Research Question

The task of the Content Display Functional Requirements group, within the context of the DLP Discovery Phase, was “to provide requirements and user needs related to the display of content in the repository.”

The following use cases* were established to frame the research question in more granular detail:

1. As a repository end-user, I want to discover content stored in the repository by searching or browsing, so that I can learn about materials stored there which may support my research.
2. As a repository end user, I want to preview the details of a repository resource to determine its appropriateness for my research, so that I know whether or not to download/view the material in greater detail.
3. As a repository end user, I want to view/play/search the actual contents of the material that I discover in the repository, in order to support my research.
4. As a repository end user, I want to understand download options that are available for the contents of the material, so that I can determine if I can download the material for my own use.
5. As a repository end user, I want to be able to cite the material that I find in the repository, so that I provide attribution in my research or share the materials with others.

*Based upon FRBR use cases (find, identify, select, obtain) for bibliographic data systems; MODS metadata levels of adoption use cases (five general categories of user functionality)

Background

A prior study, entitled “The DLP User Research Report,” was completed in summer 2015. This study recruited users and gathered impressions about current state digital library applications. This documentation provided background on Emory Library customer attitudes toward current digital library content and services, as well as experience of recruiting users and conducting user interview sessions.

Working Group Membership

The working group was composed of a cross-departmental team targeted at the various facets of this research question. The position titles of the members and their associated divisions are as follows:

1. Digital Projects Librarian, Library Technology & Digital Strategies (Convener)
2. Anthropology Librarian, Services
3. Senior Graphic Designer, Exhibits
4. Head of Research Services, Rose Library
5. Digital Photography Coordinator, Content
6. Senior Scholarly Repository Specialist, Scholarly Communications
7. Lead Web Developer, Library Technology & Digital Strategies*
8. UX Librarian, Library Technology & Digital Strategies*
9. Project Manager, Digital Library Program*

*represents consulting member

Protocol Design

Designing a study protocol to satisfy the research question was posed a challenge, as there is a surfeit of published literature related to this topic. At present, Emory Libraries does not offer a comprehensive access point to its unique digital collections. The DLP UX study provided some background in assessment for the current state applications in this area.

Given available resources and our problem set, we opted to perform open-ended, interface-driven interviews with our recruited users, following a predefined script but allowing for serendipitous interface exploration. This served as a practical solution for which solely front-end interaction was required. Furthermore, this provided simple access to real, diverse digital library content.

In order to target the research objective, we created six protocols, the full text of which are available on the DLP Project Wiki.

Our six protocols revolved around a similar base of demographic questions, but we themed each around a different discovery goal or content type interaction. This variability also allowed us to expose users to different interfaces. Each interview involved at least two separate digital libraries, and comparative impressions were sought in each session.

Recruitment

The group began recruitment with a discussion of the stakeholders belonging to each member’s division. In the course of this conversation, we identified several user groups from which we could recruit interview participants.

In order to extend the reach of our interviewee pool, we queried the Research and Instruction Librarians group, which has exposure to a large section of library customers. We also leveraged in-person meetings of the DLP Stakeholders Group in order to reach a larger group of Emory patrons. The resulting 20 interviewees fell into the following demographic segments and affiliated campus areas:

1. Art History
2. CFDE
3. ECDS
4. Film Studies
5. Goizueta Business Library
6. School of Law
7. Candler School of Theology
8. Political Science
9. Rose Library
10. Laney Graduate School
11. Rollins School of Public Health
12. Teaching and Learning Technologies
13. Woodruff Research Engagement Services

Interface Selection

In the interest of exposing users to the widely variable and highly customizable Samvera framework, the group identified several live implementations at various institutions as the objects of study. Each deployed a version of Blacklight, part of the Samvera stack, as the main search and discovery interface. We further refined our focus to interfaces that provided a federated discovery environment (meaning that various types of content were searchable in one access point). The five objects of study included:

1. Digital Commonwealth (digitalcommonwealth.org)
2. UCSD Digital Collections (library.ucsd.edu/dc)
3. Tufts Digital Library (dl.tufts.edu)
4. UCSB Alexandria Digital Library (alexandria.ucsb.edu)
5. Hull (hydra.hull.ac.uk)

Interviews

Interviews took place in the spring of 2017. For each session, the working group convener acted as facilitator. In some cases, another working group member contributed as note taker. All sessions recorded audio and screen activity. The 20 interviews yielded approximately 12 hours of footage.

Analysis

The group shared the task of analyzing session footage for relevant findings. Each member was assigned a number of sessions and provided a worksheet to aid in capturing impressions. The worksheet was aligned to four main target areas: search and indexing needs; filter sort, facet, browse, and navigation needs, user interaction with content, and metadata/record display.

After the conclusion of initial analysis, each group member’s grouped impressions were consolidated into a spreadsheet. This data is available on the project wiki, with user impressions linked to session numbers and user segments.