If it ain't about the user, it ain't gonna work.

I had studied Nielson and Usability before encountering Kuhlthau in my Information Users and the Knowledge Society class. As I read about the many theories and models in that class, I remember thinking that those models seemed to form a foundation upon which Usability could have been based. Maybe what I'm saying is, librarians were doing usability before usability was cool.

Perhaps, however, we forgot about the lessons Dervin taught us about Sense-making when we started making our digital libraries and our library websites. Or, maybe the introduction of any new technology requires first the idea that it could work, then making it work, then (hopefully sooner rather than later) realizing that just because it technically works, that doesn't mean it works for the user.

This was definitely the discovery that Ferreira and Pithan made of the InfoHab digital library. By combining Kuhlthau's notions that information searches involve physical, affective, and cognitive states, with Nielson's "big five" (learnability, efficiency, memorability, errors, and satisfaction), the authors created a study that should offer a pretty reliable and valid assessment of a digital library's goodness (I want to say usability here, but I think it needs to incorporate more than that, since we have added affective and cognitive aspects, as well.).

Judy Jeng also used a combination to try to develop an evaluation tool for digital libraries. She uses several techniques to create a more complete picture of the user experience. She suggests using formal usability testing, questionnaire, interview, think aloud, etc. She uses quantitative and qualitative measures. Satisfaction is the qualitative measure. I think this is where Kuhlthau's identification of the affective and cognitive aspects of searching are most prevalent. Kuhlthau tells us that users will experience some uncertainty during their search,. If the site has good usability, the uncertainty should be limited to "Is this really a topic I want to pursue? Does this fit my need?" rather than "Which button do I click now? How do I refine my search? Where am I, and what just happened?" This last question relates to user-lostness, identified by Jeng, as well.

People don't like feeling lost. In Don't Make Me Think, Steve Krug uses this to explain why web navigation must be good (2006, 54-60). Good navigation is one of the most important things designers of digital libraries can keep in mind.

Or, at least, that's what I would have thought six months ago. As I wrote that sentence, however, I started wondering about the importance of good metadata, that would allow the contents of the digital library to be found using a search engine like Google. If a user were looking for something specific, via Google, and found a link to the item deep within a digital library, would they need or want to navigate around the digital library after finding what they came for?

And, what about the whole social aspect that we've been discussing all semester? One of my least favorite things about wikis is the lack of good navigation, yet their popularity is undeniable. Wikipedia has an excellent search tool, and a fun random page feature, but browsing by categories (or basic topics) is really overwhelming. That's one of the things that concerns me about my own wiki. Yet, if people now just go straight for the search box, does it matter?

Yes, of course it does. Good navigation within digital libraries is just as important as good navigation within physical libraries. We don't just throw all the books in a big pile and make people dig through them. We sort them, we shelve them, we put them in a findable order. Then, on top of that, we provide lots of good signage (ideally) and friendly experts (hopefully) to help people be successful in their search. So, as I just think through my keyboard here, I'd say that these same tools--clear labels, helpful guides, help when you need it--are essential for ensuring usability and user satisfaction within digital libraries.