This is the closest project I'm aware of (I realize it's only marginally
similar), if anything it might help in developing a new project:
Amy M. Drayer, MLIS
User Interface Developer
[log in to unmask]
On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 10:54 AM Andrew Darby <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Joshua,
> I did a what, interest session?, back at Designing for Digital in 2015 on
> this topic. There wasn't an overwhelming amount of interest then, but it
> appears there is now, so I'd be happy to participate.
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 11:47 AM Adam Joseph Arling <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Hi Joshua,
> > I also would be interested not only in the results and outcome of this
> > work, but also might be able to help in the development of the
> > "accumulation" clearinghouse, web application / site, if that's what you
> > had in mind.
> > ---
> > Adam Arling
> > Front-End Developer
> > Repository and Digital Curation
> > Northwestern University Libraries
> > Northwestern University
> > library.northwestern.edu <http://www.library.northwestern.edu/>
> > [log in to unmask]
> > On 1/3/19, 10:31 AM, "Code for Libraries on behalf of Gomez, Joshua" <
> > [log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]>
> > I am wondering if there exists some kind of clearinghouse of data
> > usability tests and A/B tests on digital libraries and archives. Or, if
> > such a thing does not exist, if members from this community would be
> > interested in building one with me.
> > I’m sure many results have been published in papers in various
> > journals or blog posts. But what I had in mind was an accumulation of
> > such results into a central place, so that it would be possible to
> > lookup and answer questions like “which facets/filters are used most or
> > least?” or “which layouts of complex objects result in more
> > images/bitstreams being viewed/streamed?” and so on. The general goal is
> > build up an evidence-based set of design patterns for digital library
> > interfaces.
> > I already have strong opinions about some of these questions, but I
> > would like data to back them up before acting on them. For instance, I
> > think the consistent use of author and subject fields in faceted search
> > an antipattern. Any field with more than a few dozen possible terms seems
> > unusable (to me) in faceted search. I think it would be much better to
> > type-ahead search for data in these fields and use facets/filters only on
> > simpler fields like date, language, or resource type. But these are just
> > opinions and I would like some proof.
> > I could run my own tests locally, and I intend to, but I would feel
> > more confident if I saw consistent results from multiple institutions.
> > I don’t think I need to convince anyone subscribing to this list about
> > merits of working collaboratively and sharing knowledge.
> > So if you know of something like this, please point me to it. Or if
> > you are interested in putting something like this together, please get in
> > touch.
> > Joshua Gomez
> > Head of Software Development & Library Systems
> > UCLA Library
> > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Andrew Darby
> Head, Web & Application Development
> University of Miami Libraries