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