Usability/User-Centered Design in the Ischools: Justifying a Teaching Philosophy

Usability/User-Centered Design in the iSchools: Justifying a Teaching Philosophy

Randolph G. Bias Associate Professor, School of Information, Tbe University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX. Email: [email protected] Paul F. Marty Associate Professor, Scbool of Library and Information Studies, College of Communication and Information, Florida State University, Tallabassee, FL. Email: [email protected] Ian Douglas Associate Professor, Learning Systems Institute, Florida State University, Tallabassee, FL. Email: [email protected]

Researchers from two universities surveyed a decade's worth of iSchool graduates who had taken and passed at least one master's level course in usability and user-centered design (UCD). The purpose of the survey was to assess the value of a teaching philosophy that considered usability skills to be of value to future information professionals, even when they are not pursuing careers as usability engineers. The survey results strongly validated this teaching philosophy, with 94% of respondents reporting that they use the general principles of usability on the job regularly, despite only 20% stating that they were hired to perform UCD. The researchers argue that these results justify a teaching philosophy that emphasizes the value of usability for all LIS students, regardless of their career goals, and make a strong case for including usability/ UCD as a core course in the iSchools and the LIS curriculum.

Keywords: usability, user-centered design, LIS education, iSchools, survey methods

Introduction versity (both members of the iSchools consortium) teach graduate level courses he iSchools movement represents a re- in usability/UCD, and have done so for Tsponse to a variety of perceived needs, about a decade. These courses are offered including the need for Library and Infor- based on an implicit belief that the top- mation Studies (LIS) pedagogy to em- ics covered are valuable for LIS students, brace new technologies, and the need for despite the fact that neither usability nor an integrated approach to the study and UCD appears anywhere in the American practice of information use by human be- Library Association's Core Competencies ings. The 33 member institutions that com- of Librarianship (ALA, 2009). The deci- prise the iSchools recognize that building sion to offer courses on usability and UCD successful relationships between people, as électives for students pursuing master's information, and technology requires an degrees in LIS, therefore, represents an "understanding of the use and users of in- ideal case study of the impact of the iS- formation" (http://ischools.org/). This rec- chools movement on the evolution of the ognition has led many iSchools to include LIS curriculum in the 21st century. Does it courses on usability and user-centered de- make sense for LIS students, the vast ma- sign (UCD) in their curricula. jority of whom will never work as usabil- The LIS programs at the University of ity engineers, to take courses on usability Texas at Austin and Florida State Uni- and UCD? J. of Education for Library and Information Science, Vol. 53, No. 4—(Fall) October 2012 ISSN: 0748-5786 © 2012 Association for Library and Information Science Education 274 Usability/User-Centered Design in the iSchools: Justifying a Teaching Philosophy 275 To answer fhis quesfion, this sfudy pres- seeking has hecome one of the major sub- enfs resulfs fi-om a n online survey designed fields of human-computer interaction. [...] fo explore fhe following research ques- One area of research in human-computer fions: Are usabilify / user-cenfered design interaction is the development of methods courses of value fo LIS sfudents in ferms of for doing human-centered design of infor- fhe skills fhey need in fhe workplace? Whaf mation systems. [...] A number of these aspecfs of fhese courses are LIS sfudenfs methods have much in common with how mosf likely fo use as pracficing informafion librarians attempt to understand what kind professionals upon graduafion? Exploring of information a patron is seeking. (Olson fhese quesfions will help educafors and sfu- & Olson, 1998, p.88) denfs beffer undersfand fhe role of usabilify and UCD in fhe LIS curriculum, and shed The ferm "usabilify" has been used in lighf on how fhe iSchools movemenf, wifh differenf confexfs by differenf disciplines, ifs focus on fhe use and users of informa- which place slightly differenf perspecfives fion, has influenced feaching and leaming on ifs meaning and scope. If can refer fo a for LIS sfudenfs and faculfy. process (e.g., usabilify as a form of evaluation) as well as a characferisfic (e.g., fhe Background degree fo which somefhing is usable). A general definifion can be found in fhe The evolufion of fhe iSchools move- Infemafional Sfandards Organizafion's ment has faken place in parallel wifh an in- "Ergonomics of Human Sysfem Inferac- creased need for usabi 1 ify and user-centered fion Part 11 : Guidance on Usabilify" (ISO design in educafion and pracfice. While if 9241-11, 1998), which defines usabilify as is sfill possible fo eam an undergraduafe fhe "exfenf fo which a producf can be used or graduafe degree in compufer science by specified users fo achieve specified or elecfrical engineering wifhouf faking a goals wifh effecfiveness, efficiency and single course in usabilify, and UCD prac- safisfacfion in a specified confexf of use." fifioners sfill sfruggle fo demonsfrafe fheir The classic definifion of usabilify is rel- value fo fhe developers of informafion sys- afive rafher fhan absolufe (Nielsen, 1993); fems, fhere has been an increased appre- we cannof say wifh absolufe cerfainfy fhaf ciation for fhe value of usabilify and UCD any one design has good usabilify. Insfead, in fhe developmenf of all human-machine we fend fo say fhaf design A is relafively sysfems (Vredenburg, Righi, & Isensee, more usable fhan design B based on some 2002). The clearly quantifiable benefifs of measure of effecfiveness (e.g., fask com- integrating usabilify analysis info sysfems pletion or number of errors), efficiency design (Bias & Mayhew, 2005), combined (e.g., fime faken fo complefe fhe fask), wifh fhe demonsfrafed need for usabilify safisfacfion (e.g., users' rafing of experi- experfise given fhe dramafic growfh of fhe ence), or leamabilify (e.g., amounf of in- number and fypes of fasks people carry ouf sfrucfion required). These characferisfics online everyday (Nielsen, 2005), has nof musf be evaluafed for a range of fasks in only increased fhe number of pracficing realisfic use environmenfs, and numer- usabilify professionals, buf also driven fhe ous usabilify evaluafion fechniques have inclusion of usabilify and UCD courses in emerged fo measure fhese facfors (Nielsen educafional programs. Usabilify is a now &Mack, 1994). a global phenomenon (Douglas & Liu, Some researchers have gone beyond 2011). mechanical measures fo focus on fhe emo- fional impacfs of design (Norman, 2003). Usability: Definitions and Context Many would now prefer fo focus on whaf is fermed fhe "user experience," rafher It is scarcely surprising that infonnation fhan fhe more hisforical ferm "usabilify." 276 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE

This shift in focus recognizes that while will (or should) have an essential interest usability is an important and often-ne- in usability. glected part of design, the holistic nature This evolution from ergonomics to hu- of design is such that a successful design man factors to usability to UCD to inter- requires balancing many different aspects action design to user experience is part (e.g., usability, functionality, aesthetics) meaningfril distinction and part semantic and not just concentrating on one to the convenience. As opposed to the histori- neglect of the others. A finished design is cal, more constrained definition, this study a gestalt, where the whole is greater than uses the term usability as a shorthand for the sum of its parts. the full expanse of UCD as an interactive One ofthe earliest communities to con- process incorporating requirements gath- sider usability as a general design issue ering, information architecture, iterative was ergonomics (Meister, 1999). While design, and user interface evaluation (in- ergonomists were initially concemed with cluding inspection methods and end-user physical interaction design, the develop- testing). In this paper, therefore, the term ment of cognitive ergonomics (Falzon, usability refers to the full gamut of user Gaines, & Monk, 1990) has influenced experience design and evaluation; usabil- education in industrial engineering depart- ity is not merely concerned with the design ments, as well as more specialized human and testing of software or web site inter- factors engineering departments. Usability faces. also figures prominently in the field of Hu- man-Computer Interaction (HCI), which Usability in LIS Programs: A Teaching has a strong, but not exclusive relationship Philosophy with computer science departments. While HCI initially focused on developing new Most librarians would agree that their web- methods of interaction with desktop com- site is an important, and in many cases the puters, it has since branched out into other most important, point of interaction with areas of design and other technological their patrons. (Cervone, 2005, p. 244) products (e.g., mobile phones, ubiquitous computing), and recent studies focus more Usability courses are commonly taught on understanding user behavior than de- in a variety of degree programs—includ- veloping a specific instance of a technol- ing psychology, engineering, computer ogy (Rode, 2011). science, and instructional systems—but Researchers and practitioners interested there can be great variation in terms ofthe in psychology, information architecture, appropriateness ofthe course for the aver- web science (Hendler et al, 2008) and the age student pursuing any particular degree. science of design (Purao et al, 2008) also Many of these courses are taught with the view usability as a common thread that philosophy that students should be trained runs through all their work, although their to conduct formal usability evaluations in understanding may be different based on formal usability laboratories. While this their experiences and the fact that different may be acceptable if a high percentage of groups tend to be insulated from one an- students intend to pursue such a career, other with their own joumals, conferences, what should the insfructor do when the and academic departments. For example, majority of students do not intend to be while some in the HCI community may usability engineers but do intend to enter see usability as synonymous with HCI, the general workforce as information pro- others have a sense that usability is a gen- fessionals? eral design attribute of j u s t about anything This question is keenly important for humans design (Norman, 1988). Any dis- the iSchools movement, which encourages cipline that involves any type of design faculty and students to research, teach, and Usability/User-Centered Design in the iSchools: Justifying a Teaching Philosophy 277 leam about all aspects of human interaction ability may take advanced versions of with information, including how informa- these courses in special topics seminars, tion is organized, categorized, indexed, and will likely conduct an independent catalogued, archived, mined, retrieved, study or pursue an internship in the field curated, preserved, conserved, consumed, with a private company, library, or gov- evaluated, and more. All of this energy is emment agency, performing work that worthless if the human user cannot gain will have pedagogic value to the student access to, perceive, and process the infor- and real value to the sponsoring agency. mation he or she needs. This information The vast majority of the LIS students access, perception, and processing is the at FSU and UT-Austin, however, are not fundamental purview of usability. pursuing careers as future usability engi- From this perspective, there is clearly a neers; the introductory courses on usabil- place for usability courses in the iSchools, ity offered at each program will likely be but the role of these courses may not be to their only introduction to the field. By fo- prepare students to work in usability test- cusing on the principles of usability over ing labs. Usability courses should, at least the practice of usability, we have come to according to our shared teaching philoso- believe in the value of usability in the cur- phy, produce students capable of thinking riculum not only for the student who wants "outside the lab" and evaluating the us- to become a usability professional (broad- ability of interfaces using many different ly defined), but also for the much larger methods. Students should leam the prin- number of students whose careers as infor- ciples of UCD, understand the importance mation professionals will benefit from an of^usability in practice, know how to apply awareness of usability methods and argu- multiple evaluation methods throughout ments—which is to say, everyone. the product design lifecycle, and under- All students can benefit enormously stand how to advocate for such efforts in from having the proper foundation in us- a business or other professional setting, ability analysis and UCD. There are ben- regardless of whether they are working efits to a pedagogical approach designed as practicing usability engineers. While to convey the principles and methods of few LIS students will end up pursuing us- usability analysis to students writ large, ability careers, it is highly likely that they independent of their career goals and as- will find themselves in positions where an pirations. No matter where they end up understanding of how the principles of us- working, LIS students tend to pursue ca- ability can be employed to effect change reers where it is likely that they will find it will be extremely useful. helpful to be able to evaluate interfaces of It is this focus on principles that guides existing information systems and inform the teaching philosophies of the faculty the design of new information systems be- who teach usability at the University of ing developed. Texas at Austin (UT-Austin) and Florida Over the past decade, we have received State University (FSU). UT-Austin offers numerous emails providing anecdotal an Introduction to Usability course for its evidence supporting this philosophy. Stu- graduate students, as well as courses in dents who find themselves designing web- information architecture, design of digital sites, working a reference desk, teaching media, digital libraries, digital archiving someone how to use an online search en- and preservation, and human information gine, or setting up workflows designed to processing. FSU offers a usability analysis provide access to information have all sent course for its graduate students, as well as unsolicited emails explaining how a basic courses on digital media, digital libraries, understanding of the principles of usabil- and information architecture. Students in ity has paid off time and time again. There both programs who are interested in us- is a clear need, therefore, for a rigorous ex- 278 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE amination of this teaching philosophy: are of their usability courses on the job, and the principles of usabilify analysis valu- the degree to which their job requires able to LIS students, even those who are them to engage in usability activities. This not pursuing usability careers? question employed a five-point Likert scale ranging fi-om "strongly disagree" to Methods "strongly agree," and listed the following statements: To meet this need, the researchers developed an online survey that invited • The concepts I leamed in my usabil- former LIS students to answer questions ity/user-centered design course have about the value of usability / UCD courses helped me on the job. to LIS students in terms of the skills they • I use the specific methods and tech- need in the workplace, and the aspects of niques I leamed in my usabilify/user- those courses that LIS students are most centered design course regularly. likely to use as practicing information pro- • I use the general theories and principles fessionals upon graduation. I leamed in my usability/user-centered To reach as many potential participants design course regularly. as possible, the researchers assembled a • My job requires me to work as a usabil- list of all graduate students at FSU and the ity engineer/user interface designer. UT-Austin who earned a master's degree • I was explicitly hired to perform usabil- in LIS between 2003 and 2011, and who ity/user-centered design work. enrolled in (and passed) at least one gradu- • My usabilify/user-centered design skills ate level usabilify course at either univer- are valued at my place of work. sity. The initial list included a total of 508 graduate students (327 from FSU, and 181 Respondents were then asked to indi- fi-om UT-Austin), but working email ad- cate how likely they were to use specific dresses were available for only 289 stu- usabilify skills, knowledge, or abilities on dents (150 fi-om FSU, and 139 fi-om UT- the job. This question employed a five- Austin). Emails were sent to each of these point Likert scale ranging from "very un- students from their usabilify professors likely" to "very likely," and listed the fol- (i.e., one of the co-authors of this paper) lowing statements: inviting them to participate in the study; all survey responses were anonymous. • General principles of usabilify and Participants who followed the link em- user-centered design bedded in the email were taken to an on- • Understanding of human perception line survey instrument that explained the and cognition goals of the research, and asked several • User-requirements gathering tech- questions to determine the eligibilify of niques the potential research participant. Respon- • End-user testing methods dents were asked to enter the year they • Inspection methods (e.g., heuristic graduated fi-om t h e program, the year they evaluation) took their usability course (if they could • Understanding the iterative design recall it), and their current employment process status. Respondents who had not gradu- • Human subjects research ated, had not taken a usability course, or • Survey methods were not employed as information profes- • Field testing sionals were not included in the study. • The business aspects of usabilify (e.g., Respondents were then asked to indi- cost-justification) cate the extent to which they agreed with • The role of usabilify in the design and a list of statements about the relative value development process Usability/User-Centered Design in the iSchools: Justifying a Teaching Philosophy

Finally, the respondents were asked to tionship of their usability courses to their answer four open-ended questions: current jobs. Despite these limitations, the results of this survey provide insight • What aspects of the usability/user-cen- into the impact of usability courses on a tered design course you took as an LIS key segment of LIS students: specifically, student have been most valuable to you those who keep in touch with their alma on thejob? mater, and those who are currently em- • What aspects of the usability/user-cen- ployed in the information profession. It tered design course you took as an LIS is precisely these students who are most student have been least valuable to you likely to share information relevant to LIS on thejob? educators as they seek to integrate usabili- • What do you wish you had leamed in ty courses into their curricula, and work to your usability/user-centered design shape the future of education and practice course that you did not? in the iSchools. • Please share with us any additional comments you might have related to the role Findings of usability/user-centered design in your LIS education and career path. The survey was open for two weeks in early December 2011; initial email invita- The quantitative results from the survey tions were followed by reminder emails were processed through Excel, which was one week later. The 289 invitations yield- used to generate descriptive statistics for ed 91 responses (53 from UT-Austin, and each of the close-ended survey questions. 38 from FSU), for a response rate of 31%. The responses to open-ended questions Six of the responses from UT-Austin, and were analyzed by the researchers using one response from FSU, were eliminated qualitative analysis techniques, includ- because the survey respondents did not ing the process of coding and memoing provide any information about their cur- as outlined by Strauss and Corbin (1998), rent employment. The results presented to identify common themes among the re- below, therefore, represent 84 former LIS sponses. Quotes are included in the find- students, each of whom has a master's de- ings section below as representative exam- gree in LIS from either FSU or UT-Aus- ples of these themes, but may have been tin, passed a graduate course in usability edited to ensure participant anonymity. from either institution, and is currently employed in the information profession, Limitations broadly defined.

One of the limitations of using email Participant Demographics to send invitations to participate in an online survey is that it is impossible to know The former LIS students who partici- whether any given individual actually pated in this study graduated from FSU or reads the email. In addition, the choice to UT-Austin between 2003 and 2011, with participate is up to the individual, so the relatively few graduating before 2005, and sample is self-selected, and biased to- a fairly even distribution of graduates from ward students who want to answer ques- 2006 through 2011 (see Table 1). Func- tions about usability and their jobs. This tioning email addresses were more likely research method, therefore, is restricted to be available for the more recent gradu- to people who a) have working email ad- ates, but those students were also less like- dresses that they read and that are avail- ly to have graduated and found work. Stu- able to their respective universities; and b) dents were also asked when they took their choose to answer a survey about the rela- usability classes, a question that yielded 280 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE

Table 1 : Year of Craduafion. responses was dizzying (see Table 2). Sur- vey respondenfs idenfified fhemselves as Year of FSU UT-Austin Total web developers, sysfem adminisfrafors, Graduation (n = 37) (n = 47) (n = 84) inferacfion designers, insfrucfional design- 2003 0.0% (0) 6.3% (3) 3.6% (3) ers, research analysfs, research assisfanfs, 2004 2.7% (1) 4.2% (2) 3.6% (3) and librarians of all fypes. While fhere 2005 2.7% (1) 10.6% (5) 7.1% (6) were several individuals who self-idenfified as "user experience researchers," zero 2006 21.6% (8) 10.6% (5) 15.5% (13) respondenfs lisfed a job fifle fhaf included 2007 32.4% (12) 8.5% (4) 19.0% (16) fhe word "usabilify." 2008 13.5% (5) 10.6% (5) 11.9% (10) 2009 13.5%(5> 14.9% (7) 14.3% (12) Survey Results (Quantitative) 2010 5.4% (2) 1 7.0% (8) 11.9% (10) 2011 8.1% (3) 12.7% (6) 10.7% (9) When asked abouf fhe value of usabili- N/A 0.0% (0) 4.2% (2) 2.4% (2) fy/UCD courses fo LIS sfudenfs in ferms of the skills they need in the workplace (see answers ranging fi-om 2 0 0 2 fo 2011 ; fhese Table 3), fhe survey respondenfs were ada- data are nof presenfed here since fhey are manf fhaf fhe concepfs fhey leamed in fheir primarily valuable infemally for correlaf- usabilify courses have helped fhem on fhe ing specific commenfs wifh specific ifera- job, wifh 93% agreeing or sfrongly agree- fions of any given course. ing wifh fhaf sfafemenf. Survey respon- The individuals who parficipafed in denfs were more likely fo use regularly fhe fhis sfudy held a wide range of jobs; even general fheories and principles of usabilify considering fhaf fhis parficular survey (83% agreeing or sfrongly agreeing) fhan quesfion was open-ended, the breadfh of fhe specific mefhods and fechniques fhey

Table 2: Job Types. FSU UT-Austin Total Job Type (n = 37) (n = 47) (n = 84) Examples Applications Development/ 1 6.2% (6) 12.8% (6) 14.3% (12) Web Administrator, System Administrators Coldfusion Developer, Systems Administrator Interaction Designers 0.0% (0) 12.8% (6) 7.1 % (6) User Experience Researcher, Senior Interaction Designer, Information Architect Teaching/Instructional Services 21.6% (8) 12.8% (6) 16.7% (14) Professor, Course Director, Instructional Designer Ana lysts/Consu Itants/ 18.9% (7) 36.2% (17) 28.6% (24) Research Analyst, Project Managers Management Consultant, Creative Director Librarians 32.4% (12) 12.8% (6) 21.4% (18) Public Librarian, Reference Librarian, Electronic Resources Librarian Doctoral Students/Graduate 8.1% (3) 4.2% (2) 6.0% (5) Doctoral Student, Research Assistants Research Assistant Other 2.7% (1) 8.5% (4) 6.0% (5) Freelance Photographer, Technical Writer, Bookkeeper Usability/User-Centered Design in the iSchools: Justifying a Teaching Philosophy 281 leamed in their courses (67% agreeing or ties related to usability and UCD on the strongly agreeing). job, the survey respondents consistently These findings are all the more aston- emphasized the importance of general us- ishing when one considers that the vast ability principles over specific practical majority of these students were not explic- methods, a trend that held tme for both itly hired to perform usability / UCD work FSU and UT-Austin students (see Table (only 20% agreeing or strongly agreeing 4). An overwhelming 94% of the survey with that statement), and that only 44% respondents said they were likely or very agreed or sfrongly agreed that their job re- likely to use the general principles of us- quires them to work as a usability engineer ability and UCD on the job, reinforcing or user interface designer. Finally, 66% the belief that the principles of usability agreed or sfrongly agreed with the state- are applicable across the information pro- ment that their usability/UCD skills are fession. Approximately three quarters of valued at their place of work. As can be the survey respondents claimed they were seen in Table 3, the responses from FSU likely or very likely to use skills, knowl- and UT-Austin were uniform, supporting edge, or abilities that help them befter un- the idea that a common teaching philoso- derstand the use and users of information phy produces similar results even at differ- on the job: 81% were likely or very likely ent universities. to use an understanding of human percep- When asked how likely they were to tion and cognition; 79% were likely or use specific skills, knowledge, or abili- very likely to use an understanding of the

Table 3: Relationship between Usability and Work (FSU, n = 37; UT-Austin, n = 47; Total, n = 84).

Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following Strongly Strongly statements: Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

The concepts I learned in my FSU 0.0% (0) 2.7% (1) 2.7% (1) 48.6% (18) 45.9% (17) usability/user-centered de- (JT 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 8.5% (4) 29.8% (14) 61.7% (29) sign course have helped me 0.0% (0) 1.2% (1) 6.0% (5) 38.1% (32) 54.8% (46) on the job. I use the specific methods FSU 2.7% (1 ) 5.4% (2) 24.3% (9) 45.9% (1 7) 21.6% (8) and techniques I learned in (JT 4.2% (2) 12.8% (6) 17.0% (8) 44.7% (21) 21.3% (10) my usability/user-centered Total 3 6% (3) 9.5% (8) 20.2% (17) 45.2% (38) 21.4% (18) design course regularly. I use the general theories and FSU 2.7% (1) .0.0%(0) 13.5% (5) 37.8% (14) 45.9% (1 7) principles I learned in my us- (JT 0.0% (0) 6.4% (3) 10.6% (5) 23.4% (11) 60.0% (28) ability/user-centered design 1.2% (1) 3.6% (3) 11.9% (10) 29.8% (25) 53.6% (45) course regularly. My job requires me t o work FSU 13.5% (5) 32.4% (12) 10.8% (4) 35.1% (13) 8.1% (3) as a usability engineer/user UT 19.1% (10) 23.4% (11) 12.8% (6) 25.5% (12) 19.1%>(9) interface designer. Total 16.7% (14) 27.4% (23) 11.9% (10) 29.8% (25) 14.3% (12) 1 was explicitly hired to perform FSU 32.4% (12) 32.4% (12) 21.6% (8) 8.1% (3) 5.4% (2) usability/user-centered de- uT 36.2% (1 7) 25.5% (12) 12.8% (6) 10.6% (5) 14.9% (7) sign work. 3450^ (29) 28.6% (24) 16.7% (14) 9.5% (8) 10.7% (9) My usability/user-centered FSU 2.7% (1) 5.4% (2) 35.1% (13) 43.2% (16) 13.5% (5) design skills are valued at my UT 2.1% (1) 6.4% (3) 14.9% (7) 34.0% (16) 42.6% (20) place of work. Total 2.4% (2) 6.0% (5) 23.8% (20) 38.1 % (32) 27.8% (25) 282 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE

Table 4: Usability Skills on the Job (FSU, n = 37; UT-Austin, n = 47; Total, n = 84)

Please indicate how likely you are to use each of the following skills, knowl- Strongly Strongly edge, or abilities on tbe job: Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree General principles of usability FSU 0.0% (0) 2.7% (1) 0.0% (0) 54.1% (20) 43.2% (16) and user-centered design UT 0.0% (0) 4.2% (2) 4.2% (2) 10.6%>(5) 80.8% (38) Total 0.0% (0) 3.6% (3) 2.4% (2) 29.8 (25) 64.3% (54) Understanding of human per- FSU 0.0% (0) 2.7% (1) 8.1% (3) 51.4% (19) 37.8% (14) ception and cognition UT 0.0% (0) 6.4% (3) 19.1% (9) 36.2% (1 7) 38.3% (18) Total 0.0% (0) 4.8% (4) 14.3% (12) 42.8% (36) 38.1 % (32) User-requirements gathering FSU 2.7% (1) 2.7% (1) 1 6.2% (6) 51.4% (19) 27.0% (10) techniques UT 10.6% (5) 8.5% (4) 4.2% (2) 31.9% (15) 44.7% (21) Total 7.1 % (6) 6.0% (5) 9.5% (8) 40.5% (34) 36.9% (31) End-user testing methods FSU 10.8% (4) 13.5% (5) 27.0% (10) 32.4% (12) 16.2% (6) UT 12.8% (6) 14.9% (7) 10.6% (5) 25.5% (12) 36.2% (1 7) Total 11.9% (10) 14.3% (12) 17.8% (15) 28.6% (24) 27.4% (23) Inspection methods (e.g., heu- FSU 2.7% (1) 24.3% (9) 18.9% (7) 37.8% (14) 1 6.2% (6) ristic evaluation) UT 4.2% (2) 10.6% (5) 19.1% (9) 34.0% (16) 31.9% (15) Total 3.6% (3) 16.7% (14) 19.0% (16) 35.7% (30) 25.0% (21) Understanding the iterative FSU 0.0% (0) 8.1% (3) 18.9% (7) 45.9% (1 7) 27.0% (10) design process UT 4.2% (2) 6.4% (3) 6.4% (3) 36.2% (1 7) 46.8% (22) Total 2.4% (2) 7.1 % (6) 11.9% (10) 40.5% (34) 38.1 % (32) Human subjects research FSU 8.1% (3) 29.7% (11) 21.6% (8) 18.9% (7) 21.6% (8) UT 12.8% (6) 23.4% (11) 19.1% (9) 14.9% (7) 29.8% (14) Total 10.7% (9) 26.2% (22) 20.2% (17) 16.7% (14) 26.2% (22) Survey methods FSU 2.7% (1) 16.2% (6) 21.6% (8) 32.4% (12) 27.0% (10) UT 4.3% (2) 10.9% (5) 23.9% (11) 30.4% (14) 30.4% (14) Total 3.6% (3) 12.2% (11) 22.9% (19) 31.3% (26) 28.9% (24) Field testing FSU 10.8% (4) 18.9% (7) 24.3% (9) 27.0% (10) 18.9% (7) UT 12.8% (6) 19.1% (9) 23.4% (11) 1 7.0% (8) 27.6% (13) Total 11.9% (10) 19.0% (16) 23.8% (20) 21.4% (18) 23.8% (20) The business aspects of usabil- FSU 8.1% (3) 18.9% (7) 1 8.9% (7) 37.8% (14) 16.2% (6) ity (e.g., cost-justification) UT 10.6% (5) 1 7.0% (8) 27.6% (13) 29.8% (14) 14.9% (7) Total 9.5% (8) 17.8% (15) 23.8% (20) 33.8% (28) 15.5% (13) The role of usability in the FSU 2.7% (1) 5.4% (2) 16.2% (6) 45.9% (1 7) 29.7% (11) design and development UT 6.4% (3) 8.5% (4) 8.5% (4) 36.2% (1 7) 40.4% (19) process Total 4.8% (4) 7.1 % (6) 11.9% (10) 40.5% (34) 35.7% (30) iterative design process; 77% were likely Survey respondents were less likely to or very likely to use an understanding of use skills, knowledge, or abilities related user-requirements gathering techniques; to specific usability evaluation methods on and 76% were likely or very likely to use the job: 61% were likely or very likely to an understanding of the role of usability in use inspection methods; 60% were likely the design and development process. or very likely to use survey methods; 56% Usability/User-Centered Design in the iSchools: Justifying a Teaching Philosophy 283 were likely or very likely to tjse end-user The survey respondents also stressed testing methods; and 45% were likely or that the principles of usability are valuable very likely to use field testing methods. even when one is not working as a usabil- An understanding of the business aspects ify engineer: of usabilify (e.g., cost-justification) proved to be important to approximately half the "The concepts of usability can be applied survey respondents, with 49% likely or to most everything in the workplace. While very likely to use those skills on the job. I don't do actual usability testing, 1 do use Finally, the aspect of usability students the concepts in content management and were least likely to use on the job was their research." (FSU) knowledge of human subjects research, with only 43% of respondents likely or "Knowing the general principles of Web very likely to use this skill on the job. site design, usability and user-centered design assist me hourly as I search 100s of Web sites daily in search of specific infor- Survey Results (Qualitative) mation." (UT-Austin) Analysis of the four open-ended ques- Understanding the basic principles of tions on the survey revealed a number of usabilify provided survey respondents themes common to former students from with the abilify to discuss usabilify analy- UT-Austin and FSU. For example, when sis with their peers, and argue for the im- asked what aspects of the usability cours- portance of usability on the job: es they took as an LIS student have been "General principles of usability and most valuable on the job, survey respon- user-center design as it relates to libraries dents from both programs emphasized the and academia. Understanding it from a value of having a strong understanding of theoretical perspective. Having the tools the principles of usabilify and UCD: (knowledge, vocabulary) to critically dis- "General principles of usability and user- cuss usability issues with peers." (FSU) centered design. Understanding of human perception and cognition" (FSU) "Probably the theoretical basis of user centered design much more than the actual "Usability principles, how usability fits mechanics. I'm not in a position to design into the design and development process, many systems here, but it is nice to be able user-centered design practices/techniques" to apply concepts if and when my opinion (UT-Austin) is sought." (UT-Austin) Many survey respondents explained While the quantitative survey results that a general understanding of these prin- (above) showed that students were more ciples was important specifically because likely to use the principles of usability of the ability to look at things from the than specific evaluation methods on the user's perspective. This shift in mindset, job, being able to apply specific evaluation from a system-centered to a person-cen- methods emerged as an important theme in tered perspective, was very important: the qualitative responses, and still yielded an Agree or Strongly Agree response from "The overall thought process and feeling between 49% and 61 % of our respondents: that the focus of any software is the user. It's a different way of thinking." (UT- "The ability to evaluate the usability of Austin) a user interface and clearly articulate its strengths/weakness has been quite valu- "Understanding how users view our able." (FSU) website, social media, and other library resources." (FSU) "The fact that my classmates and I went 284 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE

through a usability test and could share "Field testing has not been specifically experiences and exchange ideas. It was a useful because that is not an aspect of my real preparation for the actual experience job." (UT-Austin) iti the workplace." (UT-Austin) One common theme was the need for Many survey respondents stressed that usability courses to provide a greater em- their knowledge of specific evaluation phasis on informal evaluation methods methods helped them apply the principles than on formal user testing methods; sev- of usability on the job: eral students mentioned the relative value of different evaluation methods in their "Right out of library school, 1 was in comments: charge of my library's website and did a usability study to determine issues students "Knowing how to put together a full-scale had with the way the site was organized. 1 formal usability test is useful background directly applied what 1 leamed in that class knowledge, although not very practical in about usability research techniques to do my day-to-day work. I tend to use light- that study." (FSU) weight user testing and heuristic evaluation to a much larger degree." (UT-Austin) "Heuristic eval, white papers, usability evaluation project. My first week on "Our development cycle is extremely the job, I was actually assigned both an rapid—we roll out new features to our heuristic eval and a white paper. 1 hadn't software platform almost every day. [...] heard of either of those deliverables before In that kind of environment, there really Usability, so that paid off immediately." isn't much opportunity to apply some of (UT-Austin) the more expensive, formal, and time- consuming methods of analysis and design Survey respondents also stressed the that are used in some organizations. All importance of being able to argue for im- usability analysis is 'quick and dirty' at my plementing usability analysis on the job, job...." (FSU) particularly from a cost-justification perspective: Another common theme that emerged in the answers to this question was the "Importance of early usability analysis in desire to have more control over usability the software design process." (UT-Austin) analysis in their organizations; for some survey respondents, the least valuable as- "Time/cost/design justification." (UT- pects of the course were those they have Austin) not been allowed to do: When asked what aspects of the usabil- "1 am not in a position to stress the impor- ity courses they took as students have been tance of testing methods (to the detriment least valuable on the job, survey respon- of the latest iteration of our library's web- dents from FSU and UT-Austin were much site)." (FSU) less vocal, frequently responding that they "can't recall any" least valuable aspects. "Unfortunately, the user testing aspect has In general, when they did comment, sur- been least valuable. But that has more to vey respondents often listed those aspects do with my job (and the inability to get of usability that they are not required to approval to conduct user testing) than the use in their current job (usually by way of course." (UT-Austin) an explanation for their answers): When asked what they wish they had "Business / economic concems (mostly leamed in their usability course that they because I have not had to justify user-cen- did not, survey respondents listed a wide tered design to a manager)." (FSU) variety of different topics. The vast major- Usability/User-Centered Design in the iSchools: Justifying a Teaching Philosophy 285 ify of fhese were fopics fhaf were already ly how to present usability concepts (and covered in the courses, buf fhaf fhe sfudenfs on-the-spot cogent arguments) to others wished were covered in greafer defail: (designers, developers, end-users, managers) who don't share the same usability "More guerilla/remote testing tactics and knowledge base." (FSU) resources." (UT-Austin) "As a UI developer & designer, knowing "More about universal design/accessibil- how to apply user-centered design has ity." (UT-Austin) helped me tremendously on the job. Unfor- Some of fhe responses fo fhis quesfion tunately however, there are always some came in fhe form of pedagogical sugges- people (in my team or upper-management) fions: who don't take user-centered design very seriously. I wish I had the chance to leam "A hlog where there are projects and best more about the business aspects of us- practices leamed by students in a school." ability so I can equip myself with more (;UT-Austin) persuasive arguments." (UT-Austin) "I wish I had taken usability in concert Several addifional key fhemes emerged with another course that required me to when fhe survey respondenfs were asked design and build a system for users, i.e., fo share any addifional commenfs fhey that I had leamed about usability within mighf have relafed fo fhe role of usabil- the context of real-world systems design." ify/UCD in fheir LIS educafion and ca- (UT-Austin) reer pafh. One common fheme sfressed by many sfudenfs was how faking a course on Ofher sfudenfs suggesfed a greafer fo- usabilify opened fheir eyes fo a new, and cus on libraries in fhe course: exfremely valuable, world-view: "A lot of information taught was focused on non lihrary/academia issues. Although "My world-view changed after taking such activities and leaming projects may Usability. I can no longer look at a poorly have helped students develop a better designed website without cringing. I don't understanding of general usability issues, blame myself when 1 can't figure out the 1 think it would have been more beneficial path (or use of an object) that a designer to LIS students to focus projects on library intended that just doesn't work." (UT- usability issues." (FSU) Austin) "This class changed my way of looking at "I would have more of an emphasis on the world more than any other class 1 took library-specific products, such as OPACs." at FSU. It was actually my favorite class, (FSU) because it gave me a deep understanding One imporfanf fheme cenfered on fhe of why usability is so important and how it imporfance of being able fo advocafe can improve people's lives. Because of this for usabilify, especially in environmenfs class, I am better able to empathize with where usabilify analysis is nof fhe norm: library users who are fi-ustrated b e c a u s e of usability issues, and I am better able to "I find that many usability battles at my job recognize and remedy usability problems are won or lost in the very early stages or at the library where 1 work. This class the design process. It's that first develop- asked a lot of me, and gave a lot in retum. ment meeting where the usability 'expert' 1 would recommend it to any LIS student, in the room can have the most infiuence. not just those interested in technology / I wish that I'd had a little more practice at web design." (FSU) being that expert in the room in the very first development spec meeting—especial- Many of fhe former LIS sfudenfs em- 286 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE phasized how taking a course on usability course at some point during my career was an important educational investment: since graduating from the iSchool." (UT- "Having experience and training in usabil- Austin) ity and UCD has been a great benefit to my career. I have been able to bring expertise Discussion to development projects that others just don't have. My education gave me a true "Last year we launched an upgraded Dru- understanding and the skills to apply UCD, pal-based website. This was a long term ef- rather than just toss around buzz words." fort that required creating a separate team (UT-Austin) from within the staff of our library district. 1 volunteered to be a member ofthe team "This course, probably more than any other specifically because of the training I re- MLIS course, separates me from my won- ceived from FSU's Usability course. [...] derful colleagues, in the positive sense. I Usability testing was at the center of every think I am the only Librarian in my system stage of this development from early staff who has had this course, and therefore I and user surveys to extensive staff and user have a voice in matters that I would not testing and everything in between. [...] Al- have otherwise had." (FSU) though it's hard to quantify, the knowledge 1 gained from this course certainly saved Another common theme was the need our library many thousands of dollars that for LIS programs to offer more courses on would have gone to outside consultants, usability, UCD, and related topics: and more importantly, has provided our "As technology becomes more and more extensive user community with an easy to important, courses such as this one need to use website. This was, without doubt, the play a more prominent role. For instance, best course I took from FSU." (FSU) as libraries convert to becoming digital libraries more tech skills are required, as The above results demonsfrate con- well as being able to think about the end clusively that LIS students, even those product and the users experience." (FSU) not hired to work as usability engineers, use the general principles of usability and "The iSchool should have a User-centered UCD regularly in their jobs as information Design course that complements Usability professionals. While only 20% of the re- by giving students a hands-on approach to spondents agreed or strongly agreed that designing websites and mobile apps with they were "explicitly hired to perform us- usability in mind. [...] Many job postings ability/user-centered design work," the that I see are for 'Usability Designers,' so vast majority agreed or strongly agreed a more technical/hands-on iSchool course that the concepts leamed in their usabil- would be useful." (UT-Austin) ity course helped them on the job (93%), that they use the general theories and Finally, the survey respondents stressed principles leamed in their usability course throughout that an understanding of the regularly (83%), and that their usability principles of usability was relevant to all, skills are valued at their place of work and important enough to be considered (66%). While we acknowledge the possi- foundational in LIS: bility of selection bias in this (as in any) survey, the relatively high (31%) response "Usability should be a foundation course rate—combined with the striking differ- that every LIS student should be required ences between the 93% who voiced value to take. It is relevant to the profession and in teaming usability concepts vs. the 20% should not be taken for granted." (FSU) who were explicitly hired to perform usability work—encourages confidence in "I have used every aspect ofthe design Usability/User-Centered Design in the iSchools: Justifying a Teaching Philosophy 287 our conclusions. It is extremely unlikely hands-on assignments and activities that that all non-respondents did not find value provide a more practical emphasis. It in- in their usability instruction, and there is cludes coverage of the design principles no question in our minds that these results and guidelines that have resulted fi-om reinforce the importance of a common research and practice, as well as presen- teaching philosophy that stresses the value tations from industry. Course assignments of usability for all LIS students, and argue focus on acquiring an understanding of for the inclusion of usability / UCD as a UCD and mastering evaluation methods core course in the LIS curriculum. such as inspection methods, representative user testing, and performance metrics. User-Centered Design as a Common The final portion of the course is spent on Teaching Philosophy an iterative, UCD project featuring formal usability evaluations. This course is typi- These results were obtained, with re- cally taught as an online course to distance markable similarity, from a wide sample of students pursuing the master's in LIS from respondents who graduated from two dif- across Florida and the nation. ferent universities over the past ten years. Despite differences in emphasis and While the authors have known each other sequencing, the common course philoso- for many years, they have never explicitly phy—that the general principles and spe- coordinated their usability-oriented course cifrc skills of usability and UCD are im- offerings across the two universities. Spe- portant to all LIS students, regardless of cific course syllabi, outlines, readings, and career goals—has stayed the same from assignments not only vary from university university to university, from course to to university and professor to professor, course, and from year to year. This un- but from semester to semester, as each derlying philosophy resulted in remark- course has evolved significantly over the ably consistent survey results. The median years in terms of topics and material cov- score for four out of six questions in Table ered. 3, for example, was the same for UT- At UT-Austin, the "Introduction to Us- Austin and FSU respondents, with the two ability" course is divided into thirds. The differing questions separated by only one first third of the course covers the scien- response category. Similarly, out of the tific underpinnings of usability (including 11 questions in Table 4, five yielded the human perception, cognition, memory, same median score for FSU and UT-Aus- and mental models). The middle third is tin respondents, while the other six yielded devoted to different UCD methods (ofren medians that again differed by only one entailing guest presentations from a variety category. This similarity in responses— of usability professionals, and from com- despite differences in course content, panies such as AT&T, IBM, projekt202, sfructure, and location—reinforces our OpenText, and Design for Use), in the fi- belief in our teaching philosophy and mo- nal third, students conduct formal usability tivates us to advocate making a course on evaluations where they build upon lessons usability a required component of the LIS leamed in the rest of the course. The class curriculum. is taught as an on-campus course in a town with a relatively high density of soflware Usability as a Core LIS Course development companies, and a large number of interaction designers. Making usability or UCD a core or At FSU, the "Usability Analysis" course foundational course in the LIS curricu- begins by covering the scientific under- lum would be a somewhat radical move; pinnings of usability engineering and hu- usability analysis is not considered one man information processing, followed by of the core competencies of librarianship 288 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE (ALA, 2009). Such a proposal, however, systematically evaluate interfaces for us- is strongly supported by the results pre- abilify problems using various methods, sented above. While it might take some with and without representative users. fine-ttuiing in terms of content and assign- These general principles of UCD are ments, there is no reason why a course on big picture concepts applicable to all LIS usabilify could not successfully transition students, regardless of career goals. As from an elective course pursued by some, to LIS programs and the iSchools movement a required course taken by all LIS students. prepare students for the "new librarian- An important step in this process would ship" (Lankes, 2011), it is critical that all be to refine the course to make it more ap- future information professionals have a plicable for all LIS students, with a greater solid understanding of why it is impor- emphasis on the breadth of application tant to involve users in the development and less on specific methods. The above of information systems of all types, and survey responses provide critical baseline how these systems are improved when de- data for making this change, and follow-up signed, assessed, and approached with the conversations with former students could users' perspective in mind. provide even more data. For instance, while end-user testing is an important part Conclusion of usability analysis, and many respondents voiced an appreciation for having "One of the most important tools I have as had the experience of carrying out a lab- a librarian is my ability to understand how based study, it is clear that most practicing users work with a system—both physical information professionals emphasized the and virtual. I use the methods 1 leamed in value of discount, "quick-and-perhaps- my usability course work all the time in not-so-dirty," guerilla usability evaluation my job." (UT-Austin) methods. With the help of former students who are working as information profes- The results of this study demonstrate sionals, we can expand our offerings, or at that LIS master's students can benefit least rework our examples, to drive home from instruction in usabilify and UCD. more explicitly the importance of UCD in Even those who are not explicitly hired to non-software-development work environ- perform usabilify or UCD work find, once ments. Similarly, we will need to bolster our in the workplace, that their awareness of modules on advocacy and the integration of the concepts, theories, and methods of us- usabilify methods into the day-to-day j o b of ability serves them well and tends to be the traditional information professional. valued by their co-workers and employers. It is our belief, however, that the gen- Despite differences in curricula, teaching eral principles of usabilify are already styles, geographic locations, and career perfectly applicable to all LIS students, paths, a firm grounding in the principles, particularly in the iSchools. A usability theories, and methods of usability UCD is course is not a programming course, or of considerable value to information pro- a computer interface design course, or fessionals throughout their careers. LIS even an HCI course. A course on usabilify faculty—in the iSchools and beyond— teaches students that usability problems would serve their students well by includ- stem from the difficulfy of thinking about ing courses on usability in the LIS curricu- information systems from the user's per- lum, and by considering making usability spective; that usability analysis is a critical a core course requirement. part of the design lifecycle for all products and essential to meeting the needs of end Acknowledgements users; and that system designers must distance themselves from their designs, and We would like to thank all of our valued Usability/User-Centered Design in the iSchools: Justifying a Teaching Philosophy 289 former students who complet;ed this sur- Hendler, J., Shadbolt, N., Hall, W., Bemers-Lee, T., vey, as well as Brooke Everett for bringing & Weitzner, D. (2008). Web science: An inter- disciplinary approach to understanding the web. to our attention two articles on the topic of Communications of the ACM, 5I{1), 60-69. usability and libraries. We also acknowl- ISO 9241-11 (1998). Ergonomie requirements for edge and thank those former students who ofßce work with visual display terminals (VDTs)- have given us unsolicited feedback over Part 11: Guidance on usability. Retrieved the years about the importance of under- from http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail. standing usability in their careers, as it htm ? c s n u m b e r = l 6883 was those students who provided the ini- Lankes, R. D. (2011). The atlas of new librarian- tial motivation for this study. Finally, we ship. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. thank Cassie Alvarado, Kimberly Amos- Meister, D. (1999). The history of human factors Tata, and Betsy Crawford for helping us and ergonomics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl- baum Associates. secure the email addresses of our past stu- Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. Boston, dents. MA: Academic Press. Nielsen, J. (2005). Usability for the masses. Journal References of Usability Studies, /(I), 2-3. Nielsen, J., & Mack, R. L. (1994). Usability inspec- American Library Association (ALA) (2009). Core tion methods. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Competencies of Librarianship. Retrieved from Norman, D. A. (1988). The design of everyday http://www.ala.org/educationcareers/sites/ala. things. New York, NY: Basic Books. org.educationcareers/files/content/careers/core- Norman, D. A. (2003). Emotional design: Why we comp/corecompetences/finalcorecompstat09.pdf love (or hate) everyday things. New York, NY: Bevan, N. (1999). Quality in use: Meeting user Basic Books. needs for quality. Journal of Systems and Soft- Olson, G. M. & Olson, J. S. (1998). Two psycholo- ware, 49(\), B9-96. gists in search of a school of information: a per- Bias, R. G., & Mayhew, D. J. (Eds.). (2005). Cost- sonal joumey. Library Hi Tech, 16(2), 85-89. justifying usability, 2nd Edition: Update for Purao, S., Baldwin, C. Y., Hevner, A., Storey, V., the Internet age. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Pries-Heje, J., & Smith, B. (2008). The sciences Kaufmann. of design: Observations on an emerging field. Cervone, H. F. (2005). Usability training: An over- Communications of the Association for Informa- looked component in an on-going program of tion Systems, 23, 523-546. web assessment and development. OCLC Sys- Rode, J. A. (2011). Reflexivity in digital anthropol- tems & Services, 21, 244-251. ogy. In Proceedings of the 2011 annual confer- Douglas, I., & Liu, Z. (2011). Global usability. Lon- ence on human factors in computing systems don: Springer-Verlag. (CHI 'II). New York, NY: ACM Press, 123-132. Falzon, P., Gaines, B. R., & Monk, A. F. (1990). Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualita- Cognitive ergonomics: Understanding, learn- tive research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ing, and designing human-computer interaction Vredenburg, K., Isensee, S., & Righi, C. (Eds.). (computers and people). Boston, MA: Academic (2002). User-centered design: An integrated ap- Press. proach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.