“I didn’t fail ten thousand
times. I successfully eliminated, ten
thousand times, materials and combinations which wouldn’t work.” -Thomas Alva Edison (“Hci-human
computer interaction”, 2007)
The overall effect of the HCI
readings was my impression that we never have to opportunity to create, assess,
trouble-shoot, and perfect a system because the next innovation is already
underway and about to replace the earlier system...it’ like trying to walk the
other way on one of those electronic walkways at the airport...you simply can’t
get to the end and “perfect” the system because it is a continual loop.
Have you ever used those automatic
check-out computers at the grocery store and experienced the frustration of the
computer misreading something, only to summon the grocery clerk who would most
likely have done a better job in the first place?!
In “Human Computer Interaction-A
Modern Overview” author Gupta summarized three waves of the computer era: First Wave-Mainframe Era-many persons: one
computer; Second Wave-PC Era-one person: one computer; Third Wave-Ubicomp-many computers: one person (Gupta, 2012, pp. 1736-1737). To summarize, Human-Computer Interaction is
described as an interdisciplinary field where the focus is to make aspects of
technology more “user friendly”, to improve usability and human centered
design, and to involve the user in the design process, avoiding Toffler’s
‘information overload’” (Ebert, Gershon , van der Veer, 2012, pp. 121-122).
Authors Ebert, Gershon, and van der
Veer pose the question, in “Human-Computer Interaction”, “We used to have
computers, but now, instead, there are computing elements in many of the
devices we own...These facts of life make the name ‘Human Computer Interaction’
outmoded...The big question is what should the new name be?” (Ebert et. al, 2012,
p.125).
Related to this topic, authors
Ferreira and Pithan, in “Usability of Digital Libraries” explored the
connections between HCI studies and Information Science (IS) findings to link
usability studies and human-computer interaction behaviors with the needs and
behaviors throughout the information process (Ferreira & Pithan, 2005,
p.311). The authors justified their
study using six participants and visual, auditory and verbal feedback to relate
their findings; however, in spite of the lack of breadth and depth (Only six
participants? How about using a rubric
as an assessment tool?) the authors interviewed participants to see how users
conduct searches versus how the system intends for users to do so, and what
changes could be made to improve usability, access, and level of satisfaction
(Ferreira, et. al, 2005,p. 321). The
authors cited Neilson’s HCI work in the Five Aspects of Usability
(Learnability, Efficiency, Memorability, Errors, and Satisfaction) as well as
Kulthau’s IS work in Six Phases of ISP (Initiation, Selection, Exploration,
Formulation, Collection, Preservation) and how users engage throughout the
process (Ferreira, et. al, 2005, p. 313-315).
Now that computers have entered the
Third Wave, perhaps included in the HCI studies should be how to select the
right technologies for the right job?
Sources:
Hci-human computer interaction. (2007, October
24). Retrieved from htt://mblog.lib.umich.edu/~chrishan/archives/2007/10/edison_quots.html
on 2/10/13.
Ebert, A., Gershon, N.D., van der
Veer, G.C. 2012. Human-computer interaction. Obersichsbeitrag,
vol. 26: 121-126.
Ferreira, S.M. & Pithan,
D.N. 2005. Usability of digital libraries: a study based
on the areas of information science and human-computer interaction. OCLC
Systems & Services. Vol. 21:4: 311-323.
Gupta, R. 2012.
Human computer interaction-a modern overview. International
Journal of Computer Technology &
Applications, vol. 3:5: 1736-1740.
Copyright 2013
Blog 4: Heuristic/Usability Testing
“He’s just being lazy.”
No, he’s not being lazy. He is new to the school and needs
instruction. He may act indifferent and even look confused because he is
frustrated by not finding something to read while staring at a room full of
books. The system is available and full of resources for students who have a
basic understanding of how to conduct a search, type in key words, author, or
title, how to search in our library or within the county, and how to access
databases. But one has to know where,
and how, to look.
In “Librarians Do It Differently: Comparative Usability Testing with Students
and Library Staff”, author Nancy B. Turner theorized that library staff and
students understand how to use resources differently (Turner, 2011). Turner characterized librarians as being
better versed in collection and searching strategies. In contrast, Turner described students as
having a preference for natural language selection and a propensity for using
simple search terms, for example, like using keywords in a Google search. “Expert library researchers can have trouble
understanding the mental model of students who know nothing of library
research” (Turner, 2011).
Welcome to the world of usability testing
as a way to understand the user groups, thoughts during search processes,
knowledge of search techniques including for print and digital items and for
information from databases, and the changes that the librarians must make to
accommodate the users. Changes include
catalog design and access, searching options, web portal design, and
improvements to reference services and instruction.
Interestingly, in2009 Syracuse
University used results from earlier usability testing to design and implement
changes within the library. A discovery
layer was added to the catalog, to support keyword searching and offer faceted
browsing. A Quick Link was offered to
the Classic Catalog to search by title, author, and/or subject. Students chose the former; librarians the
latter. Perhaps we can observe how other
libraries have handled this process and adapt and adopt what would work in our
own respective libraries.
Source:
Turner,
N.B. (2011). Librarians do it differently: comparative usability testing with students
and library staff. Journal of Web Librarianship, 5:4, 286-298
Copyright
2013
