Hildreth, 'GUI OPAC: Approach with Caution', Public Access Computer Systems Review v6n05 URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/pacsr/pr-v6n05-hildreth-gui + Page 6 + ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hildreth, Charles R. "The GUI OPAC: Approach with Caution." The Public-Access Computer Systems Review 6, no. 5 (1995): 6-18. (Refereed Article) ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1.0 Introduction Meet the GUI (graphical user interface) OPAC, what Crawford has described as "the user friendly, bandwidth-intensive, hardware- dependent, slow for complex searches, GUI interface that is so much fun to use the first time around." [1] It sparkles and fascinates. It draws you in. You ponder, "What's behind this cute little icon?" Just point and click to find out. Another click or two . . . ("Hmmm, this looks familiar.") and a list of index terms to scan appears. Another click . . . a list of book titles. Click on one of these . . . a book catalog record to ponder. This book is not what you want? O.K., move back over to the window with the list of terms (you may have to maximize it), or, maybe, click on the "NEW SEARCH" button and try again. Some things change, some things remain the same. Williams et al. describe three types of user interfaces that have been developed to facilitate interaction between a user and an information system: command-driven, menu-driven, and GUI. They define a GUI as a: User interface that uses images to represent options. Some of these images take the form of icons, small pictorial figures that represent tasks, functions, or programs. [2] Windows, which divide the display screen into sections, and additional direct-manipulation (e.g., point-and-click) devices are also usually featured in graphical user interfaces. Williams et al. state that GUIs are "the easiest interface to use." [3] This is a popular, but largely unexamined assumption today. Pollitt et al. would have us believe that: User interfaces which adopt a graphical or window-based approach to search databases should improve access and the effectiveness of end-user searching. The graphic user interface (GUI) is revolutionising the usability of the personal computer in every application. [4] + Page 7 + Improved access, improved search effectiveness, and greater usability? These are not small claims. Is there evidence to support these claims? To date, there has been little research on the role of GUIs in improving search performance or retrieval effectiveness. The jury is still out on this one. Pollitt et al. do warn us that "the enthusiastic application of graphical features has sometimes resulted in unnecessary complexity"-- complexity that may place unreasonable demands on the user. [5] 2.0 User Interface Design for Information Retrieval The user interface component of computerized interactive information retrieval systems like online library catalogs is the locus in time and space, typically defined by a particular mix of hardware and software facilities, where the user and the information system interact and communicate to carry out useful information seeking tasks. In today's online catalogs, this user interface is primarily manifest through a particular online catalog's input devices and screen displays. However, these tangible components are only part of the story. The user interface in information systems is a complex environment in which system features must match up appropriately with a bewildering variety of users' personal characteristics, cognitive abilities, and task requirements. In the best of cases, this environment, with its brew of tangibles and intangibles, affords the user a comfortable, supportive "space" to carry out information seeking tasks. These tasks require not only appropriate information input and output, but comprehensible decision making support facilities as well. Looking for documents or other publications in an online catalog is not just a mechanistic information seeking activity. It is a dynamic, decision making activity which requires that careful consideration be given not only to the information to be provided, but also to the manner in which that information is presented in displays and to the set of decision making facilities available to assist the user in carrying out primary tasks and subtasks. Among these tasks are identifying and locating documents, reviewing them, selecting some as suitable to the need or interest, and using retrieved, found data to modify or continue a search strategy. Thus, a major goal of information system design is to develop a user interface that will facilitate the semantically demanding cognitive tasks of user comprehension and decision making. This goal is only partially accomplished by presenting easy-to-use search input screens and legible displays of bibliographic information. + Page 8 + There is much discussion about the "usability" of computer systems designed for and used by "end users." There seems to be agreement that system design features greatly determine the usability of information systems for their primary clients, and, further, that usability is a dimension that may have a profound influence on both search performance and users' satisfaction with the search system. Given the variety of things one might use a computer system to do, usability is surely a relative measure. Furthermore, user characteristics are also determining factors in achieving optimal usability. Allen has pointed out that user characteristics interact with system features to influence usability in unpredictable ways: "The objective of usability in information technology can be achieved if system designers understand how system features and user characteristics combine." [6] Not all catalog users are the same, and a "one-size-fits-all" OPAC interface will be less usable for some users than others. Allen, whose OPAC research has addressed differential cognitive abilities of users, recommends that system designers "customize information systems for some users," and incorporate user- selectable options in the user interface. [7] System designers, especially designers of user interfaces, must take into account the primary tasks to be performed with the system and the characteristics brought to the tasks by the users of the system. An understanding of these tasks and characteristics will inform the design of appropriate information search, presentation, review, selection, and related decision making facilities. Too often in online catalog interface design only one or two of these facilities have been optimized. For example, search input may be simplified, but no dynamic review and feedback facility is provided to support search continuation or enhancement based on information that has already been found and displayed. In this age of distributed, client/server computing arrangements to support wide-scale information retrieval, it is all too tempting to believe that sufficient usability improvements can be made at the client (user interface) level without regard to the server's search engine or database content and structure. However, search engines and databases impose fundamental limits on the search and interaction options that may be presented at the client level. For example, consider the OPAC whose database does not incorporate vocabulary control and has no hypertext linkages. GUI technologies cannot overcome limitations like these. We would do well to heed the insights of OPAC researcher Hancock-Beaulieu: + Page 9 + Clearly a more friendly interface which enables the user to search more intuitively cannot be developed independently, without taking account of the functionality of the search software and the nature of the raw database. Improvements in human-computer interaction in online catalogues would seem to require the following criteria: greater flexibility in input/output facilities, improved capability of the search mechanisms, [and] better representations of the knowledge base. [8] Although much has been written about the design and use of online catalog user interfaces and screen displays, actual design is still more of an art than a science. There has been surprisingly little research on the sequencing of online catalog display screens appropriate to a dynamic search and review process, or on information requirements of the process beyond what is displayed as bibliographic information. Online catalog user interfaces have been "acceptance tested" more often in the marketplace than in the laboratory or controlled field experiments. Nonetheless, a great deal of research from related areas and experience gained through 15 years of online catalog interface design, use, and evaluation can be brought to bear on the design of user-system interaction styles and methods, and on useful, informative screen displays. (For a useful summary of this research and experience, see Shneiderman. [9]) 3.0 Designing Effective Bibliographic Displays Some attention has been given by researchers to the question of how best to display discrete bibliographic records (presumably resulting from a search) on an online catalog's VDU screen (see, for example, Reynolds, [10] Fryser and Stirling, [11] Matthews, [12] Shires and Olszak, [13] and Allen [14]). Both content and presentation issues have been addressed. Great effort has been extended to provide online user assistance and "help" features to ease the use of online catalogs. Less concern has been shown for the dynamic aspects of the communicative, decision making interaction between the user and the system during the search process, and the information and display requirements for supporting that interaction. Such requirements include the proper sequencing (or formatting) of separate screens and a dynamic, proactive role for individual displays of bibliographic information. In traditional library catalogs, the bibliographic record was thought to be the end point, or stopping point, in the search process. Some early online catalogs reflected this tradition by displaying "The End" at the bottom of a screen that displayed a complete bibliographic record. + Page 10 + It has become commonplace to label unique data elements in displayed bibliographic records. Other than this practice, there is as yet no uniform or standard practice followed in the presentation of bibliographic records with regard to choices of labels for data elements, order of data elements, or screen layout and typography. Previous catalog research has indicated that users frequently do not notice the subject descriptors assigned to a work and included in the bibliographic record, and they do not understand descriptors' collocative function for identifying similar or related works. On the subject of information displays, Reynolds has written: The initial impression created by any display of information can have a strong influence on users' attitudes towards that information. They will almost certainly form judgements about whether the display is likely to be easy or difficult to use or, indeed, whether it will be worth their while attempting to use it at all. [15] The design of the full bibliographic record displays should be based on research-informed decisions made about data content, format, order of data elements, labeling, and typography. Data in the MARC record judged to be extraneous to the tasks at hand should be omitted from the displays. Considerations of both task and user characteristics must be included in the remaining aspects of the displays. Reynolds goes on to say that "a good presentation is, first and foremost, one which makes clear the structure and sequence of the information content and which takes into account the way in which the information will be used. To meet these requirements, one needs ways of visually emphasising, dividing and relating items of information." [16] Data field labels should be chosen carefully to avoid jargon and to indicate not only the meaning of the data, but also, in the case of the subject headings, their use and function (e.g., "SUBJECT GROUP" rather than just "SUBJECT"). With regard to sequence and structure, the MARC format structure, even with its arcane numeric labels disguised, is not suitable for end users. There is no uniform practice regarding which data fields are displayed first in bibliographic records. Designers might consider displaying the title field first in the case of monographs, although this may not be the best sequence for all types of materials. Also, research suggests like data elements should be grouped together, unlike MARC which separates "added entries" from the "main entry." + Page 11 + Recent research by Allen suggests that displaying subject headings first in the display, at the top of the bibliographic record, improves subject searching performance on some search tasks. [17] He attributes this influence to the perceptual speed factor in identifying appropriate elements in a bibliographic display. In a research project described by Hildreth, a different approach was employed to bring the subject headings to the notice of the searcher. [18] Subject headings were not displayed first in the bibliographic record, but were highlighted in a window within the record. By moving the cursor arrow to a subject heading inside this window, users could activate hypertext links to gather and retrieve related works. This combination of special prompts, labeling, and formatting of the subject data in the bibliographic record seemed to have had a positive influence on the search performance of inexperienced users (see Figure 1). ----------------------------------------------------------------- Figure 1. Bibliographic Record Display from Experimental OPAC ----------------------------------------------------------------- [This figure is only available in the HTML version of this article.] ----------------------------------------------------------------- The typographical conventions followed in the bibliographic displays used in Hildreth's research conform to the findings of Fryser and Stirling. [19] This research showed that users preferred labeled displays and conventional uppercase and lowercase typography for the presentation of bibliographic information. Effective bibliographic displays are influenced by both content and presentation factors. The design goal is to facilitate user comprehension and decision making. Key decisions involved in the bibliographic search process include accurate identification of a work, suitability of a retrieved work for a particular need, and the desirability of modifying a search strategy or expanding a search. The data content of the records in the database is often out of the hands of the system designer. The designer has to use the available tools to present information in the most useful way contemplated. + Page 12 + To date, there has been a paucity of empirical research that addresses issues involved in the effective display of bibliographic information. Although Hildreth's research reported here did not directly address these issues, the users of the experimental online catalog expressed general satisfaction with the displays and reported no difficulties in the use of the test versions that could be attributed to factors associated with the bibliographic displays. 4.0 Two Design Principles to Consider Reflections on the online catalog user interface as a complex environment for supporting search, selection, review, and related decision making activities led this author to the articulation of principles and goals which should guide the design and development of the online catalog interface. The first principle is that the online catalog system should never permit a user's search attempt to fail to retrieve one or more bibliographic records for review and action. Many searches in existing online catalogs fail to retrieve even a single record, and most online catalogs offer little or no assistance to the searcher when this result occurs. The assumption behind this principle (always retrieve something for display and review) is that something in a heterogeneous online catalog database might satisfy the request to some degree, or serve, even in its rejection by the user, to supply useful information that can be used to further the search. A second principle is never assume the display of a bibliographic record is the end of a search, merely to be selected or rejected, then "set aside." Bibliographic records are for use, not just as location devices, but as information-laden devices for furthering the search. This action role of bibliographic displays is often overlooked in system design. Bibliographic records can be generative; they may have a springboard effect in the search process, or serve as information "seeds" to fertilize subsequent searching. + Page 13 + Searching and browsing are nondeterministic, dynamic processes; it may be best to think of even the most precisely formed queries in conventional query-oriented systems as dynamic queries, subject to change in the search process. The user may know precisely what he or she wants and uses the online catalog merely to locate that particular item and determine its availability. Yet, this single-minded user may choose from a variety of ways of searching for the item, may encounter other interesting items while searching for the desired item, or may even lose interest in the original item as alternatives are brought to his or her attention. For these reasons, found data--terms, titles, subject descriptors, and entire records--should be able to serve as useful data for expanding a search or revising a search strategy. In short, it ought to be easy for search output to serve as search input. Display formats and prompts, point-and-click, and linked-record, hypertext navigation facilities should be employed in online catalogs to satisfy these principles and requirements. Research has identified several key problem areas in the use of conventional online catalogs that can be alleviated through interface design. Good reviews of these research findings can be found in Larson [20] and Hildreth. [21] Several of these problems are listed below: 1. Initial system entry and orientation. Bates calls it the "docking" problem. [22] 2. Required use of unfamiliar commands or excessive keyboarding. 3. Entering or finding suitable search terms. 4. Modifying a search strategy or query to achieve better results. 5. No way to provide feedback to retrieved information so that it can be exploited to yield enhanced search results. 6. Interpreting and understanding information in bibliographic displays to support decisions regarding the suitability and usefulness of retrieved items. 7. Knowing where one is in the search process or knowing what may be done next. + Page 14 + A common problem with flexible, hypertext retrieval systems that offer many alternative search paths is the feeling of disorientation users experience after searching for a time. Faced with many choices and paths to pursue, users typically begin to wonder where they are and how they got there. Lacking sufficient markers and prompts, they often feel lost. This experience is exacerbated in nonlinear hypertext search systems that have been implemented in earlier screen technologies developed to support only linear modes of searching. With these earlier technologies, one screen is displayed at a time, containing a single logical unit of information which represents a single stage or level in the search process. Related screens that may provide search and browse context, history, or alternative directions to pursue are simply not displayed simultaneously to the user. Newer GUI display technologies offer some solutions to this problem through the use of multiple windows and direct-manipulation devices. 5.0 What Do GUIs Bring to OPACs? Before GUIs we not only had inventive menu-driven interfaces, but some OPACs had rudimentary cursor-controlled "point-and-click" interfaces that permitted a degree of direct manipulation of data and functions highlighted on the display screens. No doubt, GUIs are generally more attractive and colorful than character-based interfaces, and they hold the promise of making OPAC searching both easier and more richly interactive. Some basic features of GUI interfaces are: o Multi-windowed views of multiple kinds of data. o Sizeable, moveable windows. o Scroll bars to scan through data and lists. o Pull-down menus and pop-up dialogue boxes with preformatted data entry spaces. o Hot buttons for activating functions. o Point-and-click device-based interaction. + Page 15 + Such GUI interfaces are familiar to the growing number of Apple Macintosh and Microsoft Windows personal computer users. How should these GUI features be incorporated in the next generation of OPACs? Armed with these new GUI, multi-window capabilities, the designer's dilemma can be expressed in this query: "What do we do with the windows?" What have we learned regarding what should be displayed in the windows and how the windows should be sequenced? The use of direct-manipulation, point-and-click capabilities at the interface needs further user testing. As Caplan warns, "it is a great step backwards to force patrons to switch from keyboard to mouse with great regularity. . . . basic acts like entering a search should not require hand movement from the keyboard to the mouse pad." [23] 6.0 Conclusion The march to GUIs by OPAC designers and vendors will continue unimpeded, so we must be on guard against the very real possibility of throwing out the baby with the bath water. We must not abandon sound principles as we make cosmetic improvements to the user interface. Point-and-click interfaces predate GUIs. More than window dressing, users need help in understanding the search process as consisting of complex, interrelated stages and levels of interaction between a variety of kinds of data and functions. For example, more useful than icons and direct-manipulation devices would be: o Character-based helpful prompts displayed on the screen. o Flexible movement among various levels of a search as they are presented in multiple windows. o The ability to gather in works related to a work on display, or works linked to a displayed heading or call number. + Page 16 + Rao et al. suggest a paradigm shift in our thinking about user interface design. Instead of concentrating on user-system interaction we should become less fond of system features and focus, rather, on "user-information" interaction. The authors argue that "effective information access involves rich interactions between users and information residing in diverse locations." [24] A goal of interface designers should be to increase the "quality of the interactions between users and information in an information workspace." [25] In other words, the design goal should be to provide an intuitive interface that permits more direct, informed interaction on the part of the user with the interrelated stages or levels of a search as it is displayed and seen in context. Unlike the linear, straightjacket, no rear-window approach of earlier OPACs, GUI online catalogs can simultaneously present multiple levels of the search territory and permit the user to flexibly pursue his or her own course as his or her interest dictates. Notes 1. Walt Crawford, "Future User Interfaces and the Common Command Language," The Public-Access Computer Systems Review 1, no. 3 (1990): 97. 2. Brian K. Williams, Stacy C. Sawyer, and Sarah E. Hutchinson, Using Information Technology: A Practical Introduction to Computers & Communications (Chicago: Irwin, 1995), 170. 3. Ibid., 145. 4. Steven A. Pollitt, Geoffrey P. Ellis, and Martin P. Smith, "HIBROWSE for Bibliographic Databases," Journal of Information Science 20, no. 6 (1994): 413. 5. Ibid. 6. Bryce Allen, "Cognitive Abilities and Information System Usability," Information Processing and Management 30, no. 2 (1994): 178. (See also: Bryce Allen, "Individual Differences, Values and Catalogs," Technicalities 11, no. 7 (1991): 6-10.) 7. Ibid. 8. Micheline Hancock-Beaulieu, "User Friendliness and Human- Computer Interaction in Online Library Catalogues," Program 26, no. 1 (January 1992): 35. + Page 17 + 9. Ben Shneiderman, Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd ed. (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1992). 10. Linda Reynolds, "Keyword Catalogues: Presentation and Performance," in Keyword Catalogues and the Free Language Approach, ed. Philip Bryant (Bath: Centre for Catalogue Research, University of Bath, 1985), 51-55. 11. Benjamin S. Fryser and Keith H. Stirling, "The Effect of Spatial Arrangement, Upper-Lower Case Letter Combinations, and Reverse Video on Patron Response to CRT Displayed Catalog Records," Journal of the American Society for Information Science 35, no. 6 (1984): 344-350. 12. Joseph R. Matthews, "Suggested Guidelines for Screen Layouts and Design of Online Catalogs," in Online Catalog Screen Displays, ed. Joan Frye Williams (Washington, DC: Council on Library Resources, 1986), 3-61. 13. Nancy Lee Shires and Lydia P. Olszak, "What Our Screens Should Look Like: An Introduction to Effective OPAC Screens," RQ 31 (Spring 1992): 357-369. 14. Bryce Allen, "Improved Browsable Displays: An Experimental Test," Information Technology and Libraries 12 (June 1993): 203- 208. 15. Reynolds, "Keyword Catalogues: Presentation and Performance," 51. 16. Ibid. 17. Bryce Allen, "Perceptual Speed, Learning and Information Retrieval Performance," in SIGIR '94: Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual International ACM-SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, eds. W.B. Croft and C.J. Van Rijsbergen (London: Springer-Verlag, 1994), 71-80. 18. Charles R. Hildreth, "An Evaluation of Structured Navigation for Subject Searching in Online Catalogues" (Ph.D. diss., Department of Information Science, The City University, London, 1993). 19. Fryser and Stirling, "The Effect of Spatial Arrangement, Upper-Lower Case Letter Combinations, and Reverse Video on Patron Response to CRT Displayed Catalog Records." + Page 18 + 20. R. R. Larson, "Between Scylla and Charybdis: Subject Searching in the Online Catalog," Advances in Librarianship 15 (1991): 175-236. 21. Charles R. Hildreth, ed., The Online Catalogue: Developments and Directions (London: The Library Association, 1989). 22. Marcia J. Bates, "Subject Access in Online Catalogs: a Design Model," Journal of the American Society for Information Science 37, no. 6 (1986): 357-376. 23. Priscilla Caplan, "A User's-eye View of the OPAC," The Public-Access Computer Systems Review 5, no. 7 (1994): 29. 24. Ramana Rao, Jan O. Pedersen, Marti A. Hearst, Jock D. MacKinlay, Staurt K. Card, Larry Masinter, Per-Kristian Halvorsen, and George G. Robertson, "Rich Interaction in the Digital Library," Communications of the ACM 38, no. 4 (1995): 29. 25. Ibid. About the Author Charles R. Hildreth, Assistant Professor, School of Library and Information Studies, The University of Oklahoma, 401 West Brooks, Norman, OK 73019-0528. Internet: childreth@slis.lib.uoknor.edu. About the Journal The World-Wide Web home page for The Public-Access Computer Systems Review provides detailed information about the journal and access to all article files: http://info.lib.uh.edu/pacsrev.html Copyright This article is Copyright (C) 1995 by Charles R. Hildreth. All Rights Reserved. The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is Copyright (C) 1995 by the University Libraries, University of Houston. All Rights Reserved. Copying is permitted for noncommercial, educational use by academic computer centers, individual scholars, and libraries. This message must appear on all copied material. All commercial use requires permission.