© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC Building a Faceted Classification IA Summit Redux - San Francisco Fred Leise, Sarah A. Rice, Amy J. Warner

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC The Project Global chemical company Customer-facing web site redesign Client had completed extensive user research on audience segments, task analysis Client determined they needed a faceted classification for information access by disparate audience segments

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC The 3 Librarians Fred Leise ContextualAnalysis, LLC; IA with specialty in metadata and controlled vocabularies, faceted classifications Amy J. Warner lexonomy.com; IA with specialty in metadata and controlled vocabularies; former academic at UM-SI Sarah A. Rice Seneb Consulting; IA with specialty in user research, metadata/CV development.

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC Project Team Client Team Key stakeholder as project manager Stakeholder from IT Stakeholder from KM group/subject expert Geographically Distributed UK Midwest California

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC How We Were Chosen Separately contacted Proposal costs differed significantly Client asked for onsite meeting to ensure common understanding After half day, client asked us to work together, to take advantage of our differing areas of expertise We agreed to form a team Submitted a single, unified proposal that client approved

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC Our Engagement with Client Adaptive Path (AP) previous research Mental model for website users Content audit to identify specific content types and basic content organization Audience analysis Prototype wireframes

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC Our Engagement with Client We were asked to: Build upon AP research Develop a content model (metadata schema) and appropriate controlled vocabularies (CVs) Include multiple sessions of user research Offer solutions for global website to be implemented in four different languages

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC Our Engagement with Client Reporting Weekly conference calls among librarians Weekly conference calls with full client team Written reports on important findings Regular project plan updates and task tracking

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC Methodology: Overview

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC What We Wanted Understand mental model Clarify roles of different audience segments Identify audiences relevant for user research Identify where in mental model information- seeking behavior occurred Understand current website content supporting information-seeking behavior Mental Model/Audience Analysis

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC Mental Model/Audience Analysis What We Did Review of mental model diagram Collaborative analysis discussions Discussions with AP project manager

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC Mental Model/Audience Analysis What We Found Different user segments used the web site differently, had different information needs Segment 1 developed new products and looked for new ideas Segment 2 identified and procured products Segment 3 used products

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC Methodology: Overview

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC In-Depth Interviews What We Wanted Discover user’s information-seeking behavior –When did they look for information? –Where did they look? –What did they look for? –When did they stop looking? –Did different cultures have different information-seeking behavior?

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC In-Depth Interviews What We Did One-hour phone interviews Two team participants Taped conversations, made simultaneous transcriptions Studied and analyzed transcripts

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC In-Depth Interviews What We Found How users searched (potential facets) Search terminology (potential vocabulary terms) No cultural differences Differing audience segments had different information needs

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC Methodology: Overview

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC Content Analysis What We Wanted What facets are in current content? What We Did Gathered content types Performed detailed analysis Identified possible facets What We Found Multiple facets having significant overlap with facets from user research

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC Preliminary Facet List What We Did Developed exhaustive facet list Prioritized list Developed list of facets to be develop, those to be developed later Identified facet characteristics Identified appropriate facets for testing

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC FACET NAMEDEFINITION VOCAB. TYPE OPEN/ CLOSED REPEAT- ABLE?REQUIRED? MANUAL/ AUTO. TAGGING?SOURCE Author The name of the person or persons that produced the document.flat list OpenYes ManualAuthor Country The places where products are sold and used.HierarchyClosedYes ManualAuthor Document Type Language Product Name Subject Target Audience Document Title

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC Methodology: Overview

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC Open Card Sorting What We Wanted Validate preliminary facet list Identify any unclear facets Identify any possible missing facets

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC Open Card Sorting What We Did Client identified and scheduled users ed users instructions and terms 24 hours in advance Conducted test via conference call and WebEx Used two team members for each call Analyzed card sort results –Top-down cluster analysis by hand –Bottom-up term co-occurrence analysis by hand –Dendrite diagram analysis using EZSort

Dendrite Diagram Term 1 Term 2 Term 3 Term 4 Term 5 Term 6 Term 7 Term 8 Term 9 Term 10 Term 11 Term 12 Term 13 Term 14 Term 15 Term 16 Term 17 Term 18 Term 19 Term 20 Term 21 Term 22 Term 23 Term 24 Term 25 Term 26 Term 27 Term 28

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC Open Card Sorting What We Found Several facets not easily distinguished, needed to be combined Audience role did not affect results In general, facet model was on target

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC Methodology: Overview

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC Gather Terms What We Wanted Develop complete CVs for all appropriate facets

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC Gather Terms What We Did Gathered terms from: –user interviews –client’s existing term lists –client’s website –competitors’ websites Identified CVs needing client input

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC Gather Terms What We Found Many CVs were completed relatively easily A few CVs needed extensive development One large CV could only be completed by client

Country Africa.Algeria (People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria) (DZA).Angola (Republic of Angola) (AGO).Belize (BLZ).... Americas.Argentina (Argentine Republic) (ARG).Aruba (ABW).Bahamas (Commonwealth of the Bahamas) (BHS).... Asia.Australia (Commonwealth of Australia) (AUS).Azerbaijan (Azerbaijani Republic) (AZE).Bangladesh (People’s Republic of Bangladesh) (BGD).... Europe.Albania (Republic of Albania) (ALB).Andorra (Principality of Andorra) (AND).….Bosnia-Herzegovina (Bosnia and Herzegovina) (Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina) (BIH)

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC Methodology: Overview

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC Closed Card Sorting What We Wanted Validate facet labels Validate assignment of terms to main facets

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC Closed Card Sorting What We Did Client identified and scheduled users for testing ed users instructions and term list 24 hours in advance Conducted test via conference call and WebEx Used two team participants

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC Closed Card Sorting What We Did Analyzed results using: –Top-down cluster analysis by hand –Bottom-up term co-occurrence analysis by hand –Dendrite diagrams produced by EZSort Reviewed preferences for facet labels

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC Closed Card Sorting What We Found Users understood facet labels and could sort terms accordingly A few facet labels needed to be revised

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC Recommendations for Implementation What We Want Understand how faceted classification will be used in browsing Understand how faceted classification will be used in searching Develop maintenance plan for CVs What We Did Presented findings, CVs and wireframes to various stakeholder groups within company Developed list of best practices for implementation and maintenance Suggested high level roadmap for implementation, to start immediately Provided recommendations for tool selection, including criteria for use and experience with various tools.

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC Major Findings Audience type makes a difference in which facets they choose to use to search for information No cultural differences in classifying and labeling terms, at least in this application Users’ facet labels differed but meaning of labels tended to be the same

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC Lessons Learned Need to begin recruiting for testing well in advance Pretesting important User testing took two weeks rather than one because of scheduling complexities Having multiple team members enhanced overall results Cooperative client ensured project success

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC Deliverables List Initial presentation to client’s core audience (about 40 individuals) Screeners and questionnaires for all user testing sessions User research report User interview transcripts

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC Deliverables List Content analysis spreadsheet Content model testing report Preliminary and revised facet list Controlled vocabularies spreadsheet Final report and presentations Project tracking spreadsheet

© 2005, ContextualAnalysis, LLC Contact Information Fred Leise Amy J. Warner Sarah A. Rice