library jargon that they didn’t understand.

This is in spite of our attempting to avoid the use of such terms in our initial design.



Combine Keyword and Browse Searches to encourage users to try different strategies.



Encouraging Dynix to improve process for suspending requests (e.g. Show “Suspended until” date).



Patrons scroll right past this Patrons think this is

the date request will be re-activated



Address known problems that can’t be fixed in public training.


What it Cost

Video Splitter/Cable $ 70

½ of 30 Movie Tickets $150

Refreshments $ 35

Staff Time

(survey/data entry) 90 hours

(testing) 150 hours


Next Time

What we will do differently:

Try to make the surveying more iterative – survey; compile results; modify survey and survey again.


Next Time


Do iterative testing – test, make changes, test again.


Next Time


Try to find methods to recruit less computer savvy test participants.


Next Time


Do some user testing with alternative terminology.


Final Analysis

The survey and testing were incredibly valuable in providing direction for tools that will help our users help themselves and enrich their library experience.

We need to find a way to streamline this process and make it less staff-time intensive so we can more easily integrate it into other Library IT projects.


Contact Information

Michael DeKoven

[email protected]

Lisa McShane

[email protected]

www.nvdpl.ca/special/PAC_usability.ppt

PAC Usability at NVDPL Michael DeKoven Mgr, Systems & Technology North Vancouver District Public...

Documents

Transcript of PAC Usability at NVDPL Michael DeKoven Mgr, Systems & Technology North Vancouver District Public...