Presentation on theme: "Phyllis Kaiden Product Manager OCLC Digital Collection Services A new look for CONTENTdm: A User-centered design approach Western CONTENTdm Users Meeting."— Presentation transcript:
Phyllis Kaiden Product Manager OCLC Digital Collection Services A new look for CONTENTdm: A User-centered design approach Western CONTENTdm Users Meeting 3 June 2010
End-User Experience Redesign Goals Ensure the new interface supports the end-user 1.Provides access to unique digital materials 2.Is intuitive, accessible, and supports end-users in their research goals 3.Is modern and familiar, and meets end-user expectations 4.Is fun, dynamic, and provides opportunity for discovery Provide simpler ways to configure and customize 1.Easier to apply a branded look & feel 2.Easier to maintain customizations
Who are the end-users of CONTENTdm? As indicated by our user community, the top end- users groups of CONTENTdm include: Students (78%) General researchers (75.3%) Library Staff (72%) Historians (70.9%) Faculty (59.3%) Community members (58%) September 2009: Demographic survey with 225 respondents to SurveyMonkey survey sent to CONTENTdm Listserv
Putting the user back in User Interface An ideal user experience must meet the needs of the user, without fuss or bother User experience is about feelings; to create satisfaction. You want people to feel satisfied before, during, and after they have used your product Make it easy for users to do what they want or need to do Susan UNIVERSITY FACULTY Bob CASUAL BROWSER
What is User Centered Design? How the OCLC team is using the User Centered Design approach Collecting feedback Best practice analysis Current collection analysis Personas Interaction mapping Sitemaps User stories Wireframes Surveys Focus Groups Task Walkthroughs Usability Studies Colors Fonts Design elements Image treatments Buttons DiscoveryInteraction Design Usability Visual Design DESIGN DEV DESIGN DEV
Research & Discovery Extensive research and information gathering effort helped to define: 1)what we’re designing, and 2)who we’re designing it for Interviews with current users to collect feedback Demographic surveys Assessment of search and discovery interfaces Researched popular media-delivery websites Evaluation of current CONTENTdm collections
Collecting feedback Interviews with 12 digital librarians and developers helped validate redesign goals, confirm current challenges, and inform personas All interviewees were in unanimous agreement Current customization methods are too technical, time- consuming and not easily upgradable A simpler and more flexible end-user experience is desired End-users find image viewer “clunky,” antiquated, and not intuitive
Assessment of other solutions and providers Key findings Because of the popularity of Web 2.0 solutions, interfaces are forward-thinking, dynamic, and communicative. Users expect this behavior. Need to make all media and document types available to end-users in a thoughtful, seamless manner End-users expect discovery and exploration – need easy access to the breadth of an institution’s collections
Personas From research and feedback gathered, compile an exhaustive list of end-users Academic Librarian Public Librarian Historical Society Museum Exhibit Journalist Photo Editor Grad Student MLIS General Public 3 rd Party Vendor Service Bureau Work Study Student Hobbyist Historian Archivist
Personas Distill this list down into key personas “University Faculty” Teacher’s Assistant Professor Grad Student
Personas Putting a face and a name to the unique goals Susan UNIVERSITY FACULTY “I’m working on my book this year and it’s also the first time I’ll be teaching. I want to make sure I’m meeting expectations. I need access to resources that will help with my research, as well as to plan my curriculum and lectures.” Bob CASUAL BROWSER “I’m a huge history buff. Lately I’ve been collecting research on the infrastructure of cities like Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, and Las Vegas. I can look online for photos, maps, and old newspapers rather than digging through books and microfilm at the library.”
Evaluating current functionality Users should be presented with interfaces that help them accomplish their goals regardless of their search method. ? “That’s cool – I can refine to just image files.” “I’m just browsing around in here … I wish there was a way I could only see images.” Current CONTENTdm Web templates
Personas Keep these users in mind throughout the entire process
Interaction maps Personas’ unique roles and goals help to define how they will uniquely interact with the system and move through the site Establish a direction and start critical thinking about key interactions and functionality Begin to define the “pages, pieces and parts” that will need to be available for users accomplishing their goals
Defining the interactions Using personas, begin to see different approaches to the same digital collection Susan Bob “I want to find something very specific for my research paper.” “I’m interested in architecture, I want to discover what’s available to me here.”
Writing user stories Coming up with solutions to help all users, regardless of their initial approach, to find, refine, and discover. “I want to see related digital items.” “I want to add a collection to my search, and have the results load instantly.” “I want the image to load quickly and smoothly, like Google maps.” “I want to zoom in and out by using the scroll wheel of my mouse.”
Wireframes—form follows function Using a black and white line art style, begin to imagine how specific functionality might work Wireframes
How do we know we’re on the right track? Giving real-life audiences exposure to preliminary interfaces in order to address usability issues early on, before code is developed Check in with users early and often! Surveys & Interviews: “Who? What? Why?” Focus Groups: “What do you think of this?” Ad-hoc walkthroughs: “Okay then, what about this?” Usability Studies: “Please do this task.”
July 2009: “Pluralistic Review” (User-Centered Walkthrough, Storyboarding) & Focus Group Held at ALA Conference in Chicago 16 College & University students, 5 College & University librarians; groups of 5-7, working on paper independently In general, participants were satisfied with the redesigned interface Those who had experience with CONTENTdm also indicated it felt familiar, yet improved Learned that some of our initial assumptions were incorrect
Wireframe shown in focus group “There is lots of space taken up with information I don’t need.” “I just want to zoom and pan.” “I can get more information if I want it. This doesn’t need to be here.”
“My Favorites” Wireframe shown in focus group “WAY too much organization put on the part of the user. Notes, folder descriptions, manage folders. I’m not going to care that much about this stuff.” “I wouldn’t use this. I’d just want to download or print from my results.”
July 2009: Pluralistic Review & Focus Group Initial Assumptions Challenged Feedback from CONTENTdm users suggested that metadata was very important and needed to be prominently displayed Finding – End-users desire instant gratification: the “big beautiful image,” right off the bat, is critical Feedback from CONTENTdm users indicated that current My Favorites functionality was too limited Finding – Favorites not widely used by end-users; most said they would never use this type of functionality
Iterate through: revise the wireframes… Using the feedback received in the focus groups, wireframes were revised and iterated Immediate access to the “big, beautiful image” Compound Object interface reworked My Favorites…what to do?
September 2009 - Demographic Survey SurveyMonkey survey sent to CONTENTdm Listserv also helped to validate our direction 225 CONTENTdm users responded Majority of respondents belong to academic libraries (60%) Top 5 end-users: Students, general researchers, library staff, historians, faculty 71% have 15 collections or fewer 15% have 16-30 11% have 31-100 3% have over 100
September 2009 – revisiting assumptions about My Favorites Because of conflicting findings about My Favorites, SurveyMonkey questions were put to the survey group What is real need and use of My Favorites within CONTENTdm user community? New assumptions based on Focus Group: “My Favorites” not widely used by end-users Enhanced My Favorites not desired by end-users
September 2009 – My Favorites Findings Findings 75% of CONTENTdm users are unsure if end-users utilize Favorites 28% of CONTENTdm users are satisfied with current My Favorites 54% are neutral in their satisfaction level 18% are currently dissatisfied with Favorites. Those that were indicated that this would be useful if redesigned to support faculty and teaching efforts Result make printing, downloading easy for end-users. Consider a more robust My Favorites as an optional add on for organizations supporting faculty and teaching efforts
Validate Again – November 2009: Online Usability Study Usabilla Task walkthrough with accompanying survey based on revised wireframes Online nature allowed participants to complete at their convenience, within one week’s time 20 respondents were end-users (Professors, Graduate/Doctorate students, Researchers) 23 respondents were CONTENTdm librarian users (Digital librarians, Web developers, IT/Systems staff, Collection configuration) Ad-hoc general users (history buffs, etc.)
Wireframe revisions, based on feedback “Clear, big, zoomable image, great!” “I’d love to use this interface to search through a real collection!”
Interface changes validated as improved Users are able to accomplish tasks, based on revisions to wireframes Zooming & panning Downloading & printing Accessing item details
Goal-oriented functionality validated “I always like to know where I am.” “I would be inclined to scan the images first, so this feature [quick view] strikes me as vital -- it enhances the image and gives me the relative metadata.”
Complex, yet intuitive Compound Object revisions successfully improve users’ ability to understand and navigate around the complex item type “Table of contents is nice, and relevant to the item, with an option to view the thumbnails instead of the titles.”
Interface Changes Validated! 99% of all participants were able to successfully perform the tasks assigned to them 99.7% of tasks were completed successfully 94.4% of researchers indicated that it was either “extremely easy” or “easy” for them to perform assigned tasks 94.4% of the researchers said the interface exceeded or met expectations
Revised interface meets expectations “This new interface looks fantastic. When will it be available? It really incorporates just about everything I could want in CONTENTdm!” - Librarian “The layout is more modern and I think the organization will be more rational.” - Librarian “It seems familiar and easy to navigate. It looks like most other search websites. It’s what I’d expect to find while working on a report.” - Researcher
Revised again: helpful feedback immediately incorporated into wireframes Terminology clarifications Clearer iconography Easier access to search results More prominence placed on download and print Screens from November study
Iterate for better usability Ongoing Designer/Developer collaboration to ensure what’s being built aligns with users’ goals Applying a visual layer (pixels, fonts, button style, etc) Additional check-ins with end-users throughout the project
The user-centered design tradeoffs What your departments or partners are asking for may conflict with your users’ needs Be the advocate for your patrons & users Need to strike a balance between presenting a best user experience for end-users vs. needs of institution to present material in a completely customized style We want to make this highly customizable & configurable, but ensure that the carefully designed User Experience is preserved
Why is user-centered design important? With this approach you never forget the user and what they need End-user needs are more likely to be met End-users will be able to more easily discover and use your unique digital assets End-users will be more likely to return and share Your collections will be more accessible and useful You meet your end-users needs
Next stage in the Redesign—your turn The end-user experience redesign “Sandbox” was announced in April 2010 Sandbox allows you To see an early prototype of the new end-user interface and follow development progress To see mockups of work that is in development An opportunity to try the interface and give us feedback while it is in development
Accessing the Sandbox Login to the USC. The blog has articles about the Sandbox. Click on the link to the Sandbox. Provide feedback in USC Sandbox forum. What’s in the Sandbox now? Early prototype (ALA MW) of image viewer using small collection of single images. (Apr 30) Mockups of image views, with and without text. (May 21) What’s next in the Sandbox? Update with more functionality as ready, still using our collection. Announce in USC What’s New blog. Continue to add functionality and announce.
Sandbox collections: “Your Images Here” When functionality is robust enough to handle real collections, we will ask users to volunteer their (at first) image collections. Public? Unrestricted? Good match for the functionality being demonstrated? Depending on the number of volunteers, sizes of collections, and space available in the sandbox, we will have collections for viewing using the new end-user interfaces.
How you can be involved Watch for Sandbox announcements Test, observe, provide feedback in USC forum Join us at ALA Annual in DC for an update! Attend post-ALA webinar
Past, Present, Future – Content, for the User As your digital library programs have grown, so have your needs for tools. As your users’ expectations have grown, so have their needs for an effective experience. As user experiences evolve, so will CONTENTdm.
Upcoming CONTENTdm Releases Summer 2010 – CONTENTdm 5.4 Summer 2010 – Flex Loader By end of 2010 – End-User Experience Redesign
CONTENTdm 5.4 – Summer 2010 Upload Manager enhancements Improvements to reduce “hanging” – no need to click Resume Options to cancel upload, remove an item from queue More granular progress per item and persistent history Compound Object editing enhancements View and edit all pages in a spreadsheet Find 5.0 Better efficiency with partitioning of large indexes Improved normalization for languages Bug Fixes
Flex Loader – Summer 2010 1.Free desktop tool available upon request to any CONTENTdm license holder 2.Supports import of the following XML file formats: iArchives METS/ALTO, CCS METS/ALTO and CCS METS/ALTOe 3.Ideal for users needing to import large quantities of METS/ALTO newspapers to a collection; supports annual NDNP grantees 4.Supports newspaper article segmentation; Support for article level searching will be added by end of 2010. 5.Pilot in progress: U of Utah, Ohio Historical Society, Memorial U, State Historical Society of Missouri, Arizona State Library John Herbert, U of Utah, presents Flex Loader at 2:15 today!
Upcoming CONTENTdm Releases Summer 2010 – CONTENTdm 5.4 Summer 2010 – Flex Loader By end of 2010 – End-User Experience Redesign
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.