The Role of Information Architecture in Designing a Third-Generation Library Web Site
Jennifer Duncan and Wendy Holliday
Library Web sites have evolved over the past decade, from simple pages with a few links to complex sites that provide direct access to hundreds of different resources. In many cases, this evolution occurs with little overall planning, often resulting in Web sites that are hard to manage and difficult for users to navigate.This article outlines the process of using Information Architecture (IA) to redesign a third-generation library Web site from the ground up.The result was a much more usable and cohesive library Web site that meets the needs of a broad range of users.
n 2003, the Utah State Univer- had graphically redesigned the Web site sity (USU) Library anticipated a few times, the underlying structure the third major redesign of remained intact. The first and second their Web site. The original levels received a graphic makeover but re- design of the site simply provided basic mained mapped to years of accumulated information about library resources and pages that were not organized coherently. services. Like many library Web sites, it As Louis Rosenfeld, a pioneer in the field had grown over the years in both size and of Information Architecture, suggests, scope. By 2003, the site included several this is a common problem in the current hundred pages and provided access to electronic information environment: hundreds of electronic resources. It had grown without overall planning and it Increased scope, volume, and for- included several different graphic looks, mat types result in great content with “legacy” pages from previous de- ambiguity, muddier information signs existing alongside newer content. retrieval performance, and there- Between 2000 and 2003, the homepage fore, place additional pressures on underwent two major overhauls, yet system design.1 neither redesign was quite satisfactory. Graphic elements, layout, and some labels USU looked to the emerging field of changed, but testing showed that users Information Architecture (IA) to address found the site confusing. the muddiness of their third-generation The major problem was the underlying Web site. For the purposes of the design architecture of the site. While the library project, we used Andrew Dillon’s broad
Jennifer Duncan is Electronic Resources Librarian and Wendy Holliday is Coordinator of Library In- struction in the Merrill-Cazier Library at Utah State University; e-mail: [email protected] and [email protected].
301 302 College & Research Libraries July 2008 definition of information architecture: importance of sound IAto the redesign of “[The] process of designing, implement- the Moraine Valley Community College ing and evaluating information spaces (MVCC) Library Web site. Like USU’s that are humanly and socially acceptable site, the MVCC site grew from its original to their intended stakeholders.”2 Infor- scope and size without much planning, mation Architecture is part of the larger suffering from unnecessary menu pages user-centered design movement, but it and confusing labels and wording. MVCC focuses more specifically on the underly- began their redesign process by identify- ing structure and navigational elements ing potential users of the site and ge ing of information spaces. Pioneers in the user impressions of the existing site. They field of IA recognized that the World then mapped out a general organizational Wide Web required a new approach to scheme and menu hierarchy. Swanson organization and structure to help users did not elaborate, however, on design intuitively navigate complex information processes and methodologies used to environments. According to Rosenfeld reach these decisions.5 and Peter Morville, in their classic text on Several library and information science Information Architecture, IA is: researchers have also provided assess- 1. The combination of organization, ments of the information architectures labeling, and navigation schemes within of Web sites. Shelley Gullikson et al. an information system. conducted user tests to analyze the effec- 2. The structural design of an informa- tiveness of the architecture of a university tion space to facilitate task completion Web site.6 David Robins and Sigrid Kelsey and intuitive access to content. conducted usability tests and a user sur- 3. The art and science of structuring vey to assess an academic library Web and classifying Web sites and intranets site.7 Louise McGillis and Elaine Toms also to help people find and manage informa- used task-based user testing to assess a tion. university library Web site.8 In all of these 4. An emerging discipline and com- cases, the assessments noted problems in munity of practice focused on bringing labeling and categorization, all of which principles of design and architecture to are central to a site’s information archi- the digital landscape.3 tecture. These studies provide important Focusing on elements of organization, cautionary notes for library Web site labeling, and structure, we applied prin- designers. As McGillis and Toms suggest, ciples and methods of IA to the design however, there are no simple checklists or process for a completely new Web site universal solutions. Web designers should launched in 2006. The USU Library recog- employ user-centered design principles nized that, to many users, the Web site is to specific cases to create the most usable the library and wanted to apply the same sites for various user populations. care and a ention involved in planning a Theoretical discussions of IA support new library building to the design of the this idea of user-centered processes rather library’s Web space. than universal guidelines. Toms notes that IA is a central component of information Related Literature interaction, or the ways in which users Many libraries have applied usability interact with the content of a Web site.9 A principles and methods to the design sound site blueprint helps communicate and redesign of library Web sites. These content to users, increasing the site’s ef- projects tend to focus on top-level menu fectiveness and promoting successful user items, labels, and graphical layout.4 The interaction. Marsha Haverty argues that importance of Information Architecture IA is an inductive process because, as a has just begun to emerge in the library relatively new field, it “supports emer- literature. Troy Swanson described the gent phenomenon.”10 The IA design pro- Designing a Third-Generation Library Web Site 303 cess is one of “Constructive Induction.” support and the information it should Designers create solutions to meet the convey, as defined by all library stake- overall goals or functional requirements holders. To borrow from Barry Mahon of the system by using individual build- and Alan Gilchrist, we wanted to design ing blocks of structure, navigation, and “for purpose.”15 interaction. IAthen takes these individual The program requirement document design solutions to build the overall archi- was important for several reasons. Web tecture. When evaluating solutions from site design is o en a political process, a user-centered perspective, ease of use involving the competing interests of and findability define success.11 several different departments. The USU The notion of induction is impor- Library Web site also suffered from legacy tant to the application of IA principles issues; a number of different individuals and methods to the design of library created the existing content and there was Web sites. Many library Web sites have no consistent updating schedule or main- grown, even metastasized, into large tenance. Web site design also involves and complex collections of information trade-offs.16 There is no way to meet every and search applications, as was the case user or stakeholder need with any single at USU. IA is central to managing these design. The Task Force needed a way to increasingly complex information spaces, address the political and legacy issues and some of which need reorganization from develop a list of priorities to help achieve the ground up. Instead of redesigning a commonly held vision for the site. A existing pages, USU decided that the best program requirement document helps solution was to start from scratch. We communicate and hold site designers ac- applied both top-down and bo om-up countable to a common purpose. It also approaches. We developed a program helps make design decisions more trans- requirement document to outline what parent. According to Julie Rowbotham, the Web site needed to do for its users. Web design projects can be traumatic We then used inductive methods, such as because of competing needs and narrower card-sorting, to try to discover how users departmental perspectives.17 approached the information and applica- We used several methods to assess tions we hoped to provide via the library stakeholder needs to develop the program Web site. This comprehensive approach requirement document. First, between helped address persistent usability prob- November 24, 2003, and January 12, 2004, lems in earlier iterations of our site. library web site users had the option to click on a Web-based survey with one The Program Requirement Document question: “What are you trying to do on In fall 2003, the Library formed a Web the library Web site today?” In total, 132 Architecture Task Force to design the individuals responded. Twenty-one re- information architecture for the new li- spondents le the question blank and ten brary Web site.12 The Task Force’s first goal respondents replied that they were just was to produce a program requirement surfing, killing time, or that the library document. Borrowing from the field of Web site was set as the default homep- computer science and so ware develop- age. Ultimately, we coded 101 responses ment, the Task Force wanted to create a as usable. This was a self-selected sample clear picture of the required functionality and targeted only interested library users. of the site.13 Bob Wiggins notes that many We coded survey statements into tasks so ware design projects fail because of and categories and ranked them in order poorly defined requirements and because of frequency. of disagreement on the priorities for the We also recorded reference desk sta- system.14 We wanted to document and tistics to determine typical user tasks in prioritize the tasks the Web site should the library. Over the course of a week, 304 College & Research Libraries July 2008 librarians recorded a brief statement ings would have placed them as a lower about every reference question asked priority. In some cases, this was because during selected desk shi s. We covered of additional information provided by each two-hour shi once. We coded these the user survey and reference transac- statements into tasks and ranked them in tions. In some cases, it was a judgment order of frequency. Like the Web survey, call. The most prominent example was this was not a large, random sample. information on services for distance learn- It captured information from a specific ers, including remote access to library sector of our user population: people mo- resources. We felt that the Web site is the tivated to ask for help in the library. only way to access the library for distance Our final data collection method was learners, so we ranked their needs as library staff interviews. Task force mem- Absolute. We also felt that access to our bers interviewed staff in each library government publications program, as a department and asked them to describe regional depository library, was a top re- what the Web site ideally needed to be quirement. We then divided the program effective. A complete list of questions is requirements into four broad categories: available in Appendix A. We compiled the Collection Access, Information about the results of each interview in a spreadsheet Library, Services, and Help. and organized them into general catego- ries. We then circulated the spreadsheet to Collection Access the entire library and asked staff members The three data collection methods con- to rank each requirement on a scale of firmed that the top priority for the USU one to five, one being essential and five Library’s Web site is to provide access to optional. Twenty-one staff members (of collections. This is the core mission of the approximately seventy-five) provided library, and both stakeholder interviews rankings. We calculated the mean ranking and users confirmed this. From the user for each item. survey, 76 of 101 respondents were trying We used these three methods to gather to access library resources in some way. information for the program requirement Their tasks were broken down more spe- document because we wanted to get cifically as follows: multiple perspectives. It was not pos- sible, because of time and resources, to General or topical research: 27 randomly sample library users about their Finding a book: 17 use of the library Web site. We selected Finding an article: 16 methods that could provide a quick and Accessing course reserves: 14 efficient glimpse of user tasks and goals. Finding an audio book: 1 This picture was enhanced by the library Looking for a specific reference source: 1 department staff interviews. Library staff know what users should be able to do The Reference Desk statistics reflect a when they visit the library Web site, while similar breakdown. Librarians recorded many users are likely unaware of all the 94 transactions. We discarded nine be- possibilities. cause they were related to physically From the surveys, reference transac- locating a person or place (such as the tions, and stakeholder interviews, the bathroom) in the building. We considered Task Force developed a list of program eighty-five responses related to broader li- requirements, collapsing the rankings brary tasks. Of these, sixty related to find- into three categories: Absolutes, Recom- ing books, articles, or course reserves, or mended, and Extras. In most cases, our ge ing started on researching a topic. Six judgment matched the mean rankings. of the questions in the “other” category In a few cases, we reranked items as related to finding or using a specific re- absolute, even though the collective rank- source, such as a master’s thesis or phone Designing a Third-Generation Library Web Site 305
TABLE 1 Absolute Requirements for Collection Access Requirement Mean Score Access to online catalog 1 Access to electronic resources, including indexing and abstracting databases, 1.05 full-text databases, specialized reference sources, and electronic books List of all e-journals 1.57 Reserves 1.57 Special Collections 1.65 Access to Digital Library 1.71 Access to government document program, including general description no score* of collection and how to find and locate government documents *Note: We consolidated many elements for this item. book. The staff interviews confirmed that ing for the name of an employee. From access to resources is the top priority for the Reference Desk statistics, one person the web site. Access to the online catalog, wanted to know about library hours, six article databases, e-journals, the digital were trying to locate a library department, library, and Special Collections all rated the computer lab, or a physical resource in highly, between 1 and 1.65. See tables 1 the library, and one patron had a question and 2. about journal circulation policies. Information about library operations Information about the Library was also a high priority among library The user survey and stakeholder inter- staff. Library hours, directions, and contact views showed that users need to find information all ranked highly. Library information about the library. Specific hours, mailing address, and a general information about services was a common telephone number all ranked between 1.1 theme that we present separately below. and 1.3, and some type of staff directory From the user survey, four respondents ranked at 1.8. Staff members highly ranked were looking for library hours, six were policies as a separate category. Policies on looking for news about the library or the borrowing and patron privileges ranked building project, and one person was look- highest (1.62–1.95), while more specific
TABLE 2 Recommended Requirements for Collection Access Requirement Mean Score Ready reference sources, including free Web resources, such as style 2 manuals and online dictionaries New databases 2.05 Trial databases 2.25 Web sites for other libraries, including a link to Utah’s Catalog 2.62 Description of Art Book Collection, including art books, CDs and music, 2.79 and Beat Collection Specific links to government publication sources, including government 3 metasites and portals, direct links to federal Web sites, and maps 306 College & Research Libraries July 2008
TABLE 3 Absolute Requirements for Information about the Library Requirement Mean Score Library and department hours (for all libraries and departments with 1.1 public service hours) Mailing address, general phone number, and general e-mail for entire 1.24 library Circulation information, including how to check out a book, patron 1.65 privileges by category, and policies Directory of personnel with contact information, listed by name and 1.8 department; include staff expertise Maps, directions, and parking tips for visitors 1.86 List of subject selectors 1.89 Calendar for library activities 2.19 Development 2.2 policies on food, e-resource use, and com- “marketing” and development compo- puter use ranked between 2 and 3. nents to much of the suggested “about the Library staff ranked development/ library” content. See tables 3 and 4. fundraising information highly (around 2.2). Stakeholders also thought it was Services important that the library promote itself Accessing library services was another and tell its story on the Web site to com- prominent category that emerged from municate what we do and why it is impor- the data. The most frequently requested tant at USU. Information on our mission, service in the Web survey was circulation. goals, and staff accomplishments ranked Six patrons wanted to renew books or between 2 and 3. In general, there were get information on what books they had
TABLE 4 Recommended Requirements for Information about the Library Requirement Mean Score Map of building and stacks guide 2 Serials cut information 2.05 Mission statement and why we are important and relevant on campus 2.24 Policies and guidelines for acceptance of gifts 2.33 Gifts 2.5 Friends of the Library 2.52 Information on the building project 2.52 Collection Development Policy 2.74 Policies and procedures, including policies on food, computer use, appro- 2.79 priate use of e-resources, etc. Current issues, such as copyright, USA PATRIOT Act, and scholarly 2.9 communication Employment information, general and for students 3.1 Designing a Third-Generation Library Web Site 307 checked out. Three in-person ref- TABLE 5 erence transactions also related Absolute Requirements for Service Access to circulation questions. We Requirement Mean Score recorded printing and copying Order Interlibrary Loan materials 1.33 questions in both the user sur- vey and reference transactions Contact someone for help 1.48 in addition to interlibrary loan Renew books online 1.48 and remote access questions. E-mail Reference Service 1.57 From the staff interviews and rankings, it was clear that the Order distance education 1.6 Web site should play a vital role materials in providing access to particular Provide feedback: suggestion box 1.9 services. Requesting interlibrary Book purchase request 2.1 loan (1.33) and distance educa- Link to WebCT 2.61 tion materials (1.6) both ranked highly. E-mail reference service, Troubleshooting information about 2.63 renewing books, and contacting database problems a librarian for help also ranked between 1 and 2. Information about library services was also a high library Web site should provide some priority. Information about interlibrary help and instructions on how to use loan services ranked highest, while in- library resources and services and how formation on the instruction program, to do library research more generally. printing and copying, and troubleshoot- In the help category, ge ing assistance ing e-resources ranked slightly lower. See with remote access was the most highly tables 5 and 6. ranked item (1.38). Information on how to get help from a librarian ranked second Help Using the Library (1.57), with the related task of contacting None of the user survey respondents a subject librarian close behind (1.9). See said that they were coming to the li- tables 7 and 8. brary Web site for help. The reference The Information Architecture Task transactions, however, suggest areas in Force used these rankings to develop a which patrons were seeking help. Most Program Requirement document.18 We of these questions related to finding and used this document to guide us through accessing library resources. The stake- the development of the site architec- holder interviews also suggest that the ture.
TABLE 6 Absolute Requirements for Information about Library Services Requirement Mean Score Interlibrary Loan form entry instructions 1.81 Interlibrary Loan—how to order materials 1.9 E-mail, phone contacts for Interlibrary Loan office regarding 1.93 questions Interlibrary Loan policies to answer patron questions 1.95 Interlibrary Loan notification of materials arrival—how notification comes 2.05 and how long materials can be kept Instruction program overview (what we offer and contacts) 2.33 308 College & Research Libraries July 2008
TABLE 7 Absolute Requirements for Help Using the Library Requirement Mean Score How to access databases from home; use proxy services 1.38 Contacting subject specialists for research help 1.9 Distance learners—policies, procedures, and instructions for all library 2.1 services and resources available to them
Determining the Site Architecture ment, we narrowed the list to 52 cards, Once the Task Force had developed the representing key categories as well as program requirements, we used a series cards that the Task Force had a hard time of iterative methods to design the site’s placing in a group. Ten students and two structure, allowing us to test, revise, and faculty members sorted the 52 cards.19 We retest. asked them to place the cards in four to six groups and said that they could create Card Sorting a small “problem” group for items that The Task Force began by conducting were hard to categorize. When they were card sorts to see how we ourselves might finished sorting, we asked the testers to group the 129 program requirements. We label each group. printed brief descriptions of each require- We normed the testers’ categories by ment on cards and conducted an initial taking their labels and placing them in sort of all of the cards to generate basic similar categories with a consistent name. ideas about groupings and to identify Using a card sort analysis template,20 we problem areas to test more rigorously calculated the total number of cards in with actual users. Because 129 cards are each category, how many times the same difficult to sort quickly in a test environ- card appeared in the same category, and
TABLE 8 Recommended Requirements for Help Using the Library Requirement Mean Score Finding books 2 Finding government documents 2 Finding information on a subject 2.05 Does the USU libraries own something (any format)? How to find out 2.2 LC call numbers (how to locate and use) 2.29 How to locate a copy of an article, in print or electronic format 2.33 Library location explanation and what goes where—stacks guide 2.35 Online tutorials 2.38 How to do Boolean searches 2.43 How to cite sources 2.52 How to evaluate search results 2.57 How to pick a topic 2.62 How to read SuDOC numbers 2.69 Information on resources for distance ed. teachers 2.9 Designing a Third-Generation Library Web Site 309 the levels of agreement for card placement termined categories (About the Library, in a category. For example, most testers Services, and Help) and told them that had a group of items related to accessing they could refine these broad categories online resources that we called Access by placing cards in labeled subcategories. Collections. We also created a problem cat- Three students and a librarian partici- egory for idiosyncratic groups. The final pated in this sort. The results of the closed normed categories were: Access Collec- sort suggested that when users choose tions; Help/How Do I; General Information; from broad but specific categories, group- Policies; Development/Fundraising; Services; ing is more consistent. Testers placed 22 of Special Materials; and Problems. the 39 cards in the same group, while only There was a surprising lack of agree- placing one item in three different catego- ment for most cards, even for items ries. This test confirmed that context is a that librarians might consider easy to key factor in enabling users to recognize categorize, such as the online catalog. what a label might mean. While most testers (73%) placed the Task Force members independently catalog in the Access Collections category, created possible organizational schemes two placed it in other categories. Testers based on the results of the sorts and placed only six of the 52 cards in just two selected three schemes to present for categories; testers failed to place any public comment. The first was a task- card unanimously in a single category. and topic-based scheme that was narrow Testers placed seven items in six differ- and deep with only four broad top-level ent categories, suggesting that they did categories requiring the user to drill for not have a consistent approach to these content (figure 1). The second model was items. also task- and topic-based, but it was wide We then conducted a closed card sort and shallow, with two more top-level cat- with 39 low-agreement items. We asked egories. Additionally, we divided the Help testers to place cards into three prede- category in two (figure 2). The third and
FIGURE 1 Model 1: Narrow and Deep 310 College & Research Libraries July 2008
FIGURE 2 Model 2: Wide and Shallow
final scheme added an audience approach meeting participants favored the first nar- to the second model, thus broadening it row and deep model, but with audience further (figure 3). elements added and Help subdivided. The Task Force presented these outlines Therefore, the following categories be- to library staff at a town hall meeting in came the foundation for creating and March 2004 and asked for feedback. The testing labels and conducting preliminary
FIGURE 3 Model 3: Task and Audience Designing a Third-Generation Library Web Site 311 usability tests on the final site architecture: own recommendations. We distributed Find Resources, About USU Libraries/General surveys at each Reference Desk, and 29 of Information, Help (subdivided), and Ser- 50 people returned usable survey results. vices for… (subdivided by audience). These participants were already library users. Based on the results, the Task Force Label Development and Testing chose the following top level labels to be- Once we determined the top-level divi- gin the final round of usability tests: sions, we began the label development process. We first held a brainstorming Find Research Resources & Tools session with members of the library staff Unique Collections to get fresh ideas. This group considered About USU Libraries the four general categories above, as well Services for… (subdivided by audience) as some problematic labels from sublevels Get Assistance (formerly Help; subdi- of the site. We then asked them to suggest vided) different names for each area. The group, unasked, also recommended a change Site Architecture Development and Testing to the categories themselves, suggesting Finally, based on feedback from the town that truly unique collections at USU, such hall meeting and label testing, the Task as Special Collections and the Art Book Force was ready to create a blueprint of the Collection, remain grouped together but complete site architecture. We took all 129 separate from the Find Resources area. program requirements and resorted them Although this was a deviation from the into the proposed organizational scheme planned structure, we agreed that this producing a comprehensive outline in- separation might address some problem cluding every program requirement. categories and highlight what is truly We then tested this model with library special about our library. users through rapid paper prototyping. The Task Force then tested the list of This method was neither cost nor resource label recommendations with a survey. The intensive and allowed us to test without survey included paragraph descriptions distracting layout or graphic elements of what a label would represent, with a list so that we could focus on structure and of three to four label suggestions below labels. We printed label outlines from the the description. We asked respondents top two or three levels on one sheet of to circle the label they thought best rep- paper for each level and created a series resented the description or to make their of tasks for testers to complete using our
FIGURE 4 Testing Model A 312 College & Research Libraries July 2008
FIGURE 5 the link for Special Collections. All six Testing Model B were successful when it was prominently FIND RESEARCH RESOURCES AND TOOLS displayed as a sublink in Model B. The Online Resources tests also suggested that we needed to Library Catalog create additional access points to many Special Collections of the general information elements Art Book Room Digital Library (for example, circulation information or Government Documents group study rooms) because users had no Reserves clear navigation pa erns to this informa- tion, spli ing fairly evenly between About ABOUT USU LIBRARIES Who We Are and Services. In addition, the distinction Policies and Procedures between Help with the Research Process Employment Opportunities and Help Using the Library was not clear Information About our Collections to most testers, suggesting that we should Visiting the Library collapse these categories. In testing with Contact Us News, Current Issues, and Events faculty, there was concern about placing Supporting the Library Interlibrary Loan (ILL) only under the FAQs Services links. Two faculty members failed to see Interlibrary Loan under Services Get Assistance Contact Someone for Help and looked for it under Find instead. A Help with the Research Process single access point for ILLmight hide this Help Using the Library service from its largest constituency. Technical Troubleshooting The Task Force decided to proceed Services for… with Model B, with some modifications. Undergraduates The label testing suggested that Services Graduate Students was ineffective and did not really mean Faculty much to testers—interesting because Distance Learners Community members many libraries persist in using this bit of jargon, as had we. We replaced Ser- vices with Quick Links, which the survey paper-only site (see Appendix B). Start- indicated was a clear favorite. ing with the top level, we asked testers The Task Force then created a low-fidel- to point to the label, or “link,” that they ity Web prototype.21 We tested 13 students would choose to complete that task. If a (the tasks appear as Appendix C). Usabil- second link was required, the facilitator ity tests confirmed many of the previous presented the next level of the hierarchy. findings from card sorts and user tests. Users could request to go “back” or Namely, users did not consistently choose simply give up if they were unable to the same link, but followed two general complete the task. paths for informational questions. For We tested two different approaches. example, students selected Quick Links In the first model (Model A, depicted in for Students, FAQs (under About), or Poli- figure 4), we listed only the four main cies and Procedures (also under About) for categories but included a brief paragraph questions about reserving a study room describing each. The second model (Mod- or finding out about circulation periods. el B, depicted in figure 5) listed the same Most students successfully completed the categories but instead displayed links to tasks via one of the multiple avenues we all content included at the second level. provided. The final round of student test- Test results showed that users per- ing confirmed the Task Force’s decision to formed the tasks more quickly and suc- build upon Model B and to build in some cessfully using Model B. For example, with redundancy by providing multiple access Model A, only four of six students located points for information. Designing a Third-Generation Library Web Site 313
Proposed Information Architecture cal landmines typical of such a redesign In June 2004, the Task Force prepared a seemed to have been averted. The Task Design and Implementation Report for Force agreed to continue revising the the library’s Executive Council. The report schematics based on further library staff proposed an organizational structure for a feedback and requests from the Web new Web site slated for construction dur- Steering Commi ee, especially because ing the 2005–2006 academic year, ready the Commi ee felt it might need more for deployment when our new building detailed outlines during implementation. opened.22 The report recommended orga- The Task Force also made several final nizing the site into five primary content implementation recommendations. areas as described in the revised Model First, final authority to make decisions B. The Task Force acknowledged that the on both homepage real estate priorities, addition of layout and graphic elements as well as the commitment of resources might eventually necessitate revision toward the redesign, should vest in the but proposed the following top-level Library Executive Commi ee, following subdivisions: recommendations from the Task Force • Find Resources and Search Our Col- and the Web Steering Commi ee. Nei- lections: A central point from which to ther Web group had sufficient authority connect to information resources such as to determine organizational priorities catalogs, databases, and e-journals. to negotiate link placement between • USU Unique Collections: Ashowcase departments. Nor did either Web group highlighting Special Collections and Ar- have the fiscal authority to determine the chives, the Digital Library, Government allocation of resources toward this project. Documents, and our Art Book Room. Both of these issues were substantially po- • General Information: Information litical in nature and best le to the library about the library as an organization. administration. While this heading appeared to be a The IA Task Force strongly recom- catchall, open card sort results frequently mended that the Web Steering Commit- indicated that library users look for this tee should receive adequate resources to category. implement the proposed site architecture. • Get Help: A jumping-off point for The original recommendation was to those who have hit an impasse, provid- use a database-driven model for content ing access to a wide array of contact management. This proposal would cost information, tutorials, technical help, and more up front but save money and time information about library instruction. in the long run, as well as making it • QuickLinks for…: An audience-driv- easier to maintain a more current Web en area providing space for communicat- site. It was also critical for the Web site to ing information frequently requested by a have a consistent look and feel through- specific demographic of our community. out and be easy to update. A database model would have facilitated this by Implementation and Follow-Up using a single graphic design to create a The Web Architecture Task Force finally “template” incorporating cascading style delivered dra schematics23 of the pro- sheets populated by the databases, rather posed Information Architecture to the than having several departments create Web Steering Committee, which was their own static pages with a different responsible for the design phase of the look. In the end, the commi ee did not project. Library staff also received the fully develop the database model because schematics for comment. Comments were of staffing and budget issues. Databases almost universally favorable, perhaps do populate some sections of the site; because the process had been so participa- however, for the majority of content, the tory and transparent. Many of the politi- library uses static templates and staff add 314 College & Research Libraries July 2008 and edit content using an HTML editor once graphic artists and Web developers like Dreamweaver. began designing and programming. Be- The IA Task Force remained involved cause the underlying site structure was during the testing phase of the site. already solid, however, we were not dis- Testing should be continual as any site tracted by graphics or technical bells and develops, and the Task Force served as a whistles when pu ing content to page. resource for the Web Steering Commi ee, Perhaps the most useful thing we conducting usability studies throughout learned from this process was the impor- the design and implementation. The tance of multiple redundancies in link Task Force had substantial insight into placement. When the Task Force initially whether a usability issue was a problem met, we thought it would be best to have with architecture or some other design a “clean” site with each bit of information element.24 neatly compartmentalized in a single loca- tion. As testing progressed, however, we Conclusion discovered that there was no such thing Information Architecture is o en a for- as a “typical” user following consistent go en element in Web site redesign. By paths to specific information items—card detailing the step-by-step process that sorting, rapid-paper prototyping, and live one library took to develop and test the Web tests validated this finding. Therefore, architecture of its Web site, we hope to we altered our original presuppositions in elucidate the importance of including IA favor of a design that included multiple as part of any library Web site redesign pathways to many content areas. project. As the literature originally indi- The design or redesign of an organiza- cated, there is no clear and simple path to tional Web site is o en fraught with dis- follow to arrive at a fully developed Web sension and rancor. A rigorous IAprocess site. This article a empts to describe the with usability testing helps eliminate this exact processes—developing a program friction because the design is based on evi- requirement document, grouping the dence rather than individual or commi ee requirements through card sorts with preference. At Utah State University, the several types of users, label brainstorming IA process minimized internal conflict and testing, rapid paper prototype testing within our organization. Additionally, of multiple model sites, low fidelity Web because we continually requested input tests, and proposing implementation and feedback on the architecture process recommendations—that we undertook to from all the library stakeholders, the level come up with an architectural blueprint. of buy-in and approval was quite high. While individual libraries must consider The work of the Information Architec- their own user populations and how they ture Task Force took just over six months conduct and respond to usability tests, to complete; however, the newly designed this project suggests specific methods to Web site did not go live until more than two employ when designing and testing the years a er this process started.25 Nonethe- underlying structure of a Web site. less, the final implementation essentially Ultimately, continual usability testing followed the outlines recommended by of the proposed architecture is central to the Task Force. There were a few changes ensuring that a design is, in fact, user- in the planned site architecture. The most centered and not simply appealing to significant change was the loss of the Web designers or librarians. The usability Quicklinks for… subdivision. Final usability tests conducted during the IAphase of the testing indicated that students, faculty, and Web design process were easy and low- staff made li le use of the audience com- tech but provided sufficient information ponent of the site, and, when they did, it to continue to move the process forward. was difficult to predict what users actually More rigorous usability testing took place expected to appear there. Designing a Third-Generation Library Web Site 315
Library Web commi ees should realize was invaluable in building a Web site that that IA will slow site development; how- was clearly and logically organized, easily ever, when the site launches, the payoff navigable, and favorably received by a is enormous. Ultimately, our IA process wide range of library stakeholders.
Appendix A: Stakeholder Interview Questions
Please do not feel confined to what is currently available on the library Web site. Give us your ideal wish list.
Focus on tasks to be supported and information that needs to be provided in a general way, rather than on specific links.
1. In an optimal world, how would staff use the Web site? What tasks does the Web site need to support so that library staff can do their jobs? (example: Finding library policies to answer patron questions)
2. In an optimal world, how would users use the Web site? What tasks does the Web site need to support so that patrons can use your department’s services and products? (example: Finding citations to articles or ordering a book from ILL)
3. What information does the Web site need to convey to users? (Hint: Think about questions that you get at service desks or via the telephone)(example: The library hours and information about fines)
4. What information does the library need to convey to other stakeholders? (ex- ample: Marketing library services or a racting donors)
5. Do you think you have discrete audiences for the Web site? What are they?
6. How much content do you provide via the Web and in what format? (ex- ample: How many Web pages of information? How many products? Can the information be placed in a database for more efficient content management?)
7. Who creates and maintains this content? How o en does content need to be updated or deleted?
8. Do you have other content management concerns?
9. What are your top three priorities for the design of the Web site?
10. What didn’t we ask that we need to ask? 316 College & Research Libraries July 2008
Appendix B: Tasks from Paper Prototype Testing Student Paper Prototype Testing 1. How many books can an undergraduate student check out and for how long? 2. How do you reserve a study room in the library? 3. How can you learn how to read a call number? 4. Find an item that your instructor has placed on reserve. 5. What can you do if you are having trouble connecting to one of the library resources or databases? 6. Contact a librarian for assistance with your business class project. 7. Locate an article for your paper on steroids and baseball. 8. When is the library open on Saturday? 9. How can I find some information on what is available in Special Collections?
Faculty Paper Prototype Testing 1. Find Web of Science. 2. Request an item from interlibrary loan. 3. Contact a subject librarian for help. 4. How can you get more information about how to place an item on reserve? 5. Schedule a library session for your class. 6. How can I suggest that the library buy a book for the collection? 7. How can I find some information on what is available in Special Collections?
Appendix C: Web Prototype Testing Tasks 1. How many books can an undergraduate check out and for how long? 2. How do you reserve a study room in the library? 3. Find an item that your instructor has placed on Reserve. 4. Locate an article for your psychology paper on gender stereotypes. 5. Find a definition of the word “ontology.” 6. What can you do if you are having trouble connecting to one of the library resources or databases? 7. Contact a librarian to help you with your English 1010 assignment. Designing a Third-Generation Library Web Site 317
Notes
1. Louis Rosenfeld, “Information Architecture: Looking Ahead,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 53, no. 10 (2002): 875. 1. Andrew Dillon, “Information Architecture in JASIST: Just Where Did We Come From?” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 53, no. 10 (2002): 821. 2. Louis Rosenfeld and Peter Morville, Information Architecture for the World Wide Web, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, Mass.: O’Reilly, 2002): 4. 3. See, for example, Brenda Ba leson, Austin Booth, and Jane Weintrop, “Usability Testing of an Academic Library Web Site: A Case Study,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 27, no. 3 (2001): 188–98; Galina Letnikova, “Usability Testing of Academic Library Web Sites: A Selective Annotated Bibliography,” Internet Reference Services Quarterly 8, no. 4 (2003): 53–68; Louise McGillis and Elaine G. Toms, “Usability of the Academic Library Web Site: Implications for Design,” Col- lege & Research Libraries 62, no. 4 (2001): 355–67; Susan McMullen, “Usability Testing in a Library Web Site Redesign Project,” Reference Services Review 29, no. 1 (2001): 7–22; Tiffini Anne Travis and Elaina Norlin, “Testing the Competition: Usability of Commercial Information Sites Compared with Academic Library Web Sites,” College & Research Libraries 63, no. 5 (2002): 433–48. 4. Troy Swanson, “From Creating Web Pages to Creating Web Sites: The Use of Information Architecture for Library Web Site Redesign,” Internet Reference Services Quarterly 61, no. 1 (2001): 1–12. 5. Shelley Gullikson et al., “The Impact of Information Architecture on Academic Web Site Usability,” Electronic Library 17, no. 5 (1999): 293–304. 6. David Robins and Sigrid Kelsey, “Analysis of Web-Based Information Architecture in a University Library: Navigating for Known Items,” Information Technology and Libraries 21, no. 4 (2002): 158–69. 7. McGillis and Toms, “Usability of the Academic Library Web Site,” 355–67. 8. Elaine G. Toms, “Information Interaction: Providing a Framework for Information Ar- chitecture,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 53, no. 10 (2002): 855–62. 9. Marsha Haverty, “Information Architecture without Internal Theory: An Inductive Design Process,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 53, no. 10 (2002): 839. 10. Ibid, 839–45. 11. Members included Jennifer Duncan, Wendy Holliday, Rob Morrison, Daren Olson, and Sandra Weingart. 12. For an example of how program requirement documents have been applied to IA, see Steve Toub, Evaluating Information Architecture (Argus Center for Information Architecture, 2000). Available online from h p://argus-acia.com/white_papers/evaluating_ia.pdf. [Accessed 18 October 2004]. 13. Bob Wiggins, “Specifying and Procuring So ware,” in Information Architecture: Designing Environments for Purpose, ed. Alan Gilchrist and Barry Mahon (New York: Neal-Schuman, 2004), 69–85. 14. Alan Gilchrist and Barry Mahon, Information Architecture: Designing Information Environ- ments for Purpose (New York: Neal-Schuman, 2004). 15. For an overview of design trade-offs and Web usability, see Jakob Nielsen, Usability Engi- neering (San Diego: Academic Press, 1993). 16. Julie Rowbotham, “Librarians—Architects of the Future?” Aslib Proceedings 51, no. 2 (1999): 59–63. 17. Jennifer Duncan and Wendy Holliday, “USU Web Architecture Task Force Program Requirement Document.” (Feb. 2004). Available online from h p://library.usu.edu/elecres/archi- tecture/web-program-requirements.pdf. [Accessed 28 November 2006]. 18. For a discussion of the validity of relying on small number of test subjects for usability tests, see Jakob Nielsen, “Why You Only Need to Test with 5 Users,” Alertbox (Mar. 19, 2000). Available online from www.useit.com/alertbox/20000319.html. [Accessed 27 September 2006]. 19. Joe Lamantia, “Analyzing Card Sort Results with a Spreadsheet Template” (Aug. 26, 2003). Available online from www.boxesandarrows.com/archives/analyzing_card_sort_results_with_a_ spreadsheet_template.php. [Accessed 27 November 2006]. 318 College & Research Libraries July 2008
20. Available online from h p://library.usu.edu/elecres/architecture/Information_Architec- ture/index.html. [Accessed 27 November 2006]. 21. Because our new building was slated to open in October 2005, we initially intended the Web site to go live in September. Due to overwhelming demands associated with the move, the Web site did not go live until May 2006. 22. The complete blueprint is available online from h p://library.usu.edu/elecres/architecture/ Architecture_Blueprint.ppt. [Accessed 27 November 2006]. 23. A professor in the Technical Writing program who planned to teach a class on Web site usability approached the Task Force looking for a major project for the students to help test and develop in spring 2005. The Task Force strongly encouraged the Steering Commi ee to take advantage of this opportunity, which they did. Almost every major organizational change to the final site was a direct result of recommendations suggested by this class. The reports from this major usability study are available online from h p://library.usu.edu/elecres/architecture/ First%20Year%20Students%20Test%20Report.pdf; h p://library.usu.edu/elecres/architecture/ Advanced%20Undergraduates%20Test%20Report.pdf; and h p://library.usu.edu/elecres/ar- chitecture/Graduate%20Students%20Usability%20Test%20Report.pdf. [Accessed 27 November 2006]. 24. The initial graphic design phase lasted through December 2004; usability testing occurred during spring 2005; a second graphic design phase began in summer 2005 with the redesign of the university Web site; and our newly designed page went live in spring 2006.