Seeholzer, J. & Salem, J. A., Jr. (2011). Library on the go: A focus group study of the mobile Web and the academic library. College & Research Libraries. 72(1), 9-20.
The authors examined the use of mobile Web technologies and design at Kent State University. Their literature review showed an increase in mobile device Web use. This only makes sense as smart phones (and plans) become more accessible and affordable. While “librarians are already using the mobile Web to deliver library instruction, access book and audiobook collections, conduct audio tours, send out text message notifications, and provide reference assistance,” there were no published studies about how mobile Web is used by library patrons, and how libraries created their mobile Web sites for patron use.
The librarians at Kent State organized four focus groups (one pilot group, three focus groups), comprised of Kent State students (both undergraduate and graduate). These students were recruited in a variety of ways, including online ads, flyers around campus, and word of mouth. Students received lunch and $10 added to their campus debit card for participating. The met in a conference room at the library, where the library’s website was projected, along with other libraries’ mobile websites. The group used an iPod Touch to examine the mobile sites. The same prompts were used throughout the focus groups, and a total of 20 students were included.
The results were fairly consistent across the different sessions. Those topics most focused on were “1) use and perception of the mobile Web by KSU students; 2) library resources for the mobile Web; and 3) other technologies for the library to explore.”
Use of the Mobile Web, Library Resources by KSU Students
Most students had Web enabled devices (phones, iPods, etc.). Those who didn’t “expressed interest in obtaining a mobile device with Web connectivity.” There were varied levels of personal Web device use, but those who did use it often (i.e. daily) tended to favor websites like “Facebook, e-mail, weather, directions and sports sites.” When asked about using the library’s Web page, many noted its value for beginning research (quick) such as looking up call numbers, browsing the library catalog, and database searching (if it were to be made available to mobile devices), but not for in-depth work, which they were more likely to do on a laptop or other computer.
One thing I found interesting was the authors’ findings in regards to which parts of the library website students see as most useful on their mobile device (i.e. research, services, about us). “Surprisingly, a number of participants identified research databases as an essential element of a mobile version of the Libraries’ Web site...Even after participants were informed that research databases would most likely not be formatted for mobile devices, they still expressed interest in having these tools available from the library’s mobile site,” to be able to begin their research from anywhere, during pockets of free time. Also of great interest, under the “Services” section of the Web site, are Course Reserves and the ability to check the status of their account (due dates, holds). Though librarians anticipated students to show great interest in the mobile “About Us” page, few students were interested in the details found there (hours, locations and directions, staff directory), and were more interested in an explanation of using call numbers or a guide to finding books on the shelf. Also, “participants identified the ability to contact a librarian as being of prime importance.” Having the “Contact Us” button was emphasized, whether the contact happens through texting or through a web interface, having librarian help wherever the students were was an important part of the service. “About Us” was ranked last when students were asked to rank aspects of the Web site.
Students were also given the opportunity to discuss “other features they would like to see the library provide on mobile devices.” Not surprising, improved functionality of the library’s catalog, the ability to personalize and customize (i.e. accounts), and texting questions to librarians were all mentioned. For the catalog, searching, putting items on hold, renewing items, having text notifications sent when requested items are available, and library appointment text reminders (meetings with librarians/library events/upcoming project deadlines).
Briefly mentioned was mobile site design. The students indicated the “bare bones” site felt lacking compared to other mobile sites with which they were familiar. Also, limiting the number of links on the mobile Web site for simplicity and usability is important, but also including a link to the main Web site was important (in case they weren’t able to find what they need on the mobile site; using it may be clunky, but if it has what they need, they’ll use it).
In the future, the librarians at Kent State want to continue to have student input when planning Web reviews; further qualitative research needs to be done and published, adding to the professional literature.
This was interesting to read and generally apply some of the ideas introduced in the article to our discussions about the University of Dubuque’s “How do I...” webpage (similar to many FAQ pages). We are thinking about a variety of populations we are serving/targeting with this one page, design concepts (how to make it useful, concise but informative, and clean & easy to use). We’ve started examining other libraries’ websites, noting those things we like, what we might adapt to meet the needs of our users, wording, coding, searching, etc. At this point, the UD library’s website has to fit within the framework of the large University’s design and lay-out standards but, keeping that in mind, we are still able to be flexible with our approach and design that we will discuss with the University library Web liaison.
No comments:
Post a Comment