Comparing digital libraries with virtual communities from the perspective of e-quality

Abstract

Purpose-In this study, the authors use the term "e-quality" to refer to information quality, system quality and service quality. This study aims to focus on equality , exploring and comparing users' perceptions of digital libraries and virtual communities in the hope that the results of this study can help lead to better understanding of the exact nature of equality as perceived by users. Design/methodology/approach-A large-scale survey was conducted for data collection. Data collected from 334 users of digital libraries and virtual communities were used for data analysis. Findings-The study finds that users are likely to perceive a higher level of information quality, system quality and service quality of digital libraries than of virtual communities. Practical implications-The authors suggest that librarians do not need to have concerns over the challenge brought by virtual communities, which indeed have an increasing impact on the way a lot of people seek and gather information. Instead, they should encourage their users to use both digital libraries and virtual communities. The authors believe that the usage of these two types of information sources by users can efficiently inform each other, thus facilitating the equality of both digital libraries and virtual communities to reach excellence. Originality/value-Building on the information systems (IS) success model, this study explores and compares users' perceptions of digital libraries and virtual communities in terms of equality , which the authors think presents a new view for digital library research and practice alike.

Digital library evaluation measures in academic settings: Perspectives from scholars and practitioners

“…The two groups agree on a high rating (over 6) of the appropriateness of two or more measures in 7 out of the 10 dimensions: “collections,” “information organization,” “user interface,” “systems/technology,” “services,” “preservation,” and “administration.” The similarities are particularly notable in the “collections” dimension for measures such as “compliance with digitization standards” and “quality specifications.” In the “information organization” dimension, the high ranking of “compliance to the metadata standards” and “compliance to interoperability standards” indicates that measuring the quality of digital objects and their potential for resource discovery in a large-scale digital library environment is critical in digital library evaluation. The findings confirm the importance of measuring the quality of content and metadata reported in other studies (Park, 2009; Yan et al, 2014). Moreover, digital library scholars and librarians agree on several measures in the “interface design” dimension, where five measures were rated over 6 for their appropriateness.…”

“…In the "information organization" dimension, the high ranking of "compliance to the metadata standards" and "compliance to interoperability standards" indicates that measuring the quality of digital objects and their potential for resource discovery in a large-scale digital library environment is critical in digital library evaluation. The findings confirm the importance of measuring the quality of content and metadata reported in other studies (Park, 2009;Yan et al, 2014). Moreover, digital library scholars and librarians agree on several measures in the "interface design" dimension, where five measures were rated over 6 for their appropriateness.…”

“…Zhang (2010) adopted Saracevic’s (2004) digital library evaluation framework for an empirical study. She measured different levels of the six criteria of Saracevic’s framework using a Likert scale ranging from “Not significant at all” to “Extremely significant.” Yan et al (2014) examined different aspects of quality in digital libraries, such as information quality, system quality, and service quality. They created specific measurement items to compute different constructs of digital library quality.…”

“…Noh, 2010; Saracevic, 2004; Xie, 2006) and proposed different types of measures for some of the criteria in digital library evaluation practices (e.g. Jeng, 2005; Yan et al, 2014). Zhang (2010) investigated the importance of evaluation criteria and examined consistency among multiple stakeholders.…”

Formation of the structure of social-information interfaces as a solution of the responsibility assignment problem

“…Наведені вирази (11)- (14) для обмежень на розв'язок задачі про призначення відповідальності не складають вичерпний список можливих обмежень, що можуть накладатися адміністрацією. Аналогічно, за певних обставин самі обмеження можуть замінюватися іншими або пом'якшуватися.…”