Advertisement

Search Effectiveness and Efficiency of Facet-Based Online Catalog: A Crossover Study of Novice Users

  • Tanapan Tananta
  • Songphan Choemprayong
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8839)

Abstract

The effectiveness and efficiency of facet-based interface of an online catalog have yet explored much from a perspective of in experienced users. This crossover study compares search efficiency and effectiveness of novices using between facet-based and text-only interfaces of Koha OPAC. Twelve novice users in a secondary school were randomly recruited from November 12, 2013 to January 28, 2014. Participants were asked to perform 6 search tasks. Task completion and search accuracy, precision, recall, search time, and the number of search terms were observed and analyzed. The results from the comparisons of these measures indicate that the efficiency and effectiveness of novice users’ search using faceted interfacetends to be poorer than ones of non-faceted interface in certain aspects. This study informs a design recommendation ofa library catalog search interface for novice users.

Keywords

Faceted navigation integrated library system library catalog search efficiency search effectiveness novice users 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hearst, M.: Design Recommendations for Hierarchical Faceted Search Interfaces. In: ACM SIGIR Workshop on Faceted Search, pp. 1–5. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yang, S.Q., Hofmann, M.A.: The Next Generation Library Catalog: A Comparative Study of the OPACs of Koha, Evergreen, and Voyager. Information Technology and Libraries 29, 141–150 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ramdeen, S., Hemminger, B.M.: A Tale of Two Interfaces: How Facets Affect the Library Catalog Search. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63, 702–715 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ainsworth, J., Palmier-Claus, J.E., Machin, M., Barrowclough, C., Dunn, G., Rogers, A., Eysenbach, G.: A Comparison of Two Delivery Modalities of a Mobile Phone-based Assessment for Serious Mental Illness: Native Smartphone Application vs Text-Messaging Only Implementations. Journal of Medical Internet Research 15, e60 (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Campos, C., Lajara, R., Deluzio, T.: Usability and Preference Assessment of a New Prefilled Insulin Pen versus Vial and Syringe in People with Diabetes, Physicians and Nurses. Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy 13, 1837–1846 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haak, T., Edelman, S., Walter, C., Lecointre, B., Spollett, G.: Comparison of Usability and Patient Preference for the New Disposable Insulin Device Solostar versus Flexpen, Lilly Disposable pen, and a Prototype Pen: An Open-label Study. Clinical Therapeutics 29, 650–660 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haller, G.U.Y., Haller, D.M., Courvoisier, D.S., Lovis, C.: Handheld vs. Laptop Computers for Electronic Data Collection in Clinical Research: A Crossover Randomized Trial. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 16, 651–659 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Joseph, A.: Comparing the Usability of Apple and Palm Handheld Computing Devices among Physicians: A Randomized Crossover Study. Masters paper, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oyer, D., Narendran, P., Qvist, M., Niemeyer, M., Nadeau, D.A.: Ease of Use and Preference of a New versus Widely Available Prefilled Insulin Pen Assessed by People with Diabetes, Physicians and Nurses. Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery 8, 1259–1269 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Salaba, A., Zhang, Y.: User Perspectives on NextGen Catalog Features. In: Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, pp. 1–4. Wiley, Hoboken (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    La Barre, K.: Faceted Navigation and Browsing Features in New OPACs: A More Robust Solution to Problems of Information Seekers? Knowledge Organization 34, 78–90 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hall, C.E.: Facet-based Library Catalogs: A Survey of the Landscape. In: Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 48, pp. 1–8. Wiley, Hoboken (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Capra, R., Marchionini, G.: The Relation Browser Tool for Faceted Exploratory Search. In: Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Digital Libraries, p. 420. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schraefel, M.C., Wilson, M.L., Russell, A., Smith, D.A.: mSpace: Improving information access to multimedia domains with multimodal exploratory search. Communications of the ACM 49, 47–49 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wilson, M.L., Andre, P., Schraefel, M.C.: Backward Highlighting: Enhancing Faceted Search. In: Proceedings of the 21st Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 235–238. ACM, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wilson, M.L., White, R.W.: Evaluating advanced search interfaces using established information-seeking models. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60, 1407–1422 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lown, C.: A Transaction Log Analysis of NCSU’s Faceted Navigation OPAC. Master’s paper, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fagan, J.C.: Usability Studies of FacetedBrowsing: A Literature Review. Information Technology and Libraries 29, 58–66 (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wanda, P., Hearst, M.A., Fagan, L.M.: AKnowledge-Based Approach to Organizing Retrieved Documents. In: Proceedings of the Sixteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 80–85. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Uddin, M.N.: Implementing Faceted Classification within a Content Management System. Master’s thesis, Asian Institute of Technology (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    English, J., Hearst, M., Sinha, R., Swearingen, K., Lee, K.P.: Flexible Search and Navigation using Faceted Metadata. Technical report, University of Berkeley (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Novotny, E.: I Don’t Think I Click: A Protocol Analysis Study of Use of a Library Online Catalog in the Internet Age. College and Research Libraries 65, 525–537 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Niu, X., Lown, C., Hemminger, B.M.: Log Based Analysis of How Faceted and Text Based Search Interact in a Library Catalog Interface. Technical report, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (2008), http://www.ils.unc.edu/bmh/tmp/endeca/facetsearch-revised_repaired.pdf
  24. 24.
    Antelman, K., Lynema, E., Pace, A.K.: Toward a Twenty-First Century Library Catalog. Information Technology & Libraries 25, 128–139 (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Marchionini, G.: Information-seeking Strategies of Novices Using a Full-text Electronic Encyclopedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 40, 54–66 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Craven, J., Johnson, F., Butters, G.: The Usability Online Catalogue. Aslib Proceedings 62, 70–84 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Denton, W., Coysh, S.J.: Usability Testing of VuFind at an Academic Library. Library Hi Tech 29, 301–319 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gerardo, J.L.S.: The Efficiency of Novice Users in Usability Testing. Master’s thesis, University of Oslo (2007), https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/123456789/9681/Gerardo.pdf?sequence=1
  29. 29.
    Nielsen, J.: Novice vs. Expert Users (2000), http://www.nngroup.com/articles/novice-vs-expert-users
  30. 30.
    Rubin, J., Chisnell, D., Spool, J.: Handbook of Usability Testing: How to Plan, Design, and Conduct Effective Tests, 2nd edn. Wiley, Indianapolis (2008)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Croft, W.B., Metzler, D., Strohman, T.: Search Engines: Information Retrieval in Practice. Addison-Wiley, Boston (2010)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Campbell, N.: Discovering the User: A Practical Glance at Usability Testing. The Electronic Library 17, 307–311 (1999)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nielsen, J.: Why You Only Need to Test with 5 Users (2000), http://www.nngroup.com/articles/why-you-only-need-to-test-with-5-users
  34. 34.
    Whitmire, E.: Disciplinary Differences and Undergraduates’ Information-seeking Behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 53, 631–638 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tajoli, Z., Carassiti, A., Marchitelli, A., Valenti, F.: OSS Diffusion in Italian Libraries; The Case of Koha by the Consorzio Interuniversitario Lombardo per l’Elaborazione Automatica(CILEA). OCLC Systems & Services 27, 45–50 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Laplace, P.S.: Theorie Analytique des Probabilities. Courcier, Paris (1812)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lewis, J.R., Sauro, J.: When 100% Really isn’t 100%: Improving the Accuracy of Small-Sample Estimates of Completion Rates. Journal of Usability Studie 1, 136–150 (2006)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability 101: Introduction to Usability (2012), http://www.nngroup.com/articles/usability-101-introduction-to-usability

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tanapan Tananta
    • 1
  • Songphan Choemprayong
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Library ScienceChulalongkorn UniversityBangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations