the usability of electronic finding aids during searches for known items

The Usability of Electronic Finding Aids during Searches for Known Items

Christopher J. PromAssistant University Archivist

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Society of American Archivists Annual MeetingAugust 22, 2003

Los Angeles, California

introduction

• development of descriptive standards– materials centric process– not inherently user centered– but lays groundwork for easy reformatting

• how to best present archival data for ease of use?

study goals (the why)

• user interactions with finding aids– looking for known collection– look for folder on a given topic

• make inferences regarding best type of designs–usability

• what is outside scope?– manuscripts only, not corporate– not a report on descriptive standards

methodology (the how), slide 2

• developed website– survey– 9 usability tasks with controlled searches– collection-level interfaces

• 11 option (links)• 3 option (search, subject browse, provenance)• 2 option (search and alpha list)• 1 option (alpha list)

– folder-level interfaces• PDF (Adobe)• non-searchable EAD w/ nav bar (Cookbook)• HTML, top table on contents• searchable EAD w/ two pop up windows

• administered both on and off site

methodology, slide 2

• during the test– used control on info searched for– system recorded answers/times– on site—post test interviews

• after the test– coded data coding– tabulated, queried and analyzed – correlated times to survey results– transcribed interviews

results, slide 1

• respondents– 89 participants; 35 on site, 54 off site– on site mostly students (77%), off site archivists

librarians (51%)– 72% claim to have use archives last year, 75% w/

electronic finding aids– experienced computer users

69% self rate as highly experienced computer users or above (“I can install software or hardware, develop web pages, use databases.”)

results, 2

• collection tasks– tasks w/ fewest search options most successful– alpha lists worked well

Percentage of Successful Searches

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

11 options vialinks

search box andlist

list only serach box andprovenance

Mean Successful Search Time

0

20

40

60

80

100

11 options vialinks

search box andlist

list only serach box andprovenance

results, 3

folder-level tasks, plotted search times*

0

100

200

300

400

500

Sec

on

ds

PDF EAD Cookbook HTML Searchable EAD

*on-site users only

survey/task correlations

• will not discuss in detail—table on handout• speed in using electronic finding aids correlates more

to computer experience than archival/library experience.

Effect of computer experience on search times

0

20

4060

80

100

All users(overall

average)

Power userwith > 100

uses

Others with >100 uses

Sec

on

ds

suggested design features, 1

(based on observations, interviews and, comments)

• factors specific to finding aids

– need complete description and context• is some info available on line for every collection?

– provide browse option alongside search boxes• people use a search box if available• . . . but actually find known items faster w/ lists

– search boxes for single finding aids• 60% try browser’s “find in page”• don’t break ability to do this w/out a search box

suggested design features, 2

• general factors

– use standard technologies and formats• PDF?• no pop ups; beware complex javascript• use standard search algorithms

– keep interfaces simple

– clear labels and layout• “Where is the label?” (e.g. box number)• “detailed description” vs “folder list”

default visited color

visual interest (could move to

right)

(hints CTRL-F will work)

to series descriptions w/ hyperlinks to folder list

linear format

moderate number of links

conclusions?

this presentation available from a link at:

http://web.library.uiuc.edu/ahx/workpap/

I would like to thank the Research and Publication Committee of the University of Illinois Library, which provided support for the completion of this

research.

Christopher J. PromAssistant University Archivist