Submitted by: Human-Computer Interaction Laboratory, University of
Maryland at College Park
Submitted to:
Library of Congress National Digital Library Program
Gary Marchionini, Principal Investigator
Catherine Plaisant, Co-Principal Investigator
Executive Summary ii
Introduction 1
LC Context for the Needs Assessment 1
Needs Assessment Perspective 2
Needs Assessment Problems 2
Needs Assessment Objective 3
Procedure 4
Reading Room Visits and Interviews 4
Questionnaires for Potential Users 5
Document Analysis 6
Results 8
Reading Room Visits and Interviews 8
Content 8
Users and Strategies 11
Questionnaire Results 15
Teachers and School Library Media Specialists 15
Day Care Center 19
Summary of Questionnaire Analyses 24
LC Document Analysis 24
Reading Room Handouts 24
LC User Studies 25
Email Messages 26
Conclusions and Recommendations 28
User Type/task Taxonomy 28
Design Implications 29
References 33
Appendices
A. Needs Assessment Framework
B. Reading Room Visit Notes
C. Questionnaires (3 sets)
D. Day Care Center Raw Data Summary
E. LC NDL Working Group Scenarios
Understanding and assessing user needs is the first step in interface
design, and this report is one of the first milestones in the
overall design effort. This assessment provides an informed basis
for the interface design and evaluation to be done in the months
to come. It was prepared under the Libraryís contract
with the Human-Computer Interaction Laboratory (HCIL) at the University
of Marylandís to work together to design an interface for
the Libraryís National Digital Library (NDL) Program.
In order to determine user needs, HCIL conducted a survey of nine
reading rooms with special emphasis on the Special Collections
from which the content of the NDL will be drawn. HCIL also used
questionnaires to reach remote audiences who may typify NDL users
accessing the Library via the Internet. They also analyzed many
of the documents available in the Reading Rooms, such as finding
aids, other handouts, and user studies. This assessment took place
during the period September 1995 to January 1996.
The reading room interviews used a protocol to elicit data about:
ïcontent (what materials are housed in the reading room, what indexes or finding aids exist, and which materials were scheduled for inclusion or possible inclusion in the NDL),
ïusers (the types of users who typically used the reading room, what types of information needs they brought to the Library, what levels of searching skill they typically have, how these users might benefit from the NDL, and what new users might be attracted by the NDL), and
ïstrategies (how users conduct searches, what types
of search tools are available in the reading room, and how the
reading room staff assist users).
The results illustrate the need for content-specific search strategies
as well as pose a set of design challenges across all the collections:
ïserving a wide range of users
ïserving a wide variety of information needs
ïhelping users distinguish primary and secondary materials (including multiple layers of each)
ïhelping users make links among items across different collections and reading rooms
ïcapturing the essential elements of the reference interview so that users can find what they need without human intervention
ïcommunicating to the user what items are NOT in the NDL and give pointers to external resources
ïcreating an interface that is accessible by users with state-of-the-market technology
ïdeveloping new techniques to search for multimedia objects
and to integrate those techniques into the interface (e.g., visual
and audio query languages)
Because K-12 teachers and students are featured prominently in
plans for the NDL, a limited survey of two groups of educators
was conducted. The first group was a set of 24 teachers who participated
in NDL orientation sessions. The second group of educators was
the set of 27 school library media specialist supervisors in the
state of Maryland. Teachers and school library media specialists
were unified in their desire to use primary materials for educational
purposes and in demanding a system that could be used in school
and home, and is easy to learn and use. There is a wide range
of equipment available in these schools and many have some type
of online capacity in the building but few have it in classrooms.
This is problematic as significant numbers of workstations in
these schools will not be capable of taking full advantage of
the NDL.
The task of assessing the needs of the general citizen was addressed
by surveying parents and workers in a day care center in Flint,
Michigan. Results show that computer usage is pervasive with
well over half of respondents in this survey using computers in
a variety of settings multiple times each week and that almost
one-third have some type of online access. Although one-third
of the respondents had heard of the World Wide Web (WWW), only
nine (11%) had actually used it. The general populace shows interest
in computers and the information resources networks offer but
have limited first-hand experience with the WWW. These results
reinforce the theme of diversity in users, needs, and computational
settings and suggest that the NDL must be purposefully introduced
to potential users.
Documents represent an institutionís expression of procedures,
policies, and responses to user needs. The number and range of
handouts in reading rooms illustrate user needs that are so pervasive
that special publications or finding aids are created and similar
documents will be needed for the NDL. The surveys illustrated
the problems users have with computer systems in general and with
conducting effective searches in electronic systems. In addition
to reinforcing the importance of computer experience, these findings
illustrate: the need for crisp and intuitive dynamics between
screens/windows so that users can focus on different levels of
representation easily or possibly juxtapose them; judicious use
of any scrolling functions; and the need for clear yet powerful
search articulation and results display. Email questions were
mainly system-related or reference-related and some form of human
response to user electronic requests will be required as NDL usage
grows. The quantity and diversity of these documents indicate
the complex nature of the individual reading rooms, and project
the complexity of the aggregate NDL.
The needs assessment results have several implications for the
design of the NDL interface:
ïServing users ranging from school children through seasoned scholars, including those with special needs, implies an interface that supports a range of information-seeking strategies from easily-navigable selections to complex queries.
ïThe lack of human intermediaries requires that the interface provide significant help, tutorials or tours, and last resort communications.
ïServing a range of user platforms implies multiple interfaces to provide a default lowest-common denominator interface (e.g., low-speed, all text) as well as a graphical interface that takes advantage of visualization techniques.
ïThe interface must provide clear delineations within the NDL as well as among the larger collections of the physical Library of Congress and the entire Internet.
ïThe interface must help users distinguish secondary and primary materials.
ïThe interface must also distinguish and rapidly display texts, graphics, and sounds to facilitate browsing, as well as find ways to support non-textual search for non-print media.
ïThe interface must also allow users to search across collections or not; and if they choose to limit searching to a collection, provide clear linkages to other collections.
This report is part of the Human-Computer
Interaction Laboratory (HCIL) at the University of Marylandís
contract to work with the Library of Congress (LC) to design an
interface for the Libraryís National Digital Library Program.
Understanding and assessing user needs is the first step in interface
design and this report is one of the first milestones in the overall
design effort. The report presents HCILís efforts to understand
the needs of the many users currently doing research in the Library,
including LC staff. The report also investigates the projected
needs of potential users of the Library of Congress National Digital
Library (NDL).
The purpose of this assessment is to provide
an informed basis for the interface design and evaluation to be
done in the months and years to come. To this end, we visited
and interviewed staff in nine of the Libraryís 22 Reading
Rooms (RR), conducted three written surveys of potential users,
and analyzed various Library documents. This investigation took
place during the period September 1995 to January 1996.
1.1. LC Context for the Needs Assessment
The Library of Congress has taken a leadership
role in the development of a National Digital Library. LCís
role in this effort is articulated in the document The National
Digital Library Program--A Library for All Americans.
ìThe core of the digital library
will consist of historical collections, extensive bodies of primary-source
materials. Contemporary materials will also be important. At
the Library of Congress, two hundred Americana collections have
been selected for digitization: unique documents, photographs,
sound recordings, printed matter, and motion pictures that represent
the nationís memory. The Libraryís American Memory
pilot (1990-1994) established the value of historical collections
to the field of education and to the public at large. Evaluations
in 44 sites across the United States indicated that primary-source
materials can be an important tool for educational use. During
the pilot, a strong demand for computer access to the collections
was expressed by users at every level.
To facilitate the conversion of Library
of Congress historical collections, the Library has initiated
a National Digital Library Program to oversee the challenging
work of digitizing manuscripts, rare books, glass negatives, and
older sound recordings and motion pictures. The success of this
national effort requires the cooperation of other research institutions
and libraries. At the end of the five-year launch period, 5 million
items from the collections of the Library of Congress and other
institutional partners will have been made accessible via computers.î
As part of this initiative, the NDL Program
has planned activities for preparing, digitizing, archiving, and
providing access to these historical and contemporary materials
and for managing the overall project and collaboration with other
institutional partners. The challenges of providing access are
addressed by efforts to develop an easy to use yet powerful human-computer
interface. To this end, LC contracted with the HCIL, a leading
interface design laboratory with a history of library-specific
projects to work with LC staff over a 20 month period to develop
a design plan, and build and test prototype interfaces. To guide
the development of the interface, a user needs assessment was
undertaken to determine what tasks and search strategies users
bring to the Library today, what new types of users, tasks, and
strategies the NDL will attract, and how these user needs may
best be served by the NDL interface.
1.2. Needs Assessment Perspective
Needs assessment has many manifestations
ranging from general market research to specific recommendations
for conducting reference interviews. The focus in this study
was on peopleís information needs. There is a long history
of studies of what types of information needs people bring to
libraries (e.g, Krikelas, 1983; Marchant, 1991; Paisley, 1980;
and Wilson, 1981). Dervin & Nilanís (1986) review
of the information needs literature dichotomizes system-oriented
and user-oriented approaches to determining information needs.
They criticize the system-oriented approach as too narrow to
actually identify user needs and propose an approach that attempts
to directly assess peopleís information needs. This approach
is increasingly adopted by practicing software designers. Hartson
& Hix (1993) offer many practical suggestions for assessing
the tasks that users bring to computer systems and Shneiderman
(1992) provides a rationale for mapping user tasks and needs onto
the syntax and semantics of interface designs. Marchionini (1995)
provides a framework for considering users, tasks, and information
need settings onto interface designs and this framework was used
in the needs assessment.
The primary principle of the current needs
assessment is to be user-centered--with the intention of focusing
on user characteristics and the information-seeking tasks they
bring to the Library. This principle is tempered by the realization
that the NDL is evolving from an existing system. Thus, the needs
assessment was conducted so that is was primarily user-centered
but wide enough in scope to capture and incorporate institutional
factors.
1.3. Needs Assessment Problems.
One of the problems associated with assessing
information needs is to distinguish the global needs of user communities
from the specific needs of a single user. Clearly, determination
of global needs best informs system design. However, the process
of determining global needs is done by aggregating and synthesizing
the articulated needs of individual users. Given that the assessment
was user oriented, individuals and small groups were the units
of data collection. However, the institution and its existing
systems as manifested in documents, policies, and practices were
analyzed for design decisions impact.
A second problem associated with assessing
information needs is that there are multiple levels of an individual
userís need. Three decades ago, Taylor (1962) referred
to these levels as visceral, conscious (but unverbalized), formalized,
and compromised. For the practical purposes of this assessment,
we are concerned mainly with the formalized and compromised levels
of need since they are most accessible and addressable without
human intermediation. Formalized needs are operationalized as
natural language expressions (either verbally or textually) from
participants in the investigation. Compromised needs are constrained
by a system or an intermediary and are operationalized as responses
to closed form questionnaire scales, and intervieweesí
statements about user needs based on past experiences.
1.4. Needs Assessment Objective.
The objective of this work is practical:
to determine the perceived needs of different users and user communities
in order to inform the design process. Three general user communities
were considered at the beginning of the project and others emerged
as the needs assessment progressed. The three original groups
were:
ïLC staff. This community is characterized
as experts in both library system and content, as heavy users
of the existing systems, as knowledgeable about articulated (formalized)
user needs, and able to devote short (usually less than two hours)
amounts of time to individualís needs.
ïScholars and other visitors to LC.
This community is characterized as having high levels of domain
expertise and knowledge of library systems. They are also able
to devote large but specific amounts of time (days or weeks) to
their individual information needs.
ïVisitors/Prospective users. This community is characterized as having varied levels of domain expertise and low levels of library systems knowledge. They are able to devote only short periods of time to their information needs or explorations.
The procedure for conducting the needs assessment
had three components: Selected LC Reading Rooms were visited
and staff hosts were interviewed; Written questionnaires were
created and distributed to important prospective user communities;
and LC documents were examined.
2.1. Reading Room Visits and Interviews.
This was considered to be the most informative
component of the assessment since the librarians in the reading
rooms are not only themselves important users of the existing
system but also have extensive knowledge about current user needs
at LC. In addition, many of these staff members will be either
directly or indirectly involved in the development and maintenance
of the NDL and have stakeholder needs that must be captured.
HCIL developed an interview/discussion framework (See Appendix
A) for use in the visits. This framework was presented at a meeting
with Dr. Sarah Thomas and other LC staff on September 29, 1995.
Based on discussions at that meeting, it was decided to simplify
the protocol by eliminating specific questions about expected
impact of the NDL on work and service at LC. Based on this meeting,
visits to nine readings rooms were scheduled. Table 1 lists the
reading rooms, dates, and participants.
For each visit, HCIL staff took notes according
to three elements of the protocol and added a fourth generic note
category. These elements were:
ïContent: What materials are housed
in the reading room, what indexes or finding aids exist, and which
materials were scheduled for inclusion or possible inclusion in
the NDL.
ïUsers: The types of users who typically
used the reading room, what types of information needs they brought
to the Library, what levels of searching skill they typically
have, how these users might benefit from the NDL, and what new
users might be attracted by the NDL.
ïStrategies: How do users conduct
searches, what types of search tools are available in the reading
room, and how does the reading room staff assist users.
ïOther: Any notes on interface implications,
additional notes specific to that reading room
Table 1. Reading Room Visits and Interview
Schedule
When: Where & Who
October 26: 1. Newspaper & Current Periodical Reading Room: Georgia Higley, Maryle Ashley, Catherine Plaisant, Gary Marchionini
2. Prints and Photographs Reading Room: Barbara Natanson, Maryle Ashley, Catherine Plaisant, Gary Marchionini
October 27: 3. Performing Arts Reading Room: Walter Zvonchenko, Maryle Ashley, Catherine Plaisant, Anita Komlódi
November 6: 4. Manuscripts Division: Ernest Emrich, Catherine Plaisant, Gary Marchionini, Anita Komlódi
5. Main Reading Room: Lois Korzendorfer, Catherine Plaisant, Gary Marchionini, Anita Komlódi
December 18: 6. Geography and Map Reading Room: Betsy Mangan, Gary Fitzpatrick, Kathryn Engstrom, Catherine Plaisant, Gary Marchionini
December 21: 7. Local History and Genealogy Reading Room: Ann Toohey, Catherine Plaisant, Gary Marchionini, Anita Komlódi
8. Law Library: Keith Ann Stiverson, Nick Kozura, Catherine Plaisant, Gary Marchionini, Anita Komlódi
9. Folklife Center: Stephanie
Hall, Catherine Plaisant, Gary Marchionini, Anita Komlódi
Upon return to campus, these notes were
transcribed by one HCIL visitor and sent via email to the other
HCIL members who participated in the visit. These HCIL members
augmented and edited the electronic notes based on their own written
notes and the final electronic version was sent for comment (member
checking) via email to the reading room staff who had hosted the
visit. After staff had made comments, corrections, or addition,
a final set of notes was prepared. The nine sets of final notes
are found in Appendix B.
2.2. Questionnaires for Potential Users.
Because K-12 teachers and students are featured
prominently in plans for the NDL, a limited survey of educators
was conducted. Rather than an expensive and time-consuming random
sample, we took advantage of existing contacts to survey a convenience
sample of educators. There were two groups so selected.
The first group was a set of 24 teachers
who participated in NDL orientation sessions led by Martha Dexter
as part of LCís Kellogg Foundation Educational Outreach
Project. A questionnaire was developed, reviewed by the LC Interface
Design Working Group and students in Marchioniniís graduate
level Research Methods course at the University of Maryland, and
mailed with a cover letter to these teachers in early November,
1995. The questionnaire is included in Appendix C.
The second group of educators was the set
of 27 school library media specialist supervisors in the state
of Maryland. A questionnaire was developed, reviewed by school
library media professors and students in Marchioniniís
graduate level Research Methods course at the University of Maryland.
Addresses were obtained from Professor James Liesener, Coordinator
of the School Library Media Program at the University of Maryland
and the questionnaires were mailed with a cover letter to these
supervisors in November, 1995. The questionnaire is included in
Appendix C
The difficult task of assessing the needs
of the general citizen was addressed by two graduate students
under the direction of Gary Marchionini. Juliet Conlan and Stacey
Finley were able to secure the cooperation of the director of
a day care center in Flint, Michigan who agreed to distribute,
collect, and return questionnaires from parents and workers at
the day care facility. This facility is a cooperative of the
UAW and General Motors and serves a large and diverse community
of blue collar and white collar workers. A questionnaire was
developed and pilot tested with graduate students at the University
of Maryland. After revision, the questionnaire was sent to the
day care center in late October, 1995. The questionnaire is included
in Appendix C
2.3. Document Analysis.
Documents represent an institutionís
expression of procedures, policies, and responses to user needs.
Three types of LC documents were examined as part of the needs
assessment to better understand user and system needs:
ïReading Room handouts and brochures.
During reading room visits, many handouts were obtained and these
handouts reinforced the notes taken during visits in that in some
cases they illustrate user needs that are so pervasive that special
publications or finding aids are created.
ïUser study reports prepared by LC
staff. One extensive report is the American Memory User Evaluation
1991-1993 Site Summaries addendum prepared by the American
Memory user Evaluation Team. This report summarizes user experiences
at 44 sites to the Macintosh and IBM based American Memory systems.
One section in each of the site summaries addresses Macintosh
system features and in some cases IBM system prototype features.
These comments mainly address interface issues. Another report
examined was the P&P World Wide Web Public User Interviews
Report (conducted May 10-23, 1995). This report summarizes a
user study conducted to determine how successfully P&Pís
researchers could use its digital collections using the existing
American Memory interface and browser capabilities in a reading
room context. Ten users conducted two assigned and one personal
search using the WebExplorer client at a P&P workstation.
Many interface issues were identified in this report.
ïUser email commentaries or inquiries about the NDL, including staff responses. Beth Davis-Brown selected a representative sample of 20 messages from her logged messages along with brief categorical commentary on the type of need the message represented.
Results are organized by component and subdivided
within components as appropriate.
3.1. Reading Room Visits and Interviews
3.1.1. Content
The NDL is not an academic exercise that
begins with well-articulated user needs and then adds content
that is tailored and organized to meet those needs. Instead it
is a large, real-world effort that is rooted in a complex cultural
context. Content for the NDL is selected based on a variety of
economic, legal, social, and political exigencies. As the digitization
plan takes shape, we can anticipate that materials added to the
NDL will be as varied as the holdings of the Library itself.
This implies that interfaces to the NDL must be driven by content
decisions as well as usersí needs. The following list
summarizes discussions about content at the nine reading rooms
visited and includes special interface challenges related to these
materials (see Appendix B for the complete set of notes). Content
challenges across the collections follow the list.
American Folklife Center Reading Room
. The collection is largely uncataloged, much of it is unpublished.
Originally consiting of folk songs, it now includes cultural
documentation in various media. Most collections are multi-format,
most include recorded sound. Permissions were obtained for WPA
California Folk Music Collection (sound, photos, field notes).
Autograph album collection (Duncan Emrich) next for addition
to NDL. Anthologies are good candidates for eventual digitization
since they are integrated wholes. Others include: J.D. Robb Spanish
materials; Sonkin collection (Oakies in California, migrant workers),
Zora-Neal-Hurston collection with finding aid. Internet is an
advantage since fieldnotes and recordings can be linked together
virtually rather than located in physically different places in
the RR.
Special interface challenges:
audio access (searching as well as download times); showing between
to multi-format items (i.e., a sound track and textual fieldnotes).
Geography and Map Reading Room
. Items for NDL include: panoramic maps (cataloged), county
atlases (cataloged), railroad maps, East European maps (not cataloged,
heavily used by genealogists), Civil War maps, Sanborn fire insurance
maps (about 700,000 items), and selected maps of American history
(e.g., early atlases).
Special interface challenges:
user specification of areas/regions on maps; place name ambiguity
Law Library.
For NDL: early Congressional materials; Congressional Globe;
link to GLIN system.
Local History and Genealogy Reading
Room . Part of LC Kellogg
project is to select biographies, autobiographies, and local histories
related to Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin for scanning and
link to related materials in other reading rooms.
Special interface challenges:
identifying and representing links among separate items; distinguishing
documents that help one do genealogical research from the primary
materials.
Main Reading Room
. Contains mostly copyrighted books and indexes so not a part
of NDL, although most typical users expect that basic reference
materials will be part of the NDL (see questionnaire analyses).
Manuscript Reading Room
. Items for NDL include: Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, papers;
WPA life histories; Whitman notebooks; Margaret Mead collection;
some finding aids for other collections. Finding aids vary in
detail.
Special interface challenges:
Mainly text (will full-text search be available and how to specify
limits within a manuscript, across a collection, etc.); distinguishing
finding aids levels and primary material
Newspaper and Current Periodical Reading
Room . For NDL: Pulp Fiction
collection. Series records now in MUMS, text on microfilm, covers
may be added to NDL.
Special interface challenges:
need for linkages from browsable covers to bibliographic records
and microfilm text available at LC.
Performing Arts Reading Room
. Much of the collection is not cataloged and much of it is copyrighted
so not available to NDL. To be added: selected nineteenth century
sheet music; English & Irish broadsides; images of manuscript
notes (Federal Theater Project); and photo negatives of sets,
posters, costumes, etc (IBM Project).
Prints and Photographs Reading Room
. Includes about 13.5 million items, about half processed &
physically available at LC. Mainly historical items; long list
of items for NDL. An important component of the NDL in terms
of number of items digitized or scheduled for digitization. Likely
to become increasingly important as multiple media become more
expected as part of scholarly work. Currently 36 card catalogs
give different entry points to different collections; One-box
is an attempt to integrate recently produced catalog records for
images in various collections, some cataloged at the item level
and others cataloged at a group level; some item records have
accompanying videodisc images that display automatically, other
records have no accompanying records.
Special interface challenges:
image searching (including displaying series of related images
and images in challenging formats such as panoramas and oversized
posters); possible use of P&P thesaurus; enabling researchers
to absorb enough of the context for historical images and captions
(why images were made) to deal sensitively with content that might
otherwise be deemed offensive.
General content interface challenges.
There are a variety of materials that will become part of the
NDL. Not only do the materials vary by topic, size, and format,
but also by degree of cataloging. Some materials are cataloged
at the item level, some are cataloged only at the collection level,
and some are uncataloged. This state of affairs presents huge
challenges to LC staff as they work to serve user needs and challenges
to users who are trying to find information in the NDL. It is
highly unlikely that new cataloging efforts can be undertaken
to catalog those items not currently cataloged (e.g., in Geography
and Map Reading Room alone, only about one-quarter million items
are cataloged out of 4 million.) or that catalog records for specific
items in collections cataloged at the aggregate level can be created,
or that existing catalog records can be edited to reflect any
special requirements of the NDL (e.g., geo-referencing for maps).
Thus, the first challenge is to develop a conceptual interface
design--an organizational framework with appropriate rules for
applying the framework. This framework must characterize for
users the granularity, size, and nature of objects in the NDL.
This challenge cuts across all the reading rooms and has several
facets. The interface must communicate to the user the following:
ïWhat is contained in the entire NDL
ïThe level of representation for a displayed object (bibliographic record to collection, series, or item)
ïThe alternative levels of representation available for a displayed object (bibliographic record only, thumbnail or other extract, primary object)
ïThe nature of a displayed object (secondary
or primary; format(s); concomitant or linked objects)
This challenge must be met within the current
levels of indexing. However, just as the Library takes advantage
of user browsing behavior in uncataloged collections or in collections
that are described only at a group level to create records subsequently
for individual items selected by patrons and therefore presumed
to be ìhigh demandî (e.g., photographs found and
copied by patrons in Prints and Photographs), the NDL presents
an opportunity to add additional cataloging information to items
that users find while browsing the digital collection. Another
element of this challenge is to integrate searching of catalog
records with searching of SGML finding aids.
A second challenge is to communicate to
the user what items are NOT in the NDL. At one level this places
the NDL within the context of the entire LC itself (e.g., copyrighted
materials, 3-D objects, etc.), and in the context of the world
of information available in other institutions and on the entire
Internet. On another level this assists users in planning for
visits or becoming aware of related information at LC or other
institutions.
A third challenge is to support users in
the NDL without human intervention. Although some level of reference
service will be necessary in the NDL, every patron cannot expect
the level of human support current visitors to LC need, receive,
and expect.
A fourth challenge is to create an interface
that is accessible to user with state-of-the-market technology.
The interface (and underlying retrieval system) cannot be based
on assumptions about state-of-the-art hardware (e.g., in 1995
terms: 20î high-resolution displays, very high-speed connections,
huge RAMs, specialized I/O devices) or software (e.g., the latest
operating system or web browser). Just as the overall system
must leverage compression/decompression and advanced retrieval
algorithms, the interface must inform the user about temporal
demands for data transfer, provide posting information about result
set sizes, and provide some level of explanation for ranked results.
In addition, the interface must be ìgrowableî to
keep pace with the evolution of hardware and software.
A fifth challenge is to invent new techniques
to search for multimedia objects and to integrate those techniques
into the interface (e.g., visual and audio query languages).
Together with the specific interface challenges
listed in the reading room summaries above, the NDL content begins
to define both a development and a research agenda for digital
library interface design. All the challenges will be addressed
as some level in the months ahead, yet all will remain long-term
problems for the research and development efforts at LC for many
years to come.
3.1.2. Users and Strategies.
The Library of Congress is mandated to first
serve Congress and its staff. It is a library of last resort
for other citizens in that its collections are so large and specialized
that only well-prepared researchers can take full advantage of
the Library. Although many casual visitors come to LC to see
and experience it as an institution, it is a research library
and operates to serve those prepared to work in a complex and
scholarly environment (e.g., citizens under the age of 16 are
not permitted to use the Library). The NDL is a fundamental change
in the service mission of LC in that a much broader user community
is addressed. The following list summarizes discussions about
users and their search strategies in the nine reading rooms and
highlights specific interface challenges to serve these users.
User challenges that cut across all collections follow the list.
American Folklife Center Reading Room
. Users come for various reasons and include: anthropologists,
musicologists, publishers representatives, and amateur researchers
(e.g., someone who wants to know how to play a specific instrument
or a song that grandpa used to play). Users rely heavily on reference
librarians.
There are more than 250 finding and reference
aids. Important search entry points include: ethnic group, performer,
instrument, language, format, chronology, geography, and genre.
Geography and Map Reading Room
. One-third of users (estimate) are looking for genealogical
information (e.g., the village grandpa lived). Estimate one-forth
of users are contractors looking for environmental information.
Estimate one-tenth of users are picture researchers looking for
maps for books or other publications. Important note: before
moving downtown, about one-third of the users were Civil War researchers;
digital access may bring many of these users back. Specialized
maps are often sought (e.g., railroads, land use, hot topics).
Users rely heavily on reference librarians to get started (due
to combination of size and nature of collection, and users are
often not cartographically nor geographically literate)
Adequate-level cataloging will be done for
uncataloged material. All finding aids use similar entry points:
area (hierarchical), time, subject (hierarchical). Area is by
far the most important access point.
Special Interface challenges:
specifying areas; awareness of the potentially huge files to
transfer and display.
Law Library
. Primary users are Congressional staff. Other users come from
the Supreme Court, other government agencies (including state,
local, and foreign), other law libraries, and local law firms.
Historians and Congressional staff will benefit from NDL historical
and foreign law materials.
People in the wrong place are directed to
their local libraries; there are good law materials on the Internet
so an analogous strategy can be used in NDL. Novices pointed
to law encyclopedias. Main entry points are time, country, type
of material (law, court decision).
Special Interface challenges:
determining when to point users elsewhere.
Local History and Genealogy Reading
Room . Currently 300-600
visitors sign guest book per month; many are retirement age.
They come for various reasons but mainly in two classes: prepared
and unprepared. At least half are in the prepared group (knowledgeable
about sources, tools, etc.) and some come in groups. In addition
to genealogical information, users seek other historical information
(e.g., about citizens involved in health-related investigations,
art work provenance; etc.).
Unprepared are directed to books and materials
on how to do genealogical or historical research (many as handouts
that will be available in electronic form). Family name is the
key entry point, with geography and time also used.
Main Reading Room
. Huge variety of users; many college students. Significant
reference by mail (1000+ per year). In the RR, 30-40 questions
per hour answered (many procedural in nature).
Since this is the entry point to LC for most patrons, there used to be a mandatory orientation station (should there be an analog in NDL?). The main information-seeking strategy is to ask a librarian.
Manuscript Reading Room
. 80-90% are academics visiting for a few days to more than a
month. Scholars are interested in all aspects and time period
of American history and culture. Many non-academic researchers
visit the reading room seeking material related to the U.S. Civil
War, local history, or genealogy.
When visiting, part of the entry registration
process is a reference interview with a librarian. Most users
have to work through multiple levels of guides to get to primary
materials and are heavily dependent on librarian assistance.
Finding aids often point to a container and/or a microfilm reel
number. Collections are rarely described at the item level.
Entry points are mainly name of person, some subject access that
point to finding aids. Finding aids exist for about two-thirds
of the collections and include: provenance, general information,
bibliographic notes, scope and content, series description, container
list.
Special Interface challenges: Helping NDL users quickly understand that few of the primary materials are online and that there are many levels of search to work through.
Newspaper and Current Periodical Reading
Room . Many users are first-time
visitors to LC, about 20% are regular users who come for sustained
scholarly visits. Many users have business or social science
backgrounds, many interested in genealogy.
Reference interviews are important and often
refer users to other RRs. The main entry point is title. Other
entry points include: history or other index (e.g., a book on
a specific newspaper, NY Times Index), geography, and chronology.
Since much of collection is copyrighted, finding aids and a few
specialized items (e.g., Pulp Fiction covers) will be in NDL.
Holdings information is as important as pointer information
(many people call to make sure that an item found in the bibliographic
record (to a series) actually contained in the collection.
Special Interface challenges:
Helping NDL users quickly understand that few of the primary
materials are online.
Performing Arts Reading Room
. Equal number of serious researchers and general public. Much
of the collection is copyrighted. Example requests include: performers
looking for specific arrangements; many known item searches.
Most users require librarian assistance.
Entry points in catalog (not comprehensive for all items) include:
composer, title (piece or collection) and instrument. Copyright
files of LC may be useful finding aid.
Special Interface challenges:
identifying copyrighted materials (so patrons do not find pointers
to them and expect they can come and copy them at LC).
Prints and Photographs Reading Room
. Only a small portion of users are scholars. Many users looking
for items for commercial products (books, CD-ROMs, etc.); others
are researching local or family history, are engaged in historical
preservation efforts, are seeking documentation for hobbies such
as model building, or are interested in purchasing reproductions
for wall decorations. About half of all mail requests are known
item searches. Different collections have different catalogs
but searching is heavily dependent on browsing at item and sometimes
the collection level. Some typical entry points for the many
different catalogs include: name, topic (controlled vocabulary
for some; some specialized topic numbers), geography and chronology.
Special Interface challenges:
patrons lack of knowledge about media (e.g., how pictures were
produced at different times); supporting specialized exhibits/publications.
General User Interface challenges
There are many interface challenges posed by the assessment of
users and the strategies now used in the reading rooms. The most
fundamental challenge is: How to serve a wide range of users who
will visit the NDL? This general problem has several facets.
ïThe entire range of the U.S. citizenry:
Users of different ages
Users with the entire range of education level
Users with a range of cultural and ethnic perspectives
Users with special physical and cognitive needs
Users who vary in their experience with
computer technology
ïThe entire range of experience specific to their visit to the NDL:
Users who vary in experience in the domain of the information problem they bring to the NDL
Users who vary in their experience with
libraries and research collections
In addition to the challenge of individual user characteristics, the interface must support a wide variety of information needs that users bring to the NDL. Because we are focused on formalized and compromised needs, we use the term task in the following. From a userís need perspective, these tasks vary on five non-orthogonal dimensions.
ïcomplexity
the number of concepts involved
how abstract are the concepts
ïspecificity (ranging from a particular fact to interpretations)
ïquantity (the amount of information required or expected to meet the need)
ïcriticality (how important it is to the user to meet the need)
ïtimeliness (how long users are willing
to spend or expect to spend in meeting the need.
The NDL interface must help users easily
communicate some of these characteristics of their task to the
system.
Other general challenges echo the content
challenges above.
ïThe interface should help users distinguish primary and secondary materials (including multiple layers of each).
ïThe interface should help users make links among items across different collections and reading rooms.
ïThe interface must capture the essential
elements of the reference interview so that users can find what
they need without human intervention.
3.2. Questionnaire Results
3.2.1. Teachers and School Library Media Specialists
Responses from the teachers and school library
media specialists were very similar and provide insight into the
great diversity of technology penetration in U.S. schools. Thirteen
of the 24 questionnaires (54%) sent to teachers were returned
and eleven of the 27 questionnaires (41%) sent to school library
media specialist supervisors in the state of Maryland were returned.
The raw data is summarized in Table 2. The data for the two
groups show very similar patterns. For preferred information-seeking
patterns, both groups report using all the strategies often. Both
groups are similarly generous in estimating studentsí use
of the entire variety of information-seeking strategies. Likewise,
teachers and school library media specialists were unified in
demanding a system that could be used in school and home, and
is easy to learn and use. There was less unanimity within or
across the groups about the need for access to large amounts of
primary materials. Even less agreement was reported for the need
for access to multimedia materials, perhaps reflecting concerns
about the computing infrastructure in schools today. Both groups
were far more concerned about professional use of the NDL than
they were about personal uses.
Although both groups rated primary documents
as important, teachers were more uniformly consensual in rating
them as extremely important. Teachers rated finding aids as somewhat
less important than school library media specialists (most of
whom are trained as librarians). It is interesting to note that
teachers rated teacher guides as somewhat less important than
did the school library media specialists.
The most substantive results from the questionnaires
come from the open-ended responses. There is a wide range of
equipment available in these schools; IBM compatibles range from
older 286 models to newer Windows-based machines, and although
most Apple products are some level of Macintosh machine, there
are still Apple II class machines in use. This wide range of
equipment is problematic as significant numbers of workstations
in these schools will not be capable of using the NDL. It was
somewhat surprising that all but two respondents said that there
is some kind of Internet access in their schools, most often in
the school library media center. Perhaps even more surprising,
eight of the thirteen teachers and six of the eleven school library
media specialist supervisors reported having Internet access at
home. Although Internet access was not defined as an IP-capable
connection, some type of remote access capabilities is available
either in school or at home to most of this very select group
of educators.
The final open-ended question asked what
types of materials respondents would find most useful for themselves
or their teachers. Not surprisingly, the teachers were more verbose
in describing specific materials they could use in class, in many
cases citing very specific NDL collections that presumably they
had encountered in their LC training. The following lists paraphrase
teacher and school library media specialist supervisor suggestions
respectively.
Teacher suggestions :
ïlink LC to archives, Smithsonian, etc.
ïinclude photos (thematic) Depression (WPA), American Indian, Black studies, popular culture, World War I; in 5 years--multimedia, film/sound, oral histories from Depression, Japanese American relocation, famous Americans
ïWorld history primary sources are very scarce--we would love more sources from ancient to modern periods; also sound, images all would be welcome additions to current history courses
ïAny topic, all media; studentsí selection of topics for research is only limited to their knowledge & imagination--the range is good
ïEase of access is vital; for grades 5-8 images of the past & current interest linked to curriculum & interesting primary sources and documents; sounds of historical events and music
ïMajor American figures from all areas of life--pictures, writing, inventions, etc.); Major events in US history (Civil War photos, maps, etc,); Life in other times (Edison film of NY harbor, sharecroppers, immigrants, farm life, etc.); (most of our schools have Apple IIe, except my school with Mac lc..this is a real problem)
ïRevolution (French, American, etc); racism (e.g., holocaust), womenís history, industrialism, Depression, wars, art, architecture, music, oral history
ïDocuments that helped shape our nation
ïPhotos, letters, personal items (diaries)
ïCollections used in the following areas of geography: North America (land forms, climates, pictures); U.S. cities (pictures over time); U.S. rivers and waterways (pictures, text, historical to present), map collections (historical, N. America, U.S., S. America)
ïPrimary sources on American history--19th century
ïPrimary sources-especially media,
also short synopses of important events, people linked to media
(e.g., a person whose papers could be accessed.)
School Library Media Specialist Supervisor suggestions :
ïResearch topics, full-text journal articles, want graphics
ïHistory, especially American, text, sound, images
ïAll academic areas, technology (e.g., history of), careers, speeches, biographical info, current topics, art & music
ïSocial studies, American history documents, text, visual, census statistics
ïSource information on specific subject area topics, teaching strategies & techniques for given objectives/outcomes
ïWant information that is useful to students. Topical areas would be: current events, science, social studies, language arts; need texts
ïDownload public domain information; indexes, finding guides, etc.
ïDepends on whether search was for personal, professional, or students; lesson plans for all subjects areas; support materials for lessons (text, sound, images); text will accompany images (that can be printed and used away from terminal); social science pictures; science pictures with sound; literary texts
ïSchools already have Internet access
to LC--any expansion of full-text access would be useful; Increased
access to photo collections desirable.
3.2.2. Day Care Center
The results of the day care center questionnaire
stand in somewhat sharp contrast to the school-based data (See
Appendix D for a summary of the raw data). Figures 1 and 2 illustrate
that about two-thirds of the respondents were female and the largest
number were in the 23-41 age group (another large group was composed
of high school students who worked at the center). This distribution
is representative of working parents with day-care age children.
Figure 1. Age Distribution (N=85) Figure
2. Gender Distribution (N=79)
Figures 3 and 4 illustrate that although
there is a wide range of educational completion levels, most respondents
are interested in learning more about computers.
Figure 3. Educational Level (N=77) Figure 4. Interest in Learning more
about Computers (N=85)
Note that all those respondents who marked
grade 4-8 as highest completion were current high school students.
Thus, all the adult respondents reported at least a high school
completion rate.
The responses to computer usage questions illustrate the gap between interest to learn and actual experience. Figure 5 shows where respondents access computers. Ten participants did not respond to this question. As they were asked to check all that apply, the total number of responses was 117. It is interesting to note that 51 respondents reported using a computer at home (60%), a figure that exceeds national survey data on home computer penetration nationally (e.g., 37% of U.S. homes had computers in early 1995, Communications of the ACM, May, 1995, p. 9). Forty respondents (47%) reported using computers at work. Twelve of the 18 (67%) high school student respondents reported using computers at school. Eighteen respondents (21%) reported using computers both at home and work; eleven (13%) reported using computers both at home and school; no respondent reported using computers at work and school; and five respondents (6%) reported using computers
in all three locations.
Figure 6 depicts how often respondents use
computers. Twenty-nine (35%) of the respondents reported using
computers on a daily basis; 20 (24%) reported using computers
several times a week; 15 (18%) reported using computers several
times a month; 14 (16%) reported using computers once in a while,
and seven (8%) did not respond to this question. Seventeen respondents
selected reasons for not using computers, with access (6 respondents)
and knowledge (5 respondents) the most frequent selections. Twenty-five
(29%) of the respondents reported having access to some online
service. These data suggest that computer usage is pervasive
with well over half of the respondents in this survey using computers
in a variety of settings multiple times per week and that almost
one-third have some type of online access.
Figure 5. Where Computers are Used. Figure 6. Frequency of Computer Use
A very different portrait emerges from the
responses related to the World Wide Web (WWW). Although 32 (38%)
of the respondents had heard of the WWW (see Figure 7), only nine
(11%) had actually used it (see Figure 8). Of those who did use
it, only three were high school students so the adult users are
beginning to use the WWW. Although this very low penetration
of the WWW suggests that NDL access today would reach a small
portion of these citizens, the facts that almost one-third now
have some online access and over half are regular computer users
suggest that WWW access will follow quickly as the NDL continues
to evolve.
Figure 7. Heard of WWW (N=83). Figure 8.
Used the WWW (N=82).
The questionnaire was designed to determine
the basic library use facility of the respondents. The results
(see Figure 9) illustrate that most respondents (50=59%) of the
respondents use the library on occasion (less than several times
a month). In response to the question about what reasons they
do use libraries, responses varied across the categories, with
school (40=47%) and reference (38=45%) garnering the
Figure 9. Frequency of Library Use (N=84)
most frequent usages (see Figure 10). It
is interesting that 33 respondents (39%) selected leisure reading
as a usage. Of all these usages, perhaps leisure reading is
least likely to be affected by NDL availability.
Figure 10. Reasons for Library Use.
The main objective of the questionnaire
was to determine what needs exist or may evolve for the NDL.
This was also the most difficult objective to achieve since subjects
were asked to articulate needs related to a new entity about which
they knew very little if anything. Thirty-six (42%) of the respondents
said they expected to use the NDL for the same reasons they currently
use libraries, however, the fact that 41 (48%) selected donít
know illustrates the lack of knowledge about the NDL. To address
the difficulty of eliciting information about an unknown entity,
the questionnaire was designed to be open ended in this section.
Although, we recognized that this would make responses more difficult
and many participants would skip these questions, we wanted to
provide the broadest possible scope of responses. For the question
about what reasons subjects would like to use the NDL, most respondents
(54=64%) wrote nothing or NA/none. Several of the respondents
made generic comments about easy, fast access to information or
about gaining more information or knowledge. A few made general
comments about using for school and a few noted the importance
for children. Five respondents gave specific information topics
or types of information (World War II, genealogy, history from
a different perspective, educational materials for teachers, and
maps and photographs). Two respondents noted that they would
use the NDL to find information not available in their local libraries.
Thus, only a small number of respondents were able to give any
reasons beyond generic library use for the NDL. See Appendix
D for compilations of actual responses.
The question about search strategy was not
answered by 53 subjects (62%). Most who did respond noted subject
(11), author (5), or some combination of subject/author/title
(11). Three listed browsing and a two others noted that it depended
on need and by some known piece of information. Thus, the respondents
mainly expected to use the NDL as they do finding aids in physical
libraries. To the question about other preferable ways to find
information, 10 wrote something about computers or other electronic
tools (CD-ROM) and three listed a librarian.
To the question asking if they thought they
could find information easier if were available electronically,
71 (84%) replied yes, two (2%) replied no, and 10 (12%) replied
maybe. Clearly, these respondents felt confident about their
ability to use computers to find information.
Participants were asked to speculate on
advantages and disadvantages that might be expected with NDL use.
Faster and easier access to information was given as an example
in the questionnaire item. Forty-seven (55%) of the respondents
indicated one or both of these reasons. Two of those respondents
also noted that there could be more information, another noted
that it would be faster since they could send information to their
local printer, and another noted that there could also be many
more cross references. Twenty-two (26%) gave no response. Five
respondents said there would be more information; six said they
could do work from home or work; two noted that they could find
information beyond that available in their local libraries; two
thought that they could get more precise (exactly what I want)
information; and one noted that it would have no advantages since
the computers in libraries were too confusing to use already.
The disadvantage question gave ìslower
more difficult access to informationî as an example. Six
respondents noted that access might be slower; seven said that
it might be difficult to use the technology, three noted generic
difficulty, and three noted difficulty related to finding information.
Forty-five (53%) of the respondents did not answer or said no
disadvantages. Two respondents were concerned with access to
terminals; five noted potential problems with technology failure;
three noted concerns about system overload (busy lines); one noted
potential information overload; one was concerned that not everything
needed would be available; three were concerned about costs; one
noted that no librarian would be available to help; and one thought
the entire idea was a waste of tax dollars.
The final open-ended question asked participants
to list ways that they might use NDL materials. Thirty-eight
(45%) of the respondents did not write anything or wrote NA.
Fifteen (18%) specifically noted school work or projects; seven
(8%) noted to help children (one said younger brother); eight
(9%) said reports, presentations, or projects; and four said for
general reference. The remaining responses related to some sort
of personal knowledge: five noted general personal information;
Five noted travel or vacation information; three noted general
knowledge acquisition; two said knowledge of history; two said
genealogy; and one each noted music/literature, multiple sclerosis,
and art inspiration. One other respondent said for entertainment,
and one said ìjust like a library.î
Although it was difficult for the respondents
to speculate about the pros and cons of the NDL they knew little
about, the comments given do cover the commonly expressed advantages
of digital libraries and provide a wide range of concerns about
technical and intellectual challenges to the NDL.
3.2.3. Summary of Questionnaire Analyses.
The general populace shows interest in computers
and the information resources networks offer but have limited
first-hand experience with the WWW. Home access is high with
some sort of online access becoming more common. Schools use
a wide range of computers and many have some type of online capacity
in the building but few have it in classrooms.
The day care results show that few respondents
gave specific reasons for using the NDL and cited no specific
collections. The media specialists gave some specific reasons
but no specific collections. The teacher respondents who had
participated in LC training cited specific materials. These results
reinforce the theme of diversity in users, needs, and computational
settings and suggest that the NDL must be purposefully introduced
to potential users.
3.3. LC Document Analysis
3.3.1. Reading Room Handouts.
The first documents examined were those available in the reading rooms as handouts for visitors. There is a rich set of knowledge captured in these handouts and the NDL interface must provide some of their functionality.
ïSome of the handouts relate to physical space and working hours--functions less critical in the NDL.
ïOthers provide descriptions of the collection and policies for using the collection and are clearly applicable to the NDL. A challenge is finding ways to integrate the many individual RR descriptions into a common introduction for the integrated NDL.
ïDocuments that help users actually use the collection or conduct research in the field will also be as valuable for NDL users as they currently are for LC RR users.
ïFinally, the reading rooms have created
specialized documents related to particular user needs or hot
topics. The existence of these documents illustrate the need
for some similar service in the NDL interface.
All these documents reinforce the complex
nature of the individual reading rooms, let alone the complexity
of the aggregate LC. Early versions of the interface can simply
point to electronic versions for these documents, eventually specialized
electronic versions will emerge and be integrated into the system
help and guided tour components.
3.3.2. LC User Studies.
The two LC user studies offer a rich set of specific interface recommendations. Some of the impressions and commentary at the American Memory sites strictly reflect individual preferences, however some trends were common across many sites, for example:
ïstudents preferred buttons to pull-down menus,
ïthere were many instances of poor understanding of search strategy (e.g, misunderstanding Boolean AND, lack of systematic reformulations or use of results),
ïcomplaints about time to use the system (both physical access due to a single workstation and response time),
ïteachers noted that linkages between the primary material and their curricula would be beneficial (a common use for the content and system was as an enrichment adjunct rather than an integral part of the course), and
ïseveral noted that it is essential
that materials can be printed and/or saved to disk.
The P&P WWW Public User Interviews identified a variety of navigational problems, for example:
ïbasic graphical user interface literacy (e.g., knowing how to use a mouse, how to scroll, using pull-down menus),
ïmoving among levels of representation (e.g., among full image, thumbnail, and brief display), and
ïlosing buttons after scrolling.
The search strategy problems identified included:
ïconfusion regarding relevance ranking of results
ïneed for easy-to-use alphabetical subject headings (system had them available and scrolling required),
ïlimiting hit lists to 100 and converse of too many to look through
ïneed for posting data after all moves.
Both of these sets of results highlight
challenges for the NDL interface. In addition to reinforcing
the importance of computer experience, these findings illustrate:
the need for crisp and intuitive dynamics between screens/windows
so that users can focus on different levels of representation
easily or possibly juxtapose them; judicious use of any scrolling
functions; and the need for clear yet powerful search articulation
and results display.
3.3.3. Email messages.
The sample of electronic mail messages answered
by Beth Davis-Brown provide an interesting mosaic of users who
are actually using the infant NDL and the types of information
needs and problems they bring to the Library. Based upon a content
analysis of user messages, Davis-Brownís responses, and
her brief classificatory commentary for the exchanges, the messages
fall into three broad categories: system, user needs, and miscellaneous.
The system category includes the following types of messages:
ïpraise (compliments about the NDL)
ïcrashes (complaints or inquiries about server or telecommunications problems)
ïtechnical questions or suggestions (difficulty launching video players on client, suggestions for alternative data formats)
ïsuggestions to add:
content (add specific collections)
indexes or services (one interesting request was for a zipped index of the NDL that could be downloaded and used locally to save connect charges)
ïcorrections (e.g., mislabeled photograph).
The user needs category includes the following types of messages:
ïreference questions (e.g., census data for NY state 1600-1900 and how to find it)
ïrequests for special collections (e.g., HABS drawings of historic buildings, America eats collection, Walker Evans and Marion Post-Wolcott photographic negatives, etc.)
ïrequests for specialized services (e.g., photograph copy requests online)
ïrequests for help (some in Locis or
another service; some need help in using the system--e.g., ìWhere
is the search function?î; some have done searches and want
help in narrowing; others confused about what to ask, where the
mail is going).
The miscellaneous category includes the following types of messages:
ïcontributions of two types
specific items (e.g., want to donate a photograph)
URLs (requesting LC to link to their web sites)
ïjob seeking (to work on NDL)
ïgeneral communication (some users
reply with thanks and commentary to a reply to their earlier message--want
to maintain dialogue).
Taken together, these documents capture a wide range of knowledge about the LC, the users who use it, and the types of information needs they bring to it. The existing documents must be captured and integrated into the NDL. Analysis of future email will surely contribute important data as the system evolves and new, systematically scheduled user studies are highly recommended.
4.1. User Type/Task Taxonomy.
A central theme emerging from this investigation
is diversity. There were wide ranges in users, the tasks they
bring to the NDL as manifestations of their needs, the technological
settings they work in, and in the wide variety of content that
makes up the NDL. To integrate the results from the different
components of the investigation it is useful to revisit the nature
of users and needs in light of the types of user communities identified
before data collection began. It seems clear that the three communities
(LC staff, current scholars, and prospective NDL users) are too
broad to capture the diversity or to fully guide the interface
design.
A more fine-grained classification is possible
by combining the analytical framework of users and tasks (Marchionini,
1995) with the empirical data from this investigation. The analytical
framework crosses users, tasks, and the personal situation that
motivates the search.
Users have a host of individual characteristics, preferences, and experiences which are not orthogonal:
ïpersonal attributes (physical, cognitive, social),
ïexperience in the domain of knowledge related to the information need, and
ïexperience in using library systems
and research techniques.
Five non-orthogonal dimensions of the information seeking task are:
ïcomplexity (both the number of facets involved and the level of abstraction),
ïspecificity (how confident the user is to determine the accuracy and completeness of results),
ïquantity (the amount of information expected),
ïcriticality (how important it is that the need be met), and
ïtimeliness (how much time the user
is willing or expects to invest).
Analytically, we would define scales for
each dimension (e.g., low, average, high) and populate the resulting
matrix with examples or cases. Assuming three points per dimension,
we would have 27 cells for user characteristics and 243 cells
for tasks. Crossing the two matrices would yield 6561 cells to
fill. Adding the many types of motivations and situations that
contextualize specific instances of information seeking similarly
expands the theoretical possibilities. Clearly, this approach
is a) impractical due to the large number of variations for which
interface features are considered, and b) minimal and simplistic
on the user characteristics side.
A more realistic approach is to collapse
some of the dimensions in light of the empirical evidence collected
in the reading rooms, surveys, and document examinations. Based
on the evidence, factors that characterize users are:
ïmotivation (the personal situation that brings users to the Library)
ïdomain knowledge (related to the particular need)
ïlibrary system knowledge
ïfocus ( a combination of complexity, quantity, and specificity) and
ïtime allocated (combining timeliness
and criticality).
These factors are applied to the different
types of users and user needs described in the reading room visits.
Such an approach yields then nine user classes listed in Table
2. These classes are not exhaustive, nor are they mutually exclusive.
Moreover, any individual belongs to a class for each information
need (i.e., in different visits or sessions users may fall into
different classes). It is highly likely that this taxonomy will
change as the NDL evolves since it is rooted in data that come
from a mix of current users of the physical LC, early adopters
of the nascent implementation, and non-users asked to speculate
about using it.
Such a taxonomy will be useful to the interface
design in three ways. First, it will guide the development of
features that substitute for the reference interview. Since a
human resource will not be readily available, the system must
provide ways for users to articulate specific needs (e.g., queries)
as well as contextual information (e.g., granularity and scope
of need). A set of user templates varying according to the parameters
above may be helpful in meeting this fundamental interface design
challenge. Second, the taxonomy will provide the basis for variations
in interface features such as help, tours, and tutorials. Third,
the taxonomy will provide the basis for testing prototypes with
scenarios. A previous version of this taxonomy was used by the
NDL Working Group to develop brief scenarios that will be used
to guide and test the interface prototypes. An aggregation of
the scenarios is attached as Appendix E. As the taxonomy evolves,
new scenarios will be created to guide and test the interface
prototypes.
4.2. Design Implications.
The first interface prototypes must aim
to satisfy much of the user diversity. This needs assessment
has identified many design challenges specific to LC. Table 3
summarizes these challenges. As the design process proceeds,
these challenges will be prioritized. It seems clear that all
the general challenges should be considered first as design progresses.
Table 2. User Taxonomy.
1. LC staff. high motivation, medium domain
knowledge, high library system knowledge, high focus, and limited
time allocations
2. Hobbyists (e.g., genealogy, Civil War,
railroads, other examples). high motivation, typically high domain
knowledge, a range of library system knowledge, high focus, and
high time allocations
3. Scholars (e.g., historians, sociologists,
anthropologists, authors). high motivation, high domain knowledge,
high library system knowledge, high focus, and high time allocations
4. Professional researchers (e.g., picture
researchers). high motivation, medium domain knowledge, average
to high library system knowledge, very high focus, and medium
time allocations,
5. Rummagers (browsers) (e.g., PhD students
looking for topics; scholars looking for new directions, topics).
high motivation, medium domain knowledge, range of library system
knowledge, low focus, and medium to high time allocations
6. Object seekers (e.g., some authors, CD-ROM/multimedia
developers, TV/video producers, instructional materials developers).
high motivation, range of domain knowledge, low library system
knowledge, high focus, and low to medium time allocations
7. Surfers (e.g., those who are curious,
those who bump into the NDL, etc.). low motivation, low domain
knowledge, low library system knowledge (but may be high computing
system knowledge), low focus, and very low time allocations
8 Teachers K-16 medium motivation, medium
to high domain knowledge, low to medium library system knowledge,
medium focus, and low time allocations
9. Students K-16 low to medium motivation,
low domain knowledge, low library system knowledge, low to medium
focus, and low to medium time allocations.
This needs assessment has identified a wide
range of users and needs and corresponding interface design challenges.
The interface must communicate to users what the NDL is and is
not, i.e., is composed of multiple but not uniform data types
(both formats and levels of representation) and is not the entire
LC let alone entire Internet. The interface must help users see
that the NDL has multiple but not uniform access points (entry
points are useful for some objects but not others). It must support
a range of search strategies from hierarchical selections to formal
and comprehensive queries so that novices and experts are all
well-served. It must provide help and guidance and emulate the
reference interview. It must be usable on a variety of platforms
and sensitive to a variety of physical infrastructures. The
interface must allow users to meet their needs without the benefit
of a human intermediary and for casual users it must do so without
long processing delays.
These are strong requirements and the degree
of success will depend on how the challenges identified in this
investigation are prioritized and used to guide and test the prototypes
in the months ahead. The general user needs identified in this
assessment require a range of interface features.
ïServing users ranging from school
children through seasoned scholars, including those with special
needs, implies an interface that supports a range of information-seeking
strategies from easily-navigable selections to complex queries.
ïThe lack of human intermediaries requires
that the interface provide significant help, tutorials or tours,
and last resort communications.
ïServing a range of user platforms
implies multiple interfaces that provide a default lowest-common
denominator interface (e.g., low-speed, all text) as well as a
graphical interface that takes advantage of visualization techniques.
ïThe nature of the NDL collection implies that the interface must provide clear delineations within the NDL and among the larger collections of the physical Library of Congress and the entire Internet.
ïThe interface must clearly distinguish secondary and primary materials.
ïThe interface must also distinguish and rapidly display texts, graphics, and sounds to facilitate browsing, as well as find ways to support non-textual search for non-print media.
ïThe interface should also allow users
to search across collections or not, and if they choose to limit
searching to a collection, provide clear linkages to other collections.
Table 3. Interface Challenges
General interface challenges across
reading rooms
ïdeveloping a framework characterizing for users the granularity, size, and nature of objects in the NDL across all the reading rooms
ïcommunicating to the user what items are NOT in the NDL
ïsupporting users in the NDL without human intervention
ïcreating an interface that is accessible to users with state-of-the-market technology
ïinventing new techniques to
search for multimedia objects and to integrate those techniques
into the interface (e.g., visual and audio query languages)
Specific interface challenges
from different reading rooms
ïaudio access (searching as well as download times)
ïaccess to multi-format items (i.e., a sound track and textual fieldnotes)
ïuser specification of areas/regions on maps
ïplace name ambiguity
ïidentifying and representing links
ïdistinguishing documents that help one do genealogical research from the primary materials
ïintegrating full-text and controlled vocabulary searching both across and within collections
ïdistinguishing finding aids levels and primary material
ïneed for linkages from browsable covers to bibliographic records and microfilm text available at LC
ïimage searching (including displaying series of related images and images in challenging formats such as panoramas and oversized posters)--possible use of P&P thesaurus;
ïenabling researchers to absorb
enough of the context for historical images and captions (why
images were made) to deal sensitively with content that might
otherwise be deemed offensive.
General interface challenges across
reading rooms
ïserving a wide range of users
ïserving a wide variety of information needs
ïhelping users distinguish primary and secondary materials (including multiple layers of each)
ïhelping users make links among items across different collections and reading rooms
ïcapturing the essential elements
of the reference interview so that users can find what they need
without human intervention
Specific interface challenges
from different reading rooms
ïspecifying geographical areas
ïpotentially huge files to transfer and display
ïdetermining when to point users elsewhere
ïhelping LC NDL users to quickly understand that few of the primary materials are online
ïhelping LC NDL users to quickly understand that there are many levels of search to work through
ïidentifying copyrighted materials (so patrons do not find pointers to them and expect they can come and copy them at LC)
ïsupporting hot topics, specialized exhibits
ïovercoming patrons lack of
knowledge about media (e.g., how pictures were produced at different
times)
Dervin, B. & Nilan, M. (1986) Information
needs and uses. In M. Williams (Ed.) Annual Review of Information
Science and Technology (Vol 21, pp. 3-33), White Plains, NY:
Knowledge Industries.
Hix, D. & Hartson, H. (1993). Developing
user interfaces: Ensuring usability through produce & process.
NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Krikelas, J. (1983). Information-seeking
behavior: Patterns and concepts. Drexel Library Quarterly,
19(11), 5-20.
Library of Congress. (1995). The National
Digital Library Program-A Library for All Americans. Washington,
DC. February, 1995.
Library of Congress. (1995). P&P
World Wide Web Public User Interviews. Washington, DC. Prints
and Photographs staff, May 10-23, 1995.
Library of Congress. (1993). American
Memory User Evaluation 1991-1993: Site Summaries. An Addendum
to the Main Report. Prepared by the American Memory User
Evaluation Team. Washington, DC December, 15, 1993.
Marchant, M. (1991). What motivates adult
users of public libraries? Library and Information Science
Research, 13(3), 201-235.
Marchionini, G. (1995). Information
seeking in electronic environments. NY: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Paisley, W. (1980). Information work. Progress
in Communication Sciences, 2, 113-165.
Shneiderman, B. (1992). Designing the
user interface: Strategies for effective human---computer interaction
(2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Taylor, R. (1962). The process of asking
questions. American Documentation, (October), 391-397.
Wilson, T. (1981). On user studies and information
needs. Journal of Documentation, 37(1), 3-15.