<<Back to Graduation Portfolio Home

Did We Get It Right?

An Examination of Student Web Sites

In Light of Information Behavior Studies

by Barbara J. Hampton, Jane Johnston, Linda Parker, and Audrey Taylor 2003

as a final assessment for ILS 537-70, under the supervision of Dr. Mary Brown

at Southern Connecticut State University

Click Links Below to Jump to Sections of This Paper

Introduction - Visuals - Organization & Content - Usability - Feedback - Conclusion

Appendix - References

Introduction

"The Internet is so big, so powerful and pointless that for some people it is a complete substitute for life." This quote from Andrew Brown, of Sun Microsystems, sums up the potential and failings of the Internet. The Internet is big and powerful, and yet, so disorganized; one can get lost and spend a lifetime within the Web . Reality is most people have little time to search for information online, and ideally people need an organized and user-friendly place to find information quickly. Unfortunately, the Internet has, "a reasonable amount of information, but it has been haphazardly collected, is almost completely disorganized, has no standard cataloging system, and only the beginnings of a decent uniform interface" (Agre, 1994). In other words, the Internet is in stark contrast to a library. The library is built on the invaluable principles learned from information seeking behavior. Information seeking behavior tells the information professional about how people prefer to find information, and what elements a library needs to incorporate into its service so patrons can find information successfully. Web sites also need to be structured and presented with information seeking behavior in mind in order to be as effective as libraries. In other words, quality Web sites are those with a good visual layout, content, organization, navigational features, usability, and feedback mechanisms. The aforementioned qualities insure successful information retrieval online because they reflect how people effectively search for information.

The following is a discussion of how the concepts derived from the study of information seeking behavior pertain to Web site design. Specifically, how visual layout, content, organization usability and feedback mechanisms are important to the success of a Web site. Web sites to be discussed are those of group members Linda Parker , Jane Johnston , BJ Hampton and Audrey Taylor . All four Web sites were created as a course requirement for ILS 537 Information Seeking Behavior, Fall 2003 at Southern Connecticut University.

^back to top^

Visuals

The visual appeal of a Web site is integral to the success of the Web site, and the success of the user in terms of the ability to find the information they seek. According to a recent survey of Internet users in England 71% of Internet users have experienced Internet rage. What causes this rage and frustration? Generally, the inability of the user to find the information they seek ("Internet Frustration," 2001). Part of the impedance is badly designed Web sites. Jakob Nielsen's Top Ten Design Mistakes (1996) suggest that splitting the page up into frames, scrolling text, marquees, animations, non-standard link colors and long pages are all visual characteristics to avoid in Web design.

Overall, the visual effect of the Web sites was attractive and readable. The font size seen on Parker's and Taylor's sites was adequate for many users, but fell short of the 12 point type standard and might be difficult for older users. Johnston's darker background and type gave less contrast. Hampton's wallpaper choice was an appropriate symbol of the Web site's content but may have been distracting. Parker's "notebook" background for the research observations was also in keeping with the subject matter. None of the sites employed frames to divide the pages, a tool which can make access, copying, and printing more complicated.

All four Web sites varied in their visual appearance, with the background displaying the highest level of variation. The Web sites were created in order to share graduate level work, and thus should present an uncluttered and professional feel to the viewer. All four Web sites did present an uncluttered, organized and clear view of their respective content, however the backgrounds and fonts left little to be desired. The background of Johnston's Web site is a bright green color, which was too bright and an unprofessional choice. The green color makes it harder to read the work presented. The font on Johnston's site is too small and too fancy for the purpose of readability. Parker's choice of a marbled background and basic font is the epitome of subdued professionalism and provides an appropriate visual backdrop for graduate work. Taylor's Web site background is not the most professional of choices, but is subdued enough to work. The repetition of the background tile could potentially give off a cluttered feel to the viewer. Taylor's choice of font is too small to be very legible, but it is a professional choice. Finally, Hampton's Web site is very visually appealing. At first glance, the choice of background seemed unprofessional, but when taken into context it is highly fitting. Hampton explains her background choice and its implications to the subject. The size, color, and choice of font all work together to present a visually appealing and professional presentation.

^back to top^

Organization and Content

Organization of these four Web sites is designed to present assignments for the ILS 537 Information Seeking and Behavior class of Fall 2003 at Southern Connecticut State University. Content of the Web sites is meant to include the following assignments:

1. Observations: students were asked to conduct short observations of two individuals, a small group and themselves.

2. Collaborative Study: the class combined efforts to create a survey about information seeking behavior that was then distributed to citizens all over the United States. Each student wrote an individual analysis of particular survey questions in order to draw conclusions about aspects of information seeking behavior.

3. Journal: a journal where students record their thoughts and feelings concerning the class.

4. Opinion Paper: a paper that discussed reasons why or why not the study of information seeking behavior is prevalent to information services.

5. Annotated Bibliography: each student was responsible for reading 25 articles relating to information seeking behavior, writing informative abstracts about each and presenting the abstracts in a classified bibliography.

6. Service Plan: a paper discussing how to incorporate information seeking behavior into library service.

7. Final Observations Paper: students needed to combine a literature review with the observations conducted in the class, and draw general conclusions about information seeking behavior.

Content and organization of a Web site go hand in hand. If the organization of a Web site is poor, then the user cannot easily find the relevant content. On the other hand, if the content is poor, no amount of organization will aid the user in finding quality information from the Web site. Information seeking behavior reveals that the inability of a user to find information because it is badly organized, or of such poor quality leads to frustration and early termination of an information search.

All four Web sites presented the same information, and all four were clearly organized. None of the Web sites presented any organizational or content problems. The collected assignments presented on each Web site are consistent because they are all a product of the same class. The Web sites are organized so that the instructor and fellow classmates can all easily share and learn from the assignments presented.

^back to top^

Usability

The human element is the essential element in optimizing the use of information sources. After all, humans are the users of the Internet. The Internet is impersonal at best, and whatever a Web designer can do to make their Web site friendly, inviting and user friendly the better. Cold and unwelcoming atmospheres will repel people whether it is in libraries or on the Web .

It is understood by those that study information behavior that the essential element is the human element. This person-centered approach focuses on the "person as a finder, creator and user of information" (Case, 2002, p. 6). The user's needs are of primary importance. Usability is a relevant term defined by the international standards organization (ISO) as "the extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specified context of use" (Usability, 1998). The context of the "product" must also be considered. Another consideration is the user satisfaction-how does the user feel about the quality of the information received?

While criteria for usability extend beyond Zipf's Principle of Least Effort, multiple studies of information seeking behavior demonstrate that to be a critical factor for many users. In both individual observations and survey research involving 391 adults, Johnston (2003) found "[P]eople select and/or choose their information sources based on two prominent factors: ease of access and convenience. In other words, information sources that required the least amount of effort were favored." Similarly, Buckley & Schneider (2003) and Caplan (2003) identified shortcuts employed to obtain sufficient, if incomplete, information. While the expected users of the information collected in the Web sites prepared for this Information Seeking Behavior graduate class may find more pleasure in the information "hunt" (Sandstrom, 1999), the navigational design, readability, and search features built into the Web sites will determine whether they are efficient means for professionals to increase their understanding of information seeking behavior, or simply a tool for distance education of graduate students.

Nielsen & Tahir (2002) have identified homepage aspects, which can either support usability or undermine it. A table, presented in the appendix, summarizes the role of these features in the Web sites prepared by the authors. All of the sites suffered from content and format constraints imposed by the course assignment purpose of the sites. From a user's standpoint, the details of the course, university, student, and professor are less important than the substantive material, which would be more accessible if shown at the top of the homepages. All but one of the Web sites (Hampton) used the assignment names as a table of contents rather than more descriptive (and engaging) titles and examples. Taylor's listing was especially "clean". Hampton, Johnston, and Parker provided navigational links within individual pages, and Parker included convenient links at the bottom of each page to all other main pages (although links to the currently active page were not eliminated). Hampton provided alphabetical indexes of authors and keywords. Because none of the authors owned independent URLs, the Web addresses used were all rather long and convoluted. Hampton and Johnston could have chosen a title for their home pages other than "Home" (as Parker and Taylor did) which would have better identified the site, especially when a user is book-marking it. Although some Web page content identified its creation date, a "Last Updated" statement is a convenient check for both the author and user that the latest content is being accessed.

User satisfaction is higher when user frustration is minimized. One example of a source of frustration was a Web site with an inactive link. One site had text underlined that was not a hyperlink--while other underlined text was hyperlinked; a source of some confusion for the user. A consistent format throughout the page, if not the site is easier for the user. Another Web site had font changes in the middle of pages, which was somewhat confusing. Audrey's site numbered the annotations in the introduction, but the annotations were not numbered, a possible source of user confusion or frustration.

^back to top^

Feedback

The ability to receive and give feedback via a Web site has benefits for both information seeker and information producer. There are several ways of receiving feedback from a Web site, with the most common being electronic mail and on-line questionnaires (Murray, 1999). In a study conducted by J.B. Boisselle in 2000, she found that people, specifically women, preferred Web sites that enabled interactivity, or those Web sites that provided contact information. Why is a contact so necessary to information seeking on the Web ? A contact or feedback mechanism provides a communication mode in an otherwise solitary environment. Several information-seeking studies attest to the fact that people prefer to obtain information from other people. Providing a contact or survey enables the person who is having trouble finding the information they need an outlet to ask a question and enables the creator to receive valuable feedback about what is and what is not working/informing the visitor. Murray (1999) also suggests that a Web site, should ideally be a reflection of the needs of the clients it serves. A feedback mechanism creates a friendlier and more approachable interface for Web users.

The Web sites created by the members of the group each had a way of contacting the Web master. All the Web sites contained information about the purpose of the site, the school and professor it was created for, and contained a link to email the creator. The feedback mechanism, as noted, also needs to be friendly and inviting as well as prominently presented. Hampton's Web site invites the user to ask questions or share comments, Johnston's Web site states, "Contact Me", and Taylor's just presents the email address. Parker's Web site states, "Comments? Questions? Contact Me". All four variations work, but Hampton's and Parker's are more friendly, clear and inviting.

Audrey Taylor's Web site had a unique feedback mechanism in the form of an "online" vs. "I am not online" status indicator. The viewer can see right away whether the Web designer is available for comment. The "not online feature" is another creative way that Web designers can promote human interaction in the human-less Web.

^back to top^

Conclusion
Librarians who collaborate in the design and operation of a Web site bring training and skills that support user preferences for fast, personalized information services. By studying information behavior, we have identified the critical elements of audience-driven logical organization, visual appeal, community-building, and usability features and critiqued our course Web sites in these areas.

Despite sharing a common purpose and similar content, the variations in design of the Web sites for this class illustrate the constraints and choices that need to be addressed in the creation of an information service Web site. It is apparent from the weaknesses observed in the sites' final forms, as well as from the iterations throughout the course as problems were identified and corrected, that the careful eye of editors and the critical eye of users perceive details that were missed by the authors. By "piloting" the Web sites in a structured class setting with others focused on information-seeking behavior, the authors significantly polished the sites prior to their going "live" beyond the class. Clearly, a more complex Web site (such as one representing an entire library) would need an extended time line and the collaborative effort of several information science professionals, together with ongoing input from users through feedback and community information mechanisms.

The usability features of a Web site also build on the collective wisdom of several decades of studies of information seeking behavior. Brown (1995) demonstrated that most users are unable to construct appropriate subject search terms, even among college students and that training is needed in supporting meta-cognitive skills. Web site navigational features such as a search tool, tables of contents, and keyword indexes can compensate for users' lack of training in these skills. None of this group's sites or other sites posted in this class included search features, which generally require access to a server host where the supporting software can be installed. Such tools are vital to users of larger Web sites. Some sites (Bishop, Gustavson, Hampton, McCluskey, Parker, and Seits) included a table of contents outlining the sections of the annotated bibliography. Hampton added alphabetical indexes by author and subject/keyword with internal links to the corresponding abstracts. Hampton derived keyword selections from the ASIS Thesaurus (Milstead, 1998) and Case (2002), a leading textbook in the field, to establish a controlled vocabulary. By adding the best navigational features, Web site designers serve the desire of users for fast, easy access to information, through which librarians add value to the digital library of the future.

^back to top^

Appendix

Class Web sites Analyzed Using Nielsen & Tahir's (2002) Usability Criteria

^back to top^

References

Agre, P. (1994). Is the net a wilderness or a library? The Network Observer, 1(10). Retrieved
November 30, 2003 from http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/tno/october-1994.html#net

Boisselle, J.B. (2000). Internet information seeking: considering gender as a factor.
Retreived December 3, 2003 from http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jboissel/seyboldpts.html

Brown, M.E. (1995). By any other name: accounting for failure in the naming of subject
categories. Library and Information Science Research, 17, 347-385.

Buckley, J., & Schneider, M. (2003). Shopping for schools: How do marginal consumers gather information about schools? The Policy Studies Journal, 31, 121-145. Retrieved October 15, 2003 from EBSCO Academic Search Premier.

Caplan, Bryan (1999). Rational ignorance vs. rational irrationality. Unpublished manuscript, George Mason University. Retrieved November 19, 2003, from http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/ratirnew.doc

Case, D.O. (2002). Looking for information: A survey of research on information seeking, needs, and behavior. New York: Academic Press.

Hager, D., Kibler, C. & Zack, L. (1999). The basics of user-friendly Web design. Journal for Quality & Participation, 22 (3), 48-52. Retrieved December 2, 2003 from EBSCO Academic Search Premier.

Internet frustration: it's all the rage. (2001, June 15). Retrieved December 3, 2003, from http://crm-advisor.com/Articles.nsf/dp/9A1DA0A8E4CE827B88256A5B0071C354

Johnston, J. (2003). Give it to me now! The principle of least effort and the selection of information sources. Unpublished manuscript, Southern Connecticut State University. Retrieved December 3, 2003, from http://janejohnston2.tripod.com/ILS_537_Finalobservations

Kalbach, J. (2000). Designing for information foragers: a behavioral model for information seeking on the World Wide Web . Retrieved December 3, 2003, from http://www.internettg.org/newsletter/dec00/article_information_foragers.html

Milstead, J.L. (Ed.) (1998). ASIS thesaurus of information science and librarianship(2d. Ed.). Medford, NJ: ASIS.

Murray, G. & Costanzo, T. (1999). Usability and the Web : an overview. Retrieved December 3, 2003 from: http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/9/1/p1-260-e.html

Nielsen, J. (1996). Top ten mistakes in Web design. Retrieved December 3, 2003 from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605.html

Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing Web usability: The practice of simplicity. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Publishing.

Nielsen, J., and Tahir, M. (2002). Homepage usability: 50 Web sites deconstructed. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Publishing.

Sandstrom, P. (1999). Scholars as subsistence foragers. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Sciences, 25(3). Retrieved September 26, 2003 from http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Feb-99/sandstrom.html

Usability Definitions. (1998). Usability Net Web site funded by the European Union. Retrieved December 3, 2003 from http://www.usabilitynet.org/tools/r_international.htm#9241-11

^back to top^

Question? Problems? Suggestions? Please contact page owner, Barbara J. Hampton.

Last revised 5 December 2003.