 |
 |
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. Andrew 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]> wrote: > > I am wondering if there exists some kind of clearinghouse of data from > 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 many > such results into a central place, so that it would be possible to quickly > 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 to > 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 is > 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 use > 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. And > I don’t think I need to convince anyone subscribing to this list about the > 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