Search results

This article has been withdrawn as it was published elsewhere and accidentally duplicated. The original article can be seen here: 10.1108/10662249810368879. When citing the article, please cite: Eileen G. Abelse, Marilyn Domas White, Karla Hahn, (1998), “A user-based design process for Web sites”, Internet Research, Vol. 8 Iss 1 pp. 39 - 48.

Many organizations are developing e‐mail mediated help services, although the implications of using e‐mail for client service are not yet fully understood. A qualitative study of a successful service was developed incorporating content analysis of service logs and interviews with staff and users. Two models of ideal service exchanges emerge: concise question/response dyads and extended dialog. Staff tend to consider dialog typical, while users almost exclusively consider the minimum exchange normal. Service logs show most exchanges are simple question/answer pairs where users explicitly request instructions, explanations, brief informational answers, or direct intervention by staff. However, users sometimes underspecify their request or omit needed information while staff often respond incompletely to queries. This frequent omission of information places significant stresses on a dyadic exchange model. As users become more experienced in the using e‐mail for requesting service, broader acceptance and use of a dialog model of help provision might occur.

Reports on Phase I of a two‐part project to identify and implement user‐based design criteria in World Wide Web pages. The purpose of the identification phase (Phase I) is to identify the criteria that influence a particular user community’s use of the Web and to analyze these within the context of the users’ overall information‐gathering behavior. Data were gathered through a questionnaire and electronic focus group session with nine faculty from four business schools. Participants identified 49 Web page features which clustered into eight broad categories of criteria having a significant positive or negative impact on their use of WWW pages. They also identified types of information normally used in work activities; methods of finding this information within the current information service environment; likely changes in behavior if the information became available via the Web, including willingness to pay.

This paper reports on Phase II of a two‐part project to identify and implement user‐based design criteria in World Wide Web sites. The test site is a Web page for the academic business community. As an alternative to existing, largely ad hoc design processes, the authors developed a user‐based design process, gathering user input at three different times in the process. Delineating this four‐stage process (information‐gathering; development; test and evaluation; and implementation) is a major focus of the paper. In addition to explaining the process in detail, the paper reports on the second stage of this process, which involves operationalizing definitions of the criteria and translating the criteria into Web page features and, to some extent, on the evaluation activities undertaken during Stage 3. Already reported are the results of Stage 1, which gathered user criteria for evaluating Web sites through a focus group session.

Purpose–To report on the Association of Research libraries (ARL)/Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Institute on Scholarly Communications held in December 2006 in Durham, North Carolina. Design/methodology/approach–Provides a review of some of the events of the conference. Findings–The second ARL/ACRL Institute on Scholarly Communications aims to provide attendees continuing professional education on scholarly communications issues, publishing models, strategies for encouraging advocacy programs, copyright, and author's rights issues. The workshop combined presentation with working sessions for attendee teams to work on individual scholarly communication action plans for their institutions. Originality/value–A workshop report of interest to information professionals dealing with scholarly communications issues in academia, corporate and governmental information centers and libraries.

The library’s strategic plan calls for the author to “Transform the role of the subject liaison librarian to better engage the campus community.” This statement specifically focusses on the aspect of the liaison role that builds relationships with the campus partners, “to better engage the campus community.” And like the peers, liaison librarians at this mid-size research institution have been struggling not only with implementing but also determining how to measure this new role. The purpose of this paper is to develop one measure of librarian engagement with the campus community.

The author developed a “campus relationship matrix” that articulates dozens of products that could potentially be the result of liaison work, such as co-authoring a grant proposal, developing a class, co-presenting a workshop on article impact metrics, etc. These relationship products were generated by examining the own work and by scanning liaison responsibility statements from other institutions. These products fall into three relationship status levels: emergent, generative, and productive. Each subject librarian was asked to rate his and her relationship with each department he or she serves. Additionally, in order to achieve consistency across the organization in understanding of three relationship levels, the author engaged in an exercise to calibrate the categorization of these work products. During this exercise and through the discussions, greater nuances were revealed about what the author is hoping to achieve with the strategic goal. A review and summary of the ratings is presented.

Baseline counts of relationship types were completed. The author is working to establish goals for next year’s comparisons. In actuality, the specific goals matters much less than the conversations surrounding these results about what work the author should be doing and why and how is valued.

This study presents a tool useful for the exploration and measure of librarian relationships with campus.