PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to provide a case study of the usability studies used by the Carnegie Mellon University Libraries during the redesign of their website.Design/methodology/approachThe Libraries used a web‐based survey to determine needs, proceeding to the prototype design, and completing the process with the final design and user testing. Think‐aloud protocols, used to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the final design, asked participants to verbalize their thoughts as they completed a series of tasks.FindingsThe results of the protocols indicated several key weaknesses with respect to navigation, screen design and labeling, leading to more revisions and the final release. Testing indicated that color and graphics attract attention; font, labels, and placement increase visibility; chunking and leading with keywords increase readability; and consistency increases usability.Research limitations/implicationsThis is a case study and therefore not necessarily representative to the general population of library website design efforts.Practical implicationsThis paper describes several methods of gathering feedback during website design or usability testing with an emphasis on think‐aloud protocols.Originality/valueThe techniques used here may be useful to others who are approaching redesign and usability testing of their own sites and interested in creating a user‐centered design.

PurposeUsability testing using think aloud protocols was conducted on the MetaLib interface, a new federated search product soon to be offered by the university libraries. The object of the testing was to find problems users might experience with the MetaLib interface in order to improve site usability.Design/methodology/approachBased on responses to a demographic questionnaire, a representative sample of eight volunteers, diverse with respect to affiliation, discipline, gender, language, and computer expertise was selected. Using the MetaLib interface and guided by a moderator, participants completed real‐world tasks while verbalizing their thoughts. Participants also completed a questionnaire and answered three open‐ended items. Transcripts provided the data for the study, which were used to determine problems and difficulties with the interface.FindingsThe usability testing revealed one critical issue, that is, problems with the login. Other issues included problems with primary and secondary navigation, confusing terminology, and inconsistency with the site design and user expectations.Research limitations/implicationsThis was a qualitative study and results should not be used to generalize to a larger population, but rather to identify issues with usability.Practical implicationsThe issues identified will provide feedback that will be used to address the usability of the software and the design of training, tutorials, and quick guides.Originality/valueResults of this study will add to the body of information about the usability of a federated search product and can help others to select and/or design a usable product. This study can also be used for the future improvement of the MetaLib product.

No abstract

No abstract

PurposeThe aim was to explore the issues related to acquiring copyright permission with the goal of determining effectiveness and efficiency using the least complex process.Design/methodology/approachA random sample of books was chosen, relevant information was recorded, request letters were sent and tracked, and results (permission received or denied) were analyzed with respect to publisher, publication data, time required, and issues related to the process.FindingsAbout 52 percent responded with a yes or no with 24 percent yes responses. Nearly 25 percent never responded, addresses were not found for about 16 percent, approximately 7 percent were too complicated to pursue and response time averaged about three months.Research limitations/implicationsResults were affected by the limited staff time available to work on the project, the many changes in staff, and the sometimes lengthy time between follow‐ups.Practical implicationsThe low rate of positive responses indicates the need to focus on publications and publishers most likely to provide permission: older and out‐of‐print materials, non‐commercial publishers, special collections, while using designated staff and personal contact to improve effectiveness.Originality/valueFew previous studies exist in this area. This study might benefit other libraries with respect to planning, defining procedures, and improving results.