|
|
|
Here are some of
the key recommendations we made based on this round of user testing:
|
|
|
|
The screen
design was far too cluttered. Users
were looking for a Google-like search box with very little text.
|
|
|
|
Combining
searching and browsing in the current presentation, on one screen, did not
work.
|
|
|
|
“e-Reference”
was not important enough to users to keep as a name and would no longer make
sense as we added functionalities to the system and interface.
|
|
|
|
As they had with
e-Reference, users still expected article level searching from the front
page, and now that we had this capability, we needed to present it in
an intuitive way.
|
|
|
|
I do not have
screen shots of the prototype that was available for the November round, and,
in the interest of time, I will skip ahead to what the interface looks like
now, post-launch. To encapsulate, the
near twenty users in the second round found the interface easier to
understand and had suggestions for more minor design adjustments.
|
|
|
|
|