An evaluation model for digital libraries' user interfaces using fuzzy AHP

Abstract

Purpose -The aim of this paper is to improve the service quality of digital libraries (DLs) through an evaluation model for DLs' user interfaces. This evaluation model can provide a useful reference for existing DLs or relevant research. Design/methodology/approach -Relevant literature was synthesized, an evaluation framework was established, and the Fuzzy AHP was employed to investigate the evaluation model for DLs' user interfaces, obtain the relative weights for the importance of the evaluation criteria, and establish the priority ranking for the criteria of DLs' user interfaces. Findings -The top five criteria are ease of use, searching, language, presentation, and design, respectively. For users, an interface should be intuitive. Good interface presentation and design are critical when users evaluate a digital library. Practical implications -All of the students, teachers and experts considered that the presentation and design of DL user interfaces were what users had had contact with in the very beginning, and they were critical influential factors in DL user interfaces. Furthermore, ease-of-use and searching were fundamental interface functions, as well as important evaluation criteria. Interfaces should also provide interactive functions to improve interaction, while tailor-made services should be taken into account to establish an excellent interface in order to meet each user's need. Originality/value -The evaluation model for DLs' user interfaces employed in this study will help developers of DL user interfaces discover the criteria that they should aim for as a reference, perform comprehensive criteria evaluation according to their actual needs, and employ top criteria for evaluation.

Engaging Pictorial Images and Voice Prompts Interface Design Strategy to Create Easy to use banking ATM System Interfaces in Nigeria

“…User interfaces with pictorial images, beautiful and aesthetic appeal will normally facilitate task performance by users (Reppa & McDougall, 2015), and promote independent usability (Chin-Feng, Po-Sheng, Yueh-Min, Chen, & Tien-Chi, 2014). Chin-Feng, et al, 2014).…”

“…User interfaces with pictorial images, beautiful and aesthetic appeal will normally facilitate task performance by users (Reppa & McDougall, 2015), and promote independent usability (Chin-Feng, Po-Sheng, Yueh-Min, Chen, & Tien-Chi, 2014). Chin-Feng, et al, 2014). Moreover, the recent scientific innovations that attached importance to the use of naturalistic reality images design strategies that integrate elements of visual aesthetics into interface systems design explicitly recognizes the importance of images in interface designs (Peak, Prybutok, Wu, & Xu, 2011;Mcneil, 2015).…”

Evaluating digital libraries: a systematised review

“…As Figure suggests, the majority of studies were focused on evaluating the quality of digital libraries’ services from the perspective of the users (Ahmad & Abawajy, ; Amannollahi‐Nik, Alipoorhafezi & Matlabi, ; Amini, ; Garibay, Gutiérrez & Figueroa, ; Helena Vinagre, Gaspar Pinto & Ochôa, ; Jafar‐Begloo, Hamidi, Anvari & Rouhani, ; Kyrillidou & Giersch, ; Lai, Chiu, Huang, Chen & Huang, ; Moreira, Gonçalves, Laender & Fox, ; Naiej, Noroozi & Hamidi, ; Sohrabi, Farzaneh & Reisi, ; Yousefzadeh‐Najdi, ). The second most frequent focus of research was on digital libraries as a whole (including analysing the various aspects of digital libraries) (Al‐Dini, ; Cemal, Doğan, Özlem & Sacit, ; Fuhr et al., ; Górny, Catlow & Mazurek, ; Hoe‐Lian Goh et al., ; Jose, ; Masoudnia & Ali‐Ebadi, ; Tripathi & Jeevan, ; Xie, , ).…”

“… review (all types of review articles) (Ahmad & Abawajy, ; Alipoorhafezi & Adabi, ; Cullen, , ; Esfandiyari‐moghadam & Bayat, ; Fuhr et al., ; Jose, ; Mehrabadi, ; Noroozi, , 2010a; Noroozi & Akbari, ; Saracevic, ; Tsakonas et al., ; Tsakonas & Papatheodorou, ) checklist (Evaluate and compare the information displayed on digital libraries of national content consortium, ; Evaluation of search capabilities of digital libraries applications in Iran, ; Evaluation of Simorgh Digital Library with emphasis on managerial perspective, ; Hoe‐Lian Goh et al., ; Nabavi, ; Noroozi, 2010b; Noroozi & Montazeri, ; Tripathi & Jeevan, ; Zolghadr & Momeni, ) content analysis (Azadi‐Ahmadabadi, ; Gkoumas & Lazarinis, ; Sohrabi et al., ) online questionnaire and interview (Lai et al., ; Madle et al., ; Zhang, ) Online questionnaire (Garibay et al., ; Tsakonas & Papatheodorou, ) library methods (Retrospective studies that include reviews of articles and books, and questions from expert people) (Hassanzadeh & Sohrabzadeh, ) questionnaire and interview (Moreira et al., ; Snead et al., ) researcher developer questionnaire and checklist (mixed tools) (Amini, ; Ghaebi, Baradar & Farnaghi, ) semiexperimental method (Quijano‐Solís & Novelo‐Peña, )See Figure for the frequency of the methods used. …”

“…As Figure 3 suggests, the majority of studies were focused on evaluating the quality of digital libraries' services from the perspective of the users (Ahmad & Abawajy, 2014;Amannollahi-Nik, Alipoorhafezi & Matlabi, 2014;Amini, 2014;Garibay, Guti errez & Figueroa, 2010;Helena Vinagre, Gaspar Pinto & Ochôa, 2011;Jafar-Begloo, Hamidi, Anvari & Rouhani, 2014;Kyrillidou & Giersch, 2005;Lai, Chiu, Huang, Chen & Huang, 2014;Moreira, Gonc ßalves, Laender & Fox, 2009;Naiej, Noroozi & Hamidi, 2012;Sohrabi, Farzaneh & Reisi, 2010;Yousefzadeh-Najdi, 2013 Goh et al, 2006;Jose, 2007;Masoudnia & Ali-Ebadi, 2013;Tripathi & Jeevan, 2011;Xie, 2006Xie, , 2008. Studies are conducted to: • analyse aspects and methods used in the evaluation of digital libraries (Azadi-Ahmadabadi, 2008;Cullen, 2003Cullen, , 2004Esfandiyari-moghadam & Bayat, 2008;Mehrabadi, 2011;Noroozi, 2012;Saracevic, 2005;Zhang, 2010) • analyse the user interface/usability of digital • efficacy (Buchanan & Salako, 2009) • information security (Hariri & Nazari, 2012) • task orientation (Meyyappan, Foo & Chowdhury, 2004) • electronic resources (Hariri, Nooshinfard & Radfar, 2014) • impact (Jabeen et al, 2017;Madle, Kostkova & Roudsari, 2008) • open sources (...…”