1. Website Redesign: User Testing and Web 2.0 Bennett Claire Ponsford - Digital Services Librarian Christina H. Gola - Coordinator of Undergraduate Instruction and Outreach Internet Librarian October 29, 2007 Session C104 Inspiration for Your Library Redesign

2. Why are We Redesigning?

3. Background  Main library and 6 branches, 3 catalogs, 900+ databases, all usual library services but not well integrated  Discontent expressed with current default search  Branch libraries need for their own homepages to meet special needs

4. Questions to Ask Users  How do users want to search?  What type of items are users searching for?  How do they discover new resources?  What to do with subject and class guides?  Audience and function questions  Format, location, and terminology  What Web 2.0 features do users want?

5. Methodology: Phases 1.Initial surveys 2.Discussion forums 3.Focus groups 4.Individual interviews 5.Create functional specifications 6.Task based testing of prototypes 7.Modify prototypes and re-test, etc.

6. Methodology: Recruiting  Traditional  Blanket campus emails  Advertising in student newspaper  Announcements in classes  New tools  Facebook group  Blog  Discussion forum

7. Results: First Survey  Undergraduates vs. Grad. Students/Faculty  Both primarily looking for our stuff  Searching differences  Need for information about the library  Interaction with the libraries' website  Web 2.0 issues  Limited interest in tagging  Limited faculty interest in user-generated content  Traditional preferences for communicating with the libraries

8. Results: Second Survey  Confirmed summer’s results on use of the website  Default search  Want books or everything, but last searched for articles  What to keep on home page  Emphasis on simplifying the home page  No consensus on what that means

9. Results: Bulletin Board  Intense hatred of our pop-up windows  Frustration  Want to search, click on fulltext  Not interested in all the options we give them  Confusion  Often can’t even describe where they got lost

10. Results: Focus Groups  Google Scholar  Integrate Systems (catalogs, edocs, etc)  Discovery of databases  Subject and Class Guides  Audience different than previously assumed  Interdisciplinary issues  Not a library jargon issue -- location & format issues

11. Results: Focus Groups  Need more ways to allow self-discovery and shared knowledge  Visual & “sexy” is good  Use of Web 2.0 tools  Undergrads and Humanities mentioned potential uses for Wikis  Use of RSS – glass half full or half empty?  Personalization features

12. Did 2.0 Work for Recruiting?  Email was best method  Web 2.0 tools (Facebook, blog, discussion forum) did not help much  Why?

13. Web 2.0 in Academic Libraries  How far should we go?  Academic standard vs. Web 2.0  How much education do we provide?

14. Recommendations  Help them find our stuff and then get out of the way  Reaffirmed tradition design rules  Let the user control the interface  Integrate our systems  Better personalization options  Determine user groups needs before using Web 2.0 tools on website

15. Next Steps  Undergraduate focus groups  One-on-one interviews with faculty  Revisiting information architecture  Prototype testing  Article to come

16. Questions? Bennett Ponsford – bennett.ponsford@tamu.edu Christina H. Gola – chgola@tamu.edu Thank you!