TableOfContents([2])

Overview of methodology

Phase 1: May 2008

The objective of this phase of the user testing process was to gain feedback on the design of the site from close project collaborators. The rationale being to create a list of requirements that can be fed into the next phase of the website development, and be implemented before the stakeholder meeting in June 2008.

The methodology involved using a survey tool to guide participants through six scenarios that focused on the core functionality offered by the WW1 website. Participants were asked to use a project laptop to step through the survey with two researchers. Researcher-1 supported the participant and encouraged them to 'think aloud' while they undertook the tasks outlined in the scenarios. Researcher-2 took notes on the interview by added notes into a separate survey in parallel. Researcher-1 reminded the participant of the things they'd said while undertaking the scenario activities so that they could put comments into the survey.

Researcher-2 also made video capture of the laptop screen used by the participant. This is valuable as it shows the participants mouse movements. Processing this form of data can be laborious but it is recommended that the video files for the advanced search scenario be used to re-factor the user interface.The results from this process are described below, the outcome of this process is a set of requirement statements that can be fed into further development work.

• The survey questions can be downloaded here: [attachment:WW1SurveyApril_2008.pdf WW1SurveyApril 2008.pdf]

• The notes taken during the scenario activities are here: attachment:WW1-FeedbackMay2008.xls

Findings: Phase 1

First impressions

Q4. Please rate the system in terms of how visually appealing you find the design. attachment:Q4b.jpeg

Requirements

Generally initial impressions of the site were reported as being satisfactory. It is recognised however that the site is not finished and many of the comments relate to developments that are already planned e.g. text that explains what the website is about. The following requirements are worth consideration however:

• (1) The web site banner is prominent on all screens and takes up a large proportion of space but does not clearly describe what the website is about. It is recommended that the banner be made smaller, and more simple with fewer images and text that states clearly what the website can be used for.

• (2) The site needs to make it as easy as possible for users to find the most useful tools. For instance, the search box is likely to be the first port of call for many users yet it is hidden in the banner. Other users will turn straight to browsing yet their are currently no collections. For researchers the killer function is the compare manuscripts facility yet this is hidden in favourites. On the other hand the site emphasizes advanced search in the side bar but this is likely to used much less frequently (also most search engines put 'Advanced search' links next to search e.g. see Google. Similarly while participants thought 'browse by date' was a useful tool it is debatable whether this should be so prominent. In summary the requirement is for the team to create some use case processes for different types of user e.g. researcher, teacher, enthusiast, journalist, student, then map out the process by which they will use the site (a) on first encounter (b) to complete the core tasks that this type of user would undertake. This will help create the right emphasis in terms of site functionality.

Searching for resources

Q6. Please rate the system in terms of how easy it is to FIND resources that you are interested in. attachment:Q6.jpeg

Q7. Please rate the system in terms of how easy it is to DOWNLOAD resources that you are interested in.

attachment:Q7.jpeg

Requirements

With respect to finding resources the responses were split, with 4 saying further development was needed and 1 saying no extra development is need. We should remember that the participants were all experienced internet researchers, and less experienced users are likely to find the site difficult with respect to search.

• (3) Make search box easier to find (e.g. not in banner). Recommendation: provide link to advanced search next to Search box as per commonly used search engines such as Google, then remove advanced search from side bar.
• (4) Make it easier for user to download resources e.g. provide instructions on how to use File-Save-As option or right click. The current download link is more-or-less redundant. Also make it clear what will be downloaded e.g. just image, image plus link, image + metadata. Recommendation is to see how other popular sites provide this function and try to replicate it in the WW1 site.

• (5) Provide more options for download e.g. download as PDF '

It should be noted that some users will use 'browse' instead of 'search' but we were unable to observe this approach to finding resources because browse capabilities are currently not implemented.

Printing

9. Please rate the system in terms of how easy it is to use to obtain prints that can be used in face to face meetings. attachment:Q9.jpeg

Requirements

In general this functionality worked well with only 2 participants saying more development work is needed.

• (6) Make it clearer what will be sent to the printer e.g. any additional information that will be included with image such as hyperlinks or metadata. Recommendation is to see how other popular sites provide this function and try to replicate it in the WW1 site. '

Favourites

Q11. Please rate the system in terms of how easy it is to use the 'Favourites' functionality. attachment:Q11.jpeg

Requirements

• (7) Allow user to add items to favourites when search results are ticked over multiple pages
• (8) Allow items to be re-ordered through drag and drop which would include re-positioning multiple items at a time
• (9) Make it clearer what the 'move' functionality is for (e.g. why a user would want to use this tool)
• (10) FIX BUG: Adding multiple items to favourites where this batch of items includes one already added results in an error. Is there need to throw an error? Definitely do not stop all the other items being added as a result of the error

Advanced search

13. Please rate the system in terms of how easy it is to use the 'Advanced Search' functionality. attachment:Q13.jpeg

Requirements

This is the most problematic function that was tested. All the participants said that the advanced search tool needed further development. It is not easy to define specific requirements as to how advanced search can be improved because as per requirement (2) the WW1 team needs to better understand the kinds of advanced searches that their users will perform. This will allow the user interface to be simplified to suit their needs.

• (11) Improve advanced search. In general this means explaining terminology, providing example terms, and factoring the UI to make it easy as possible for WW1 users to configure a search to their needs. For instance this is a poetry archive but it is not easy to perform a search for poems because the user needs to know that they must enter 'poem' (not poems or poetry) and select 'object type'. It might be sensible to make use of radial buttons that allow the user to filter search results based on the main object types e.g. poem, movie etc. Another example is that 2 of the participants tried to conduct searches based on words like 'motorcycle', 'gun', 'hotchkiss' etc. If this is a popular thing to do then it needs to be easy to perform this type of search and bring back all the relevant results.
• (12) Clean metadata for instance some records do include the term 'poems' but search does not find them. Also some records are empty so pressing the sort hyperlink in search results brings back an empty column. Also dates are represented in the records in various formats which disrupts sorting
• (13) When searching for date ranges the results present the date range like this: '19160117-19190117' which is too difficult to read

Please also see comments on Search scenario above in conjunction with this set of requirements.

Compound objects

15. Please rate the system in terms of the information provided about the compound object as a whole, and information about each object in the grouping. We are particularly interested in your views on the terminology used, and whether there is too much or too little information

attachment:Q15.jpeg

Q16. Please rate the system in terms of the functionality provided to help you compare objects. attachment:Q16.jpeg

Requirements

• (14) Emphasize the compare functionality tool
• (15) Make it easy to understand that it is possible to view the metadata associated with for instance a manuscript image. One participant suggested a 'have you tried' suggestion

• (16) Make it clearer that pressing a hyperlink within a metadata record will perform a search. (It is debatable whether this is useful functionality) '

• (17) Create a glossary for whole website e.g. for terms like folio
• (18) Replace 'name of cataloguer' to something more generic or do not display this information
• (19) FIX BUG: Currently the repository and copyright URLs in metadata are broken
• (20) Allow user to drag images they want to compare or even not require images be added to favourites that they want to compare '
• (21) Remove buttons that have no relevance e.g. magnifying glass when looking at metadata, this is a general requirement that can be applied to the whole site.

Analysis

The analysis is presented in a form that makes it as clear as possible which aspects of the system need further development. The table below can be used by the development team to begin to work out how much effort is needed to undertake each requirement. The team as a whole can then decide which tasks to prioritise for implementation before the June steering committee meeting.

Phase 1: May 2008

• Importance (i): not important=1...5=essential
• Effort (e): easy=1...5=very difficult