Website Refresh: First Round of Iterative Testing

As I mentioned in my last post, we’re doing a design refresh of our library website, with a goal to make it “beautiful.” As such, we’re not touching much of the organization. But of course we have to pay attention to not just how the information is categorized but also where it appears on the page. We learned that a few years back when we tried adding a “Spotlight” feature near our Library Hours (tl;dr: people stopped being able to see the Hours when other content shared the space). So we are firm believers that user testing and iterative design is vital in making sure we don’t make parts of our site invisible by moving elements around.

After the results of our user research earlier in the fall, we came up with a design drawn from the sites that our users liked most that also worked within our current site structure. The layout was essentially the same, with three major changes:

  • We pulled “Quick Links” out of the menu and put it in a box on the front page
  • Hours moved from a box on the side to a banner under the search box
  • Our Help and Chat button also moved to this banner

We wanted to do user testing to make sure that users could:

  • find today’s hours
  • get to the full set of hours
  • figure out how to access help or chat.

We also asked them if there was anything they hated about the draft design. Just to flag anything that could cause problems but that we weren’t specifically asking about.

Since we were doing this testing early in the process, we didn’t have a live site to show. Our Web Developer, the fabulous Kevin Bowrin, built the mockup in Drupal since he’s more comfortable in Drupal than in PhotoShop, but it wasn’t on a public server. So we used a printed screenshot for this round of testing.

The first version of the design had a grey banner and small text and it was clear after talking to a few users that visibility was a problem. We only talked to 4 people, but only 2 saw the Hours and they were really squinting to make it out. Finding when the library is open should be really really easy. We decided to increase the text size and remove the grey background.

Hours and chat button in grey
Version 1

This time, even fewer people saw the hours: 1 out 6. Since people didn’t see today’s hours, we couldn’t even get to the part where we tested whether they knew how to access the full set of hours. We decided to see if adding an “All Hours →” link would help; perhaps by echoing the convention of the “View More →” links in other parts of the page, it would be clearer that this section was part of the content.


Hours and chat button in white banner below Search box
Version 3

Again, quite quickly we saw that this section remained invisible. Only 1 person in 5 saw it. One user noticed it later on and said that he’d thought that part of the website was just a heading so he ignored it. Clearly, something was making people’s eyes just skip over this part of the website. We needed another approach.

Kevin and I talked about a few options. We decided to try making the section more visible by having Library Hours, Help and Chat, and Quick Links all there. Kevin tweeted at me after I’d left for the day: “Just dropped the latest iteration on your desk. I kinda hate it, but we’ll see what the patrons have to say!” I had a look the next morning. I also hated it. No point in even testing that one!

Hours, chat button, and Quick Links all part of Search box area
A blurry photo of the hated, not-tested version 4

We decided to put Hours where the Quick Links box was, to see if that would be more visible. We moved chat down, trying to mimic the chat call-out button on the McMaster Library website. Quick Links were removed completely. We have some ideas, but they were never a vital part of the site so we can play with them later.

Success! Most of the people we talked to saw the Hours and almost all of them could get from there to the full set of hours. (I did this round of testing without a note-taker, thinking I could keep good enough track. “Good enough?” Yes. Actual numbers? No.) The downside was that most people didn’t notice the Help and Chat link (not pictured here). However, I think we’ll really need to test that when we can show the site on a screen that people can interact with. The “always visible” nature of that button is hard to replicate with a print-out. I feel like we’re in a good enough place that we can start building this as more than just a mock-up.

Oh, and no one we talked to hated anything about the design. A low bar perhaps, but I’m happy that we cleared it.

Hours beside Search box
Version 5

We did all of this in one week, over 4 afternoons. For version 3, Kevin just added text to the screenshot so we could get it in front of people faster. Quick iterating and testing is such a great process if you can make it work.

Next steps: menu interactions and interior pages.


User Research: Beautiful Websites?

My University Librarian has asked for a refresh of the library website. He is primarily concerned with the visual design; although he thinks the site meets the practical needs of our users, he would like it to be “beautiful” as well. Eep! I’m not a visual designer. I was a little unsure how to even begin.

I decided to attack this the way we attack other problems: user research! Web Committee created a set of Guiding Principles a few years back (based on Suzanne Chapman’s document). Number one in that list is “Start with user needs & build in assessment” so even though I was having difficulty wrapping my head around a beautiful website as a user need, it made sense to move forward as if it were.


How does one assess a beautiful website? I looked at a whole bunch of library websites to see which stood out as particularly beautiful and then discern what it was that made them so. Let me tell you, “beautiful” is not a word that immediately leaps to mind when I look at library websites. But then I came across one site that made me give a little exclamation of disgust (no, I won’t tell you which one). It was busy, the colours clashed garishly, and it made me want to click away instantly—ugh! Well. We might not be able to design a site that people find beautiful but surely we can design something that doesn’t make people feel disgusted.

I had an idea then to show users a few different websites and ask them how they felt about the sites. Beauty can mean different things to different people, but it does conjure a positive feeling. Coming up with feeling words can be difficult for people, so I thought it might be easier for me to come up with a list they could choose from (overwhelming, calm, inspiring, boring, etc.). Then I decided that it might be better to have users place the sites on a continuum rather than pick a single word for their feeling: is the page more calming or more stressful? Is it more clear or more confusing? I came up with 11 feelings described on a continuum, plus an overall 🙂 to 🙁.

I wasn’t completely confident about this and assumed others had done work in this area, so I did some reading on emotions, aesthetics, and web design. (Emotion and website design from The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd ed.; Aesthetics and preferences of web pages from Behaviour & Information Technology (2000); Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites from International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (2004); and Measuring aesthetic emotions: A review of the literature and a new assessment tool from PLOS ONE (2017).) Turns out my method was in line with the research in this area. And although the wording sometimes differed, the 11 feelings I had come up with were all represented. Onward!

There had been some talk of the library website perhaps needing to mirror other Carleton University websites a little more closely. However, there is not uniformity of design across Carleton sites, so I wanted to show users a mix of those sites to get a sense of which designs were most pleasing. I also wanted to show a few different library sites to get a sense of which of those designs were most appealing to our users. I worked with Web Committee to come up with a list of 7 library sites and 5 Carleton sites.

There was no way I was going to ask someone to give us feedback on 12 different websites; I decided a selection of 3 was plenty for one person to work through. Since I was looking mostly for visceral reactions, I didn’t think we needed a lot of people to see each site. If each site was viewed 5 times (with our own library site as a baseline so we could measure improvement of the new design), we needed 30 participants. That was three times what we often see for a single round of UX research, but still doable.


I planned a 10-minute process—longer than our usual processes where we test one or two things—and wanted to compensate students for this much of their time. That fell apart at the last minute and all I had was a box of Halloween mini-chocolates so revamped the process to remove a few pre- and post- questions and cut the number of continuums from 12 to 9 (8 feelings plus the overall positive/negative). That cut the time down to about 5 minutes for most people, and I was comfortable with a 5-minutes-for-chocolate deal. So in the end, these are the continuums we asked people to use to label the sites:

Welcoming ↔ Off-putting
Disorganized ↔ Organized
Clear ↔ Confusing
Up-to-date ↔ Old-fashioned
Calming ↔ Stressful
Useful ↔ Useless
Inspiring ↔ Discouraging
Ugly ↔ Beautiful
🙂 ↔ 🙁

We set up in the lobby of the library and saw 31 people over four time slots (each was 60-90 minutes long). There were 31 participants instead of 30 because the last person came with a friend who also wanted to participate. Happily, the only person to have difficulty understanding what to do was one of these very last people we saw. He had such trouble that if he’d been the first person we’d seen, I likely would have reconsidered the whole exercise. But thankfully everyone else was quick to understand what we wanted.

Most people saw one Carleton site, one library site, and then our own Carleton library site. Because we had more library sites than Carleton sites, a few people saw two library sites then the Carleton library site. I had planned out in advance which participant would see which sites, making sure that each site would be seen the same number of times and not always in the same order. Participants looked at one site at a time on a tablet with a landscape orientation, so the sites looked similar to how they would look on a laptop. They filled out the continuum sheet for one site before looking at the next. They could refer back to the site as they completed the sheet. I had a note-taker on hand to keep track of the sites visited and to record any comments participants made about the sites (most people didn’t say much at all).

Partway through, I discovered a problem with the “Up-to-date / Old-fashioned” continuum. I was trying to get at whether the design felt old and stale or contemporary and up-to-date. But many people assumed we were referring to the information on the site being up-to-date. I thought that using “old-fashioned” rather than “outdated” would mitigate this, but no. So this was not a useful data point.

Usually with these kinds of processes, I have a sense of what we’re learning as we go. But with this one, I had very little idea until I started the analysis. So what did we find?


I had purposely not used a Likert-type scale with numbers or labels on any of the mid-points. This was not quantitative research and I didn’t want users to try to put a number on their feelings. So, when it came time for analysis, I didn’t want to turn the continuum ratings into numbers either. I colour-coded the responses, with dark green corresponding to one end of the continuum, red to the other and yellow for the middle. I used light green and orange for less strong feelings that were still clearly on one side or the other.

In determining what colour to code a mark, I looked at how the person had responded to all three sites. If all their marks were near the extremes, I used light green/orange for any mark tending toward the middle. If all their marks were clustered around the middle, I looked for their outer ranges and coded those as dark green/red (see examples in the image below). In this way, the coding reflected the relative feelings of each person rather than sticking to strict borders. Two marks in the same place on the continuum could be coded differently, depending on how that user had responded overall.

Examples of participants' filled-in continuums
The circled mark on the left was coded light green even though it’s quite close to the end. The circled mark on the right was coded red even though it’s not very close to the end.

Example of data colour-coded in ExcelAfter coding, I looked at the results for the 🙂 ↔ 🙁 continuum to get a sense of the general feeling about each site. I gave them all an overall assessment (bad, ugh, meh, or ok). No site got better than ok because none was rated in the green by everyone who saw it. Then I looked at how often each was coded green, yellow, and red across all the continuums. Unsurprisingly, those results corresponded to my bad/ugh/meh/ok rating; participants’ 🙂 / 🙁 ratings had been reflective of their overall feelings. Our site ended up on the high end of “meh.” However, several participants made sure to say their ratings of our site were likely high because of familiarity, so we are really likely firmly in “meh” territory.

Now that I’d looked at the overall, I wanted to look at each of the continuums. What was our current site doing really well with? I was happy to see that our current site felt Useful and Organized to participants. “Organized” is good because it means that I feel confident about keeping the structure of the site while we change the visual design. What did we need to improve? Participants felt the site was Discouraging and Ugly. “Discouraging” is something I definitely feel motivated to fix! And “Ugly?” Well, it helps me feel better about this project to make the site beautiful. More beautiful at least.

After this, I looked at which sites did well on the aspects we needed to improve. For both the Carleton sites and the library sites, the ones felt to be most Inspiring and Beautiful were the same ones that were rated highly overall. These same sites were most felt to be Welcoming, Clear, and Calming. So these are the aspects that we’ll concentrate on most as we move through our design refresh.

Next Steps

Now, Web Committee will take a closer look at the two library sites and two Carleton sites that had the best feeling and see what specific aspects of those sites we’d like to borrow from. There’s no big time squeeze, as we’re aiming for a spring launch. Lots of time for many design-and-test iterations. I’ll report back as we move forward.

Access 2018: A UX Perspective

I started my Access 2018 conference experience with a meetup of library people interested in UX. There were only five of us, but we had good conversations about Research Ethics Boards and UX research, about being a UX team of one, and about some of the projects we’ll be working on in the coming year. We also chatted about how we would like to communicate more regularly but how difficult it can be to sustain virtual communities. (Canada is BIG. Heck, even Ontario is big.) It was nice to start off the conference with UX friends – old and new – and my focus stayed on the UX side of things throughout the conference so that’s what I want to write about here.

On Day 1, the first post-keynote presentation was all about UX. Eka Grguric talked about her experience one year in as UX Librarian at McGill. She gets brought into projects in her library as a UX consultant, and also supports others doing UX and user research in the library. She also offers training on UX research methods for interested library staff. Her work is a combination of operational and project-based. She gave a bit of detail about two projects and her monthly operational tests to give us a flavour of the range of methods and processes she uses.

Next up was Ken Fujiuchi and Joseph Riggie from Buffalo State College, who talked about Extended Reality, a combination of virtual reality, augmented reality, and mixed reality technologies. They covered a few different topics (slides here), but what stood out for me was their mention of how user experiences will change as new interfaces become possible and there are new ways for people to interact with materials. They specifically mentioned oral histories moving from audio-only files to users being able to interact with a holographic image of a person who can tell stories but also answer questions. What’s good UX for oral history holograms?

A few presentations also focused on what I see as UX for library staff. Juan Denzer spoke about a project being developed by a pair of students he’s supervising that aims to make it easier to manage EXProxy configuration files (which can easily run to thousands of lines). Having tried to troubleshoot stanzas in EXProxy myself, I can definitely see how this could improve the UX for staff. However, as one of my table mates said, adding an application to manage a text file also adds overhead for whoever has to maintain and update that application. Trade-offs!

Ruby Warren from University of Manitoba was fantastic in her description of a project that didn’t quite get off the ground in the six months she’d set aside to complete it. Ruby had seen that distance students weren’t learning how to use the library in the same way in-person students were (e.g. no in-class visits from a librarian). She wanted to find a way to teach some basic IL to these students and thought that an interactive fiction game would be a good thing to try. She had some great lessons learned (including “Don’t Do Everything in the Wrong Order” and “Plan for Apathy”). One of my favourite things about Ruby’s presentation was that she was upfront about her failures, including – as a UX person – not planning for user testing during development. It’s gutsy to get up in front of your peers and say that you forgot a basic tenet of your discipline because you were too excited about a project. So human but so hard. Yay Ruby! Another key takeaway was not underestimating appeal when planning this kind of project. As someone who has a bard time seeing the appeal of library games, I appreciated hearing this. (I believe it’s possible, but I think it’s extremely difficult.) Ruby’s slides are here.

Back to UX for staff (and users too, to some extent), Calvin Mah from Simon Fraser University spoke about his experience archiving their ILS when his library moved from Millennium to Alma. Some kinds of information were not migrated at all, but even the records that were migrated were not trusted by cataloguers; they wanted to be able to go back to the old records and compare. With these two situations – missing information plus untrusted information – it was decided to build an archival copy of the old system. I find this interesting. On the one hand, I can absolutely understand wanting to help staff feel comfortable with the new system by letting them know they still have the old information if they need it; the transition can be more gradual. But Calvin noted that even though the information is getting stale, staff are still relying on it. So perhaps it’s more of a security blanket, and that’s not good. Also, there was a good library nerd laugh when he said that some staff wanted the archival copy to behave like the old system: “Respect the 2nd indicator non-filing characters skip!”

Something I see as having both staff and user UX implications is having contract work in library systems (probably everywhere, but in systems for sure). Bobbi Fox from Harvard has been on many sides of this situation (as a contractor, as a person hiring the contractor, as a team member, as a person cleaning up after a contractor) and detailed many things to consider before, during, and after contract work in library IT. Too often, contract work results in projects that are difficult to maintain after the contractor has gone, if they are even completed at all. I really like that she specifically mentioned thinking about who is providing user support for the thing(s) the contractor is building, as separate from who is going to own/maintain the project going forward. And in talking about documentation, specifying what documentation those user support people need in order to be able to support the users. This will almost always be different documentation that what is required for maintenance. Good docs are vital for maintenance but if people can’t use the thing, there’s not much point in maintaining it!

Nearing the end of the first day was a panel: “When the Digital Divides Us: Reconciling Emerging and Emerged Technologies in Libraries” that looked at disconnects that can happen on both the staff side and the user side when libraries favour emerging (“shiny”) technology. I thought there were some great points made. Monica Rettig at Brock University talked about issues when access services staff are expected to help troubleshoot technology problems; for staff used to a transactional approach to service, with a heavy reliance on policy and procedures, there is a big cultural shift in moving to a troubleshooting approach. Rebecca Laroque from North Bay Public Library wondered about providing 3D printers while she still has users asking for classes on how to use email. Monica noted the importance of core services to users even though they’re aren’t shiny or new; she asked who will be the champion for bathrooms or printers in the library? Krista Godfrey from Memorial University asked whether library technology should be evaluate and assessed in the same way that library collections are? Lots of questions here, but definitely an agreement that a focus on core infrastructure and services may not be exciting but it’s absolutely vital.

Day 2 was a bit lighter on the UX side. Tim Ribaric gave a great presentation on RA21 and the possible implications of it replacing IP authentication for access to electronic resources in libraries. Tim is skeptical about RA21 and believes it is not good news for libraries (one of his theorems about RA21: “We are effed”). His take was very compelling, and from a UX perspective, he is not convinced there is a clear way forward for walk-in users of academic libraries (i.e. users not affiliated with the university or college) to access our subscription-based electronic resources if we move from IP authentication to RA21. I know some academic libraries explicitly exclude walk-in users, but others are mandated to provide access to the general public so we are used to providing guest access and our users are used to having it. Tim has posted his slides if you’re interested in more on this.

Another interesting UX moment was in Autumn Mayes’ lightning talk about working in Digital Scholarship and Digital Humanities. Part of her job had been working in The  Humanities Interdisciplinary Collaboration (THINC) Lab at the University of Guelph. THINC Lab is a members-only space aimed at grad students, postdocs, faculty, etc. who are doing interdisciplinary and digital humanities research. However, they also host events and programs that are open to the larger university population. So Autumn found herself having to tell non-members that they weren’t allowed to use the space, but at the same time was trying to promote events and programs to both members and non-members. She very succinctly described this as “Get out! But come back!” It’s interesting to think about spaces that are alternately exclusionary and open; what is the impact on users when you make a mostly exclusionary space occasionally welcoming? What about when a mostly welcoming space is occasionally exclusionary?

Bill Jones and Ben Rawlins from SUNY Geneseo spoke about their tool OASIS (Openly Available Sources Integrated Search), aimed at improving the discovery of Open Educational Resources (OER) for faculty at their campus and beyond. The tool allows searching and browsing of a curated collection of OER (currently over 160,000 records). It seems like a nice way to increase visibility and improve the UX of finding OER such as open textbooks.

Again in library staff UX, May Yan and MJ Suhonos from Ryerson University talked about how library-specific technologies can be difficult to use and adapt, so they decided to use WordPress as a web platform for a records management project in their library. One thing I found interesting was that the Ryerson library had a Strategic Systems Requirements Review that explicitly says that unless library-specific technology has a big value-add, the preference should be to go outside library technology for solutions. From a UX point of view, this could mean that staff spend less time fighting with clunky library software, both using it and maintaining it.

The last conference presentation of Day 2 reported on the results of UX testing of Open Badges in an institutional repository. Christie Hurrell from the University of Calgary reported that her institution uses quite a number of Open Badges. For this project, the team wondered whether having an Open Badge that demonstrated compliance with an Open Access policy would encourage faculty to deposit their work in the institutional repository. They did a survey, which didn’t show a lot of love for Open Badges in general. Then they did some user testing of their IR (DSpace), to find out whether faculty would add an Open Badge to their work if the option was there. Unfortunately, the option to add an Open Badge was completely lost in the overall process to deposit a work in the IR, which faculty found extremely time-consuming. Since faculty were frustrated with the process in general, it is very unlikely that an Open Badge would provide an incentive to use the IR again.

The conference ended with the Dave Binkley Memorial Lecture, given this year by Monique Woroniak. Monique spoke about “Doing the Work: Settle Libraries and Responsibilities in a Time of Occupation” where the Work is what non-Indigenous people and organizations need to do before trying to work with Indigenous people and organizations. She gave some clear guidelines on, essentially, how to act with empathy and these guidelines can apply to many communities. However, I definitely don’t want to “all lives matter” this. Monique was clearly speaking about Indigenous people, and specifically about her experiences with Indigenous people in Winnipeg. When she spoke of the importance of assessing our capacity before undertaking new work, she included the capacity to build respectful relationships with Indigenous people. Although it can definitely be argued that a capacity to build respectful relationships is useful for UX work, her caution to never over-promise and under-deliver when working with Indigenous people is situated in the Canadian context of settlers over-promising and under-delivering time and time and time again. Sure, we’ll respect this treaty. Sure, we’ll take care of your children. Of course we’re ready for reconciliation. Over-promising and under-delivering is never a great move, but in this context it is particularly toxic. A few other things that stood out for me in Monique’s talk:

  • Listen to the breadth of opinions in the community. Take the time.
  • This is head work and heart work, and, especially, long-haul work.
  • Look to shift the centre of power for not just the big decisions, but the small as well.

If this interest you, Monique’s talk is available to view in its entirety, as are all of the presentations at the conference (they will be split into individual videos for each talk eventually). Monique finished with a lovely quotation from Katherena Vermette‘s poem “new year’s eve 2013” from her 2018 book river woman:

truth is a seed
planted deep

if you want to get it
you have to dig

UX from a Technical Services Point of View

This the text of a presentation I did last year at the Access Conference in Regina. Emma and I had plans to write this up as a paper, but life intervened and that didn’t happen. I wanted to keep some record beyond the video of the presentation, so here it is.

This morning I’m going to talk about a user research project I did with my colleague Emma Cross. We observed the user experience of students doing academic research online and then looked at that UX from the perspective of technical services staff. I’ll start with talking about the research we did with the students, the results from that research that seemed most relevant to Technical Services staff, and then I’ll talk a bit about the reaction that Technical Services staff at Carleton had to those results.

I’m sorry that Emma can’t be here. She was the Technical Services brain behind it all; I was the user research monkey.

So, why did we want to do this? Mixing Technical Services and User Experience is not done very often. A Technical Services supervisor at Carleton told us she was finding it difficult to prioritize work for her staff, and she wanted some insight into what was likely to have the most impact for our users. Fantastic.



Emma and I designed the research to be student-led; we didn’t have specific questions but we were interested in where students searched, how they searched, and what kinds of things they looked at in their results. In our sessions, we asked students to search for something they needed for a research assignment, and to try as much as possible to do what they would normally do, not what they thought they “should” do. We emphasized that even though we were from the library, they didn’t have to use library tools or resources if they normally wouldn’t for the kinds of searches they were doing.

I moderated the sessions, asking the students to think aloud throughout their searches, prompting them with questions if they were quiet. We let them search until they seemed to finish but let them know when we neared 30 minutes. The sessions lasted anywhere from 10-40 minutes, but most were 20-30 minutes.

Emma took notes and we also captured the sessions on video, so we were able to go back and fill in gaps when people worked too quickly for Emma to capture everything.

We did the research in March of 2017 and saw 10 undergraduate and 10 graduate students. Emma coded the results and found 4 themes that she thought were most relevant to technical services


Result #1: Overwhelming use of the single search box

Summon and/or Google Scholar were used by most of the students, and the catalogue not much at all. 7 people used various specialized databases and there was also regular Google, Wikipedia, Tumblr, but Summon and Google Scholar were really the most used.

There was little difference between grad and undergrad use of tools, except for catalogue use. The 2 people who used the catalogue were undergraduates. Kinda weird. But this is a good time to emphasize that this was a qualitative study, not a quantitative one; we’re not going to extrapolate that 20% of undergrads use the catalogue and 0 grad students do. The numbers don’t matter – it’s that when observing how students search and listening to how they approach looking for information, the library catalogue doesn’t often come up. It’s not part of their process.


Result #2: Popularity of the “get it” button  

Emma’s second theme is the logical corollary to the overwhelming use of single search: the popularity of the “Get it” button and the link resolver in general.

I love the “Get it” link – it makes my life much easier. (Graduate student)

“Get it” is really useful (Graduate student)

“Get it” is helpful!” (Undergraduate)

HEY LOOK Carleton offers to “get this” in Google scholar – HEY THAT IS GREAT! (Undergraduate)

Even when students didn’t mention it explicitly, they used it seamlessly. Maybe that seems obvious, but I have seen user research results from other university libraries where students had a hard time understanding their Get It links. Our students got “get it.”


Result #3: Metadata looked at:  title, date, abstract; Metadata searched: keyword, keyword, keyword

A pattern we saw repeated over and over in student research was:

Scanning search results list

  • Quickly reviewing title for relevant keywords
  • Check the date – majority of student not interested in old material
  • If interested, click on record to read the abstract
  • If title, date, abstract check out then download / print for further reading.

Students seem to be so used to this pattern and used to seeing abstracts or snippets of content that when they don’t see an abstract, usually when they are looking at a monograph record, they’re confused and then they move on.

And although students look at different metadata fields, they rarely search them. Aside from a couple of author searches and one really heartbreaking subject search, most of the searches we saw were keyword, keyword, keyword.


Result #4: Speed, impatience and ease of access

Students quickly skimmed results lists and rarely went beyond the first page of results (or with Summon’s infinite scroll, the first 10 or so). Undergrads tended to look at fewer results than grad students.

Many students had no qualms saying they were busy and they didn’t want to waste time. There was a general tendency to skip over materials that were harder to access – things on reserve, in storage, or borrowed, documents that take a long time to download. Even when they did pursue these harder to access items, they weren’t necessarily happy about it. This is probably Emma’s favourite quote:

This is useful IF I can find it. It is not online so I will have to search the Library itself. This makes me cry a little.

Generally, the students we saw were easily able to find other things that seemed just as good, so skipping over hard-to-access items didn’t seem to create much of a problem.


Reaction from Technical Services staff

So these were the findings we thought were most relevant to Technical Services staff. There are no big surprises here, but we wanted to know how our own Technical Services staff would react to what we’d found. What would they take from our results?

In July, we gave a presentation for Library technical services staff, followed by a discussion.

Here are some of the first comments from staff, to give you a flavor:

  • “On the library website, we now have a Summon search box instead of a catalogue search box, and maybe that’s why catalogue use was low.”
  • “Are users even aware of the catalogue?”
  • “Students don’t seem to be aware of subject headings. They should be taught about the catalogue and how to do subject searches.”
  • “Maybe all first years could be given a booklet about how to search properly.”

So that was sort of the tone at the beginning. Then our Head of Cataloguing said something like “I’m not buying into this discussion that keyword searching is a bad search. Remember that keyword searches subject. Indexing is the most important part of this.”

Then the Technical Services supervisor whose questions started the project said something like “I found the part about Summon and the link resolver very interesting. This validates where we need to spend time. We can call out vendors where there is a consistent problem. Now I can be pushy to get issues resolved. If that is what students are relying on, then we have to make sure what we have is right.”

Yes, having a Head and a Supervisor weigh in like this is bound to change the tone, but things did become much more positive and proactive from here on in, with comments and suggestions like this:

  • “I’m wondering about loading e-book records. Sometimes we have good records but they don’t have subjects. Perhaps now I can load these records as they have summaries so they would get picked up in a keyword search.”
  • “Cataloguers can change the way we work and include table of contents and summaries in monograph records when we find them. Perhaps we could make this an official policy and procedure.”
  • “Perhaps we can take more time to see how Summon pulls information and where that information is pulled from.”




  • A move to better understand how our discovery system handles our records
  • A push to enrich print and ebook records to improve keyword searching
  • A renewed focus on making sure the knowledge base is accurate so the link resolver works

I know these aren’t necessarily ground-breaking ideas but less than an hour earlier, this same group suggested giving first year students a booklet on how to search!

Hearing that students mostly do keyword searches in Summon and Google Scholar was understandably a little threatening to staff who have a very catalogue-centric view of the library (because that’s where they spend most of their time). But very quickly, they moved on and were suggesting new ways of doing things, and new ways of thinking about their work. It was wonderful.

Technical Services and User Experience don’t usually cross over, but we saw that it can be a really good fit. Our students do their research online. Technical Services staff make decisions that affect how library resources are found online. So they are perfectly positioned to improve the user experience of our students. I’ll give the last word to one of our staff members, who after seeing our results said what I think we all want:

“Now I can attack the right problems with purpose.”

Adding Useful Friction to Library UX: Ideas from UXLibs Workshop Participants

Post-its with ideas on adding friction

At this years UXLibs conference, I led a workshop on adding useful friction to the library user experience. I’ve already posted my text of the workshop, but I told the participants that I also wanted to share the ideas that they came up with during the course of the workshop. The ideas were generated around three themes:

  • friction for users, with a goal of helping those same users
  • friction for staff, with a goal of helping users
  • friction to improve inclusion in the library

What is below is verbatim, as much as I could decipher, from the post-its. There’s seems to be a combination of examples of bad friction and ideas for good friction. If you were a participant and would like to correct or flesh out what’s here, please get in touch!

Here are all of the responses from both workshops, in no order at all:

  • Remove desk or make it a low height only
  • Lower the circulation desk or remove it altogether
  • Users: appointments (promote other options first, Books/resources)
  • Giving the article rather than showing to find the resource
  • Answer questions instead of showing how to do it
  • Wayfinding no.1 enquiry — looking at it with fresh eyes
  • Staff want to put passive aggressive posters everywhere
  • Toilet sign / Not a key — Gender N.
  • Have the students suggest furniture in the library
  • A room with a computer and a loudspeaker where the patron can hear what is on the screen
  • Clickable text where a loudspeaker symbol shows you that you can hear what is said
  • Wayfinding signage / Posters — loads of / passive aggressive
  • Enforced preview when editing web pages
  • Put forms through web group to ensure they’re not excluding
  • When they click around one website
  • When they order on shelf items
  • When they order articles
  • Making them having coffee with other departments and teaching staff
  • Making them walk across campus to use another office
  • Making them use the public spaces one hour a week
  • You haven’t used Library Search for a while – do you need some tips?
  • Get rid of printed self-help so staff have to promote online self-help
  • Friction to help people understand the space they’re in
  • Helping new users find books (when they want it!)
  • Multi-language at entrances and around
  • Remove classification systems!!
  • Inclusivity check before things are published
  • Remove search term suggestions databases
  • Remove phone, e-mail, etc. from the info desk (anything that isn’t talking to students)
  • Giving more options for reference help – all hours of the day, off campus, offline, etc.
  • Change the quiet reading rooms with the group rooms every week
  • Have staff meetings at the group study areas/rooms
  • Put the check-out machines on the top floor
  • Wary of pop ups but what if pop has the answer
  • To slow down scanning of web pages — part scan and leave just prior to achieving answer
  • Pop up box: “Sign in to get: full text, saved search, e-shelf, etc.”
  • A confirm button when adding manual charges to accounts
  • All A4H staff to be fully trained!
  • Had thought of reducing page options/text but could friction be added another way?
  • When they order interlibrary loans
  • We added friction to subj guide BUT — super friction -> no control for subj lib. Therefore like the less friction idea presented by Shelley
  • Pop up on self-issues: Your books will auto-renew for “x” weeks but may be recalled
  • Are you sure? Deleting records from Endnote web
  • EMS Editions: Removing assets
  • Exhibition gallery: interactive screen
  • Event submission
  • Feedback forms
  • Find a book / study space blindfolded?
  • Stop them from using terms and phrases that people don’t understand
  • Test all changes to web page on real users, especially extreme users
  • Plain language checkers for web content
  • Highlighting research consultations over guides + DBs
  • Declarative signage: “You are on the (blank) floor, (blank wing)”
  • Website style guides
  • Push back on academic staff to upload accessible teaching materials to VLE
  • Making ILL request — have you check whether this is in library? (?)
  • Encourage use of learning technologies, but also provide analogue alternatives
  • Provide alternative signage options (multiple alternatives)
  • When entering study zones -> be aware of conditions expected in space
  • Links that take users to Arabic page rather than going back to main page
  • Allowing males to borrow / use the library during female hours
  • Having box to return the books used inside the library
  • Having a shared online spreadsheet if they would like to have someone to cover their desk hours rather than emailing
  • Did you know? pop ups on library websites
  • iPads out intermittently to draw attention
  • Having to meet with a librarian
  • Signage (or something else!) that prompts new students to consider using Library catalogue before trawling the physical shelves
  • Helpdesk would benefit from friction when students make initial enquiries re: Learning Difference Support (e.g. Dyslexia) — In my Univ Lib they are required to ask about this in an “open” queue without any confidentiality!
  • Near shelves potential redirect to lib cat
  • On entry to help students choose appropriate working space
  • On entry think about what student intends to achieve during visit
  • Replying to email enquiry messages force scroll to beginning to force people to read whole history
  • Have you left this in required state? Bog poster for open access disabled loos
  • Creating new challenges in every day tasks to upskill staff, provide better services to users
  • Asking questions (too many!) to get essential services in place / working properly (e.g. hearing loops [or might be learning loops])
  • Forcing users to rub up against us: “This resources has been brought to you by your library”
  • (for colleagues) Flag for spamming no. of forwards and emails to lists per day
  • Returning books through the book sorter—asking “have you returned all the books you need to” before issuing a receipt
  • Students who don’t have a disability but are anxious to be able to have one-to-one library hours, therefore all need to be asked at induction
  • ILR’s (InterLibrary Requests) asking “is this available locally”
  • Items in store requested through the catalogue—”can this be accessed online” before the final request click—stops unnecessary collections from store that are not collected
  • Vendor outlinks “You are about to leave the library’s website”
  • Time to choose to read something you wouldn’t have thought of yourself
  • Time to reflect on impact of a certain behavior
  • Time to advertise additional services that might be helpful
  • Screens/maps to look at before looking for books → are you going where you want to?
  • Set target times to resolve a query. Solutions should be quick and easy.
  • Library website: design decision
  • Library website: content
  • CMAS editors: removing assets
  • ILL request form when item not available
  • Library clear link when no results on discovery layer
  • Disable possibility to take a breath from chat
  • Stricter policy for adding web pages
  • Slow down book drop
  • Friction in ordering interlibrary loans which should be purchases
  • How do we offer booking of “resource rooms”?
  • Can we make it more difficult to make web pages inaccessible?
  • Forced message to remove USB before the PC shuts down/logs you out
  • Triage questions? IT vs Library
  • Only hosting video tutorial with embedded subtitles — don’t rely on YouTube autotitles = RUBBISH!!
  • What images are you using to show your library? Does it look inclusive on posters / online / in literature? E.g. pic of our staircase
  • Reservation Collection—self-issue—extra touch screen with due date for 48 hr loans
  • Stop them from rushing to the top floor, like signs in the elevator
  • Force staff to actually test the accessibility of web sites
  • Students, faculty, other ←
  • Library VRS → stop before leaving the chat “Are you sure you don’t need further help?”
  • How do we address people / users?
  • Double-check before making a poster to “solve” a problem!
  • Role management: Design does not equal project management
  • Peer-checking of presentations / teaching sessions for accessibility
  • Writing training materials for students with English as a 2nd language
  • Uploading to online system: large files, Microsoft format, video and audio (not stream), copyrighted
  • To support distant or part-time students
  • Starting projects without: clarity about outcomes, testing, resources required
  • Adding resource e.g. reading list not using the system
  • Copying over last years materials to this years module
  • Better obstacle than fee for interlibrary loans or document delivery
  • Remove “scripts” for staff answers on Just Ask (IM) — be more personal?
  • No pictures of PDFs or text on web — screen readers can’t cope with them
  • Pop-ups letting students know access is being provided by the library (to online resources)
  • Library website
  • QR codes??
  • Symbols instead of English — Puts everyone at the same level of wayfinding regardless of language skills
  • Diverse reading lists
  • Know Your Staff Wiki!
  • Regular process to review existing web content before adding more
  • Entrance vestibule to silent study spaces
  • Promoting self-service portal at library entrance
  • Chatline. FAQs page to scroll through to get to input page
  • Force a catalogue search before submitting an ILL request
  • Policy that all staff deal with a request for help at point of need and see through
  • Logging all enquiries on an EMS
  • Pick-up shelf: Make users check out their reading room loans
  • Database records in Summon—people going straight to Lib search when not everything is listed
  • Sign up form for focus groups so we can pick by course, not first come, first served
  • Academic workbooks arranged by topic on CMS not just straight link to AS server
  • Online support and workshops more prominently promoted than 1:1s as easier to same [some?] large number
  • I need to approve all external comms and surveys
  • Web edits — I have to approve all pages
  • Training on [survey?] software linked to approval from me
  • Me as final editor for newsletter (brand / accessibility)
  • Gender neutral toilets
  • Editing text for screen readers — on all channels
  • Check catalogue for students who have incorrect info on reserve items
  • Complete a short online library quiz as part of first module
  • Activate your student card in the library within the last week of term
  • Put “Please refer to…” messages where rules aren’t clear
  • ILL — request articles/books we already have—way to make them search first?
  • Search box — choose what format first (they will type anything in a search box without thinking and then think we don’t have an article because they are looking in catalog)
  • Ebooks — add to reserves or pop up asking them to look by title
  • Student staff tell students we don’t have an item when we do — need to try other ways — have system prompt?
  • Expand chat hours so people uncomfortable approaching desk can still ask questions
  • CMS — make popup for alt-text but also color contrast, web writing, close-captioning for videos, etc.
  • Content manager for website — approve all changes even Subject Guides
  • Better feedback on item request — many are not picked up
  • Knowing who your liaison is if on a certain page
  • Staff Friction: Using CRM or equivalent to report issues to other teams, i.e. metadata errors: don’t ring team, logon LANDESK (CRM). Has advantages collating themes and work.
  • Inclusion: Feedback form gender
  • User [Gateways portals]: To prompt and remind about compliance maybe – copyright / usage — use of data/info. Authentication does this also.
  • Staff: Printing checklist Actions before resorting to use of staff printer
  • User: To prompt remind/inform resources purchased on behalf of students by institution
  • IT passwords for faculty users
  • Using lockers after library closing hours
  • Computers on every floor (staff)
  • Toilets (improve inclusion)
  • Game area (students)
  • Lounge area (students)
  • Change main structure of website
  • Adding too long text to buttons
  • Adding too many main category pages
  • Put “silence” signs on every door → there have to be noisy places
  • Just grab a book (without having a look to the books around)
  • Policy: force all staff to use structured text documents so that they are accessible
  • Self-return machines (Don’t take think books, so we need to “slow” the users know know this)
  • Inclusion: Programs → languages
  • Open access funding program → read criteria before submitting the application
  • Adding too long texts into modals designed to be glanced
  • Gender in feedback forms
  • Requirement for text and audio on video
  • Request / reservation: This book is on the shelves in this library. Are you sure you want to request it? [checkbox] Yes.
  • Sign on ground floor: The only toilets and drinking water in this building are on this floor. (Most library services are 2 floors up from here)
  • Making gender option in forms more inclusive e.g. more option or textbox
  • Before making an order/reservation that costs money
  • Before making a reservation
  • Before deleting your user account
  • Before deleting any info permanently
  • Get staff out of their offices — send them to find academic who have not been in the library for a long time
  • We have a Lib Reciprocal Programme across unis in S.A. But in our Lib we force users to see an Info Lib before they get a letter to visit another uni library.
  • Catalogue research (first finding is seldom the best)
  • Remove option to add media on webpages for most staff
  • Accessibility checks before publishing a webpage
  • Filling out book request form for somebody
  • Clearing a list in the catalog
  • Printing single vs. double sided
  • Staff designate, monitor, and enforce quiet areas
  • Building entrance vs. exit
  • Reserving lendable technology
  • Requesting items from storage
  • Information in subject guides
  • Giving information to new students about the library’s services
  • Ordering interlibrary loans
  • In the Discovery systems
  • Request print copies of articles
  • Promote new physical and online materials in entrance
  • User (student) testing before buying e-books
  • Build UX into all projects
  • Prayer facilities
  • A note on self service screen to common ?s. Really good idea.
  • Spending more time with the unfamiliar
  • Symbol sign posting
  • Meet and Greeters at front door
  • Pick up cards at library
  • Send librarians out to visit people
  • Stop “library” work at enquiry point
  • Wellbeing attention grabbing display — subject guide to
  • Registration online — pick up library card in person
  • Commuter room with lockers — charging (away from home help)
  • Auto emails for book arrivals triggered by front desk team so that we are certain it is ready on the shelf
  • Friction needed to prevent deletion of content
  • Subject guides Allow use to browse area and discover other books related to study
  • Develop electronic check lists for staff to ensure staff complete all necessary steps in a task on time and in order
  • Finding tools — Before search encourage users to reflect if using the right finding tool
  • Reading lists — Cap amount of items that can be added → “Do you really want to add this item?”
  • Self-issue machines — Add “do you want to borrow” for very short loans / high charge (had at public)
  • Modernise the till and integrate with LMS. Creates a couple of steps that slows staff and avoids mistakes on the till from “autopilot”
  • “Lost” status and “Found” status. Create pop up explaining what to do and if want to continue to avoid incorrect use.
  • Int’l students — Don’t assume that library experience of someone else is the same particularly when they have a different international experience / Encourage staff to think before assuming person is just not as smart as culture they are accustomed to.
  • Filters — Putting a [friction?] to alert people that they can expand their search to include content not available at [library] as well
  • Friction for staff: prompts to ask particular questions / edit or do something people often forget
  • When searching: “This search result is showing everything. Is that what you want?” Or “It looks like you might be searching for a journal title. Would you like to do that?”
  • Different language options — catalogue, website / signage
  • Compulsory reflection on implicit biases before finalising a form / policy / procedure / interview / process / etc….
  • Sometimes it’s good to get “lost” and find hidden spaces…
  • Have “no wifi” areas to create “switch-off” spaces…
  • Noise control — something that encourages slowing of pace / pause on entry
  • Furniture might cue quiet study vs. collaboration
  • If staff are including a gender (or other protected characteristic) question on a form, make them type their justification!
  • Supporting assistive tech (friction for staff)
  • Stop long forms with every piece of info the librarian needs to order an item
  • Shibbolth sign in from pub page — get to the right path, choose the best relationship for access
  • Group study facilities — varied tech options
  • More tailored handouts for students who have English as 2nd language or 3rd etc.
  • DVD borrowing: “Don’t forget to unlock your case!” pop-up?
  • Multimedia options for dyslexic students — on entry to library
  • Chat box help kiosk for students who feel like “imposters” (afraid to admit what they don’t know)
  • Single sign on — subject / CS team comms.
  • Consistent approach to adding info to app. Autonomy and overall framework.
  • Quizzes on VCEs at end of modules
  • Furniture — soft for de-stresses
  • Commuter students — find out what their priorities are and how this differs from other students
  • To get integrated in the education with the Library competence, so every student gets the same education (information literacy)
  • Find location in the library
  • Gender free web
  • Block them from the staff cataloguing OPAC — only use for 1 hour a day
  • Think of the people you put on the website. Still mostly young, happy users.
  • Teacher making resource lists
  • Users: Interlibrary loans
  • Pop-up help button after 3 kw searches < 1 minute
  • Discover layer: where am I searching
  • Website friction from adding content — specifically start
  • “Headlines” when coming in to the library — To show services offered that are “unknown”
  • Stacks — “Did you find out the exact location of your book?”
  • Making signs — Added friction for personnel
  • Multilingual captioning
  • Sign friction or not?
  • Faculty-librarian meeting for new faculty (in-person? why?)
  • More faculty-librarian friction
  • Leaving web presence, what about credibility? Evaluate results
  • Require AIT text on IMG upload
  • When leaving discovery tool to external site
  • Management friction
  • Default web editor template; to change, require friction
  • Consider for more friction at admin side
  • Mandatory meeting with librarian for an assignment
  • Swipe card to enter the library
  • Baby changing tables
  • Rainbow lanyards
  • Help uniforms / sashes?
  • Program friction — new program proposal
  • Signage
  • Dual monitor search comp. for info desk enquiries
  • Stop users from ordering books on shelf
  • Warning pop up !DANGER!
  • Universal design on website
  • Pause before changing your brand colors etc. to your online library interface. …consider accessibility first.
  • Pause before allowing online systems use your personal data …instead, learn what the provider will do with your data
  • Pause before composing the perfect, new metadata or information model for the new library service …instead, involve users and designers in the process
  • Shh… Quiet beyond this point


UXLibs IV: Conference notes


This is a round-up of my notes from the UXLibs IV conference but it’s certainly not a faithful record; just what stood out to me. It might give a sense of the content for people who missed it or want to revisit. Because it’s so freaking long (as usual), I’ve separated out my own reflections on the conference into a UXLibs IV: Reflection & Inspiration post.

The 4th iteration of UXLibs had a focus on inclusion this year and Day 1 kicked off with intros from Andy and Matt and then Christian Lauersen’s great keynote “Do you want to dance? Inclusion and belonging in libraries and beyond.” I didn’t take a lot of notes (perhaps my mind was already on my workshop), so I’m glad Christian posted his talk. A few of the things he said stood out for me:

  • Inclusion is a process
  • Biases are the stories we make up about people before we know who they really are
  • It’s easy to have values but hard to follow them

Christian also used the great quotation by Verna Myers: “Diversity is being invited to the party; inclusion is being asked to dance.” I’m sure I’ve heard that before, but it resonated more, somehow, hearing it here.

After Christian, I did my workshop. Like last year, I was a little too done to visit the UXLabs during lunch. After lunch were the delegate presentations, and although I was happy with the sessions I chose, I was really sad to miss the others. Everything looked so good! Can’t wait for this year’s yearbook so I can catch up.

Session 1, Track A: Danielle Cooper and SuHui Ho

Danielle’s talk was “Decolonization and user experience research in academic libraries” and she spoke about a research project being done by Ithaka S+R and 11 academic libraries about Indigenous Studies scholars. She talked about how indigenous research differs from Western research and how those differences are being reflected in this project. I didn’t capture everything, but here are some differences:

  • The interview process includes the researcher talking about themselves and why they’re interested in the project; why do they want to know about the things they’re asking the participants to talk about? We usually don’t do this in our user research, trying to present ourselves, instead, as objective observers.
  • Participants get to review the transcript of their interview as well as drafts of the final write-up. They get a voice in how their words are represented and in the findings/results of the research.
  • Related to the above, more space is given to the participants’ words in the results. Rather than just short quotations, long passages are presented to let their words speak for themselves.
  • Participants can choose how they are acknowledged in the report. They are not anonymous by default. Danielle mentioned that this led to issues with Research Ethics Boards, where anonymity is usually required for research with human subjects.

After Danielle, SuHui talked about her work at the University of California, San Diego in trying to balance majority and minority users of the library website on a very diverse campus. Her team worked with 9 library user personas that were developed at Cornell and decided to focus the on undergraduates who were not experts in library research. People represented by other personas could have their needs met by the website, but might have to dig a bit deeper.

SuHui also mentioned the importance of changing up the images used on their library website. Although only 20% of the student population at her university is white, almost all of the images around campus, including on websites, are of white people. So SuHui made sure the photos of people on the library website reflected the diversity of their users. On this, she said it’s important to “act within our power.” I really liked this phrasing.

Session 2, Track C: Jon Earley, Nicola Walton, and Chad Haefele

I was very excited to hear Jon talk about library search at the University of Michigan, and I geeked out over how they moved away from legacy systems and interfaces and built a new search. The new search takes a bento box approach, which my own users hated viscerally a few years ago, but the UMich implementation seems to fix many of the issues students at Carleton had with bento boxes. The pre-cached results and consistent interfaces are pretty great. I was a bit fangirly about the whole thing.

Jon also mentioned that the UX research that drove this project was done before he started at UMich, and the people who had done this research had all left the library. This could have made things very difficult, but they left great documentation behind. I asked what made the documentation of the UX research so good, and Jon said that having priorities and key points highlighted, and very brief reports helped him grasp what was necessary to move from UX research to product design. They also continued to do user research along the design path.

I liked his lessons learned:

  • Include accessibility at each decision …. Rely on HTML and not custom JavaScript widgets
  • Be thoughtful about what deserves your time and resources
  • Performance is a feature
  • Use the words your users use

Nicola Walton from Manchester Metropolitan University was up next with “Behind the clicks: What can eye tracking and user interviews tell us that click statistics can’t?” She was very upfront about the fact that they had done the project backwards: they got an eye tracker first and then figured out how they wanted to use it. She recommended not doing that, but certainly seemed to have no regrets about their experience. She’d found that people get quite excited about eye tracking data, so it was a great way to get in to talk to people who might not otherwise want to talk about UX.

Nicola had lots of videos (though, sadly, not enough time to show them all) which made it clear not only that people struggle to use our library websites, but that what can look like success in the web statistics—people visited the right page—can turn out to be failure—people didn’t actually see what they needed on the page.

Chad Haefele from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill was the last in this session and in Day 1. He is looking at possibly funneling people through to different home pages of the library website based on their user type. They are doing a big card sorting exercise with various user types, looking at how often people use specific library services: never, sometimes, often, or always.

Chad was hoping to have data for the conference, but they ran into some difficulty with their Ethics Board over their recruitment strategy. They had planned to use a version of Duke University Library’s “regret lottery” but were not allowed to, so recruitment was delayed.

Day 1 ended with a marvelous conference reception and dinner, terrible 80s music, and dancing. Much fun.

Day 2 started with 3 incredible speakers. I am still fired up from their talks.

Sara Lerén “Inclusive design: all about the extremes”

Sara dove deeper into the notion that users can’t tell us what their needs are. Or in her words:

I’ve always heard that (and seen it in action) but Sara’s explanation of why was a revelation to me. She said that users’ tendency to gloss over difficulties (or, as she put it, “tell us shit”) is likely due to the average brain’s proficiency with cognitive economy. Average brains are really good at minimizing cognitive load through categorization, schemas, automation. (When describing Sara’s session, I’ve said that average brains are really good at sanding down the edges of things; I hope that’s not a misrepresentation.) What Sara called “extreme” brains (non-neurotypical brains) are not so good at minimizing cognitive load in this way. And this is why non-neurotypical users can be better at expressing their real experiences, feelings, and thoughts.

Sara encouraged us to include non-neurotypical users in our research and testing because they will better be able to tell us what’s wrong with our designs. Designing for extremes makes design better for everyone. We see that with designs for physically disabled users: single-lever handles on faucets, curb cuts, and more. Later in her talk, Sara referenced Dana Chisnell’s great work on testing and designing for people with low literacy, and quoted her:

“I came away from that study thinking, why are we testing with anyone with high literacy? Designing for people with low literacy would make it easier for people who are distressed, distracted, sleep-deprived, on medication, whatever. If I could build this into everything, I would.”

Sara’s recommendations for smart user testing:

  • approximately 5 users
  • include extreme users (extreme in neurodiversity, skills, age)
  • test in their natural habitat

Sara also mentioned Yahoo’s vision for an inclusive workplace “for minds of all kinds.” I like this phrasing much more than “neurodiverse,” which sounds a bit clinical to my ear. I’m definitely inspired to see out “minds of all kinds” in my future user research and testing.

Dr. Kit Heyam “Creating trans-inclusive libraries: the UX perspective”

Kit started his presentation with what he called “Trans 101” to make sure we all understood the basics. We can’t work to be trans-inclusive if we don’t understand the multi-facted nature of trans identity. Kit then followed up with examples of experiences trans people have had in libraries.

I didn’t take notes on the exact examples, but one has stuck with me. A student who’s a trans man had an issue with his old name being used in one of the library systems. There was a drawn-out encounter with a library staff member who was not helpful in resolving the problem, and eventually said “It’s so difficult not to offend people these days! You’re not offended are you? It’s an understandable mistake. It’s just so many girls have short hair these days! And your voice…” That student decided it was easier and safer for him to just avoid using library services after that. I found this pretty heart-breaking.

Kit said that what makes the biggest difference for trans folks is not what fits in a policy, but rather the interpersonal relations. He went on to say later that “staff make the user experience.” Great design cannot make up for a terrible encounter with a staff member. And we can’t leave it up to chance whether trans people will encounter welcoming staff; it cannot be what Kit called a “staff lottery.” Some of his specific action recommendations:

  • Updating records
    • Work from a checklist
    • Safeguard confidentiality; could anyone work out that this person is trans?
  • Describing/addressing people – in person or by phone
    • Use gender-neutral language/descriptors
    • Avoid “Sir” and “Madam” / “love” and “mate” / “Ladies and gentlemen”
    • Don’t make assumptions based on your voice: verify ID another way if necessary
  • Signals of inclusivity
    • Pronouns on badges, in email signatures, in meetings
    • Awareness of intersectionality
    • Offer non-binary options (genders/titles) and avoid “he/she” wording
  • Recognise that harassment is about effect, not intent
  • Toilets
    • Don’t assume you know which toilet someone wants to use
    • Have clear procedures for dealing with complaints which stands up for trans rights

The signals of inclusivity show trans people that you’ve thought about them. Though Kit did have an example of a library that gave mixed messages, with staff having pronouns on their badges, but library announcements starting with “Ladies and gentlemen…” It’s important to be consistent.

Most of all, it’s important to have clarity around these kinds of actions and procedures for everyone who works in the library—not just the library staff but also security staff (perhaps especially security staff).

Dr. Janine Bradbury “Safe spaces, neutral spaces? Navigating the library as a researcher of colour”

I fear I’m not going to do justice to Janine’s talk since much of the time I was sitting, rapt, rather than writing anything down. But I will do what I can.

Janine talked about libraries as a literary symbol of literacy. She talked about this symbol being particularly potent for black people and showed a couple of videos to demonstrate this. One was an ad for Bell’s Whisky (Janine asked us to pretend it wasn’t an ad) that showed an older black man learning to read and making his way through stacks of books at the library, starting with early readers and progressing, finally, to a novel written by (it is revealed at the end) his son. Janine posited that if language is power then literacy is about reclaiming power.

Janine then showed a clip of Maya Angelou talking about libraries. At the end of the clip, Dr. Angelou says “Each time I’d go to the library, I felt safe. No bad thing can happen to you in the library.” Janine then spent some time unpacking the notion of libraries being “safe.” She said, “It’s not safe for white people when Maya Angelou is in a library.” But more to the point, libraries are not always safe spaces because they are very often white spaces. White spaces are not always safe for people of colour.

Janine then went on to chronicle her own experiences in various libraries from the time she was a child to now. She spoke of the tension between this kind of lived experience as a library user and the symbolic potency of the library in black culture, such as we saw in the two video clips. That tension is, at least partly, the result of the library as an institution and therefore a place of institutional racism, institutional sexism, etc. Janine later went on to say that the “stamps, fines, charges, cards, documentation” of the library “echoes institutional practices associated with the tracking and surveillance of black bodies.” I found that incredibly interesting and rather chilling.

Related to the recent movement in the UK for decolonising the curriculum, Janine suggested the following actions for decolonising the library:
Actions for decolonizing the library (see image description)

Janine called out the work by Harinder Matharu and Adam Smith from the David Wilson Library at the University of Leicester as a good example of decolonising the library. Harinder and Adam presented on Day 1 of the conference on their work with Black History volunteers to unearth hidden histories of their institution and the impact of those histories on students’ sense of belonging. I can’t wait to read their chapter in this year’s yearbook so I can learn more.

Team Challenge

The remainder of Day 2 was mostly taken up with the Team Challenge. I did like that the challenge was not a competitive one this year; the emphasis was on sharing experiences and it took some of the pressure off. Particularly since it came at the end of the conference and I was pretty beat.

Maybe it was just because I was tired, but I didn’t really enjoy the team challenge. We were to use UX research techniques to reflect on our own individual experiences of doing UX research and then pull those individual experiences into a cohesive team presentation. I was really glad my job had recently taken a positive turn, otherwise I would have found it a very grim afternoon. Still, I didn’t find it very inspiring. But that could be because I’ve done quite a lot of self-reflection in the past year and, when working with a group of UXLibs people from around the world, I’d rather spend the time looking outward and trying to solve actual user problems.

But on the plus side, it was nice to get to know the people on my team. And, in the end, it is always the people that make UXLibs for me. More on that in my Reflection & Inspiration post.

UXLibs IV: Reflection & Inspiration

Pencil with inscription: UXLibs: Do do do it!

These are my personal (perhaps too personal!) reflections about UXLibs IV and where I found inspiration this year. You may just want my Conference Notes.

This was my fourth time at UXLibs. I was actually thinking of giving it a miss this year. I was having a crap year and was feeling uninspired, hopeless, useless. Why would I want to go to a conference and be surrounded by people who were doing interesting things? Wouldn’t it just make me feel worse? Turns out, no. Quite the opposite.

But back to that feeling of being uninspired, hopeless, useless. Since last summer, I hadn’t been working on any projects at all, nor did I feel much interest in starting any. I had hit the gaping maw of a professional low and couldn’t get myself out. I looked into not just leaving my job, but leaving libraries period.

I noticed a couple of things, compared to times when I felt more engaged:

  • I hadn’t done a scary thing in a while
    • First off, I’d rather stick pins in my eyes than reference those stupid Lululemon bags with sayings like “Do something scary every day” on them. But. Many of the things that I have loved doing started with me cringing while I hit “Send” or “Submit.” Pitching to WeaveUX? Cringe and submit. Sending a very rough first draft to Kristin Meyer? Cringe and send. Pretty much any conference proposal? Cringe and off it goes. I hold the fear and lack of confidence at bay for the second it takes to do a thing I can’t undo. I hadn’t done that in months.
  • I stopped tweeting
    • Partly, I didn’t feel like I had anything useful or interesting to say. Partly, I was disengaging from most contact with people. But I did miss it. Look, I know that the little dopamine lift I get with a like is programmed to keep me addicted to the app and we should all put down our phones and blah blah blah. But I’m not a social media star; my follower and following lists are small and I have met and like most of the people on them. So getting a like is getting a little smile from them, or a touch on the arm: “I know you and I see you.” It makes me think of them, and reminds me that I’m glad to know them. How can this be a bad thing?

So that was where I was when I decided I would come to UXLibs again this year. And then, three weeks before the conference, I got a new boss who managed to restore some of my hope. I no longer felt useless. All that was left was to get inspired.

Cue UXLibs.

Some inspiration I found, in no particular order:

  • I am inspired to heed Sara Lerén’s call to do user research and testing with users on the extremes: “minds of all kinds,” people with low literacy, perhaps students struggling with English as their second (or third or fourth) language, students with disabilities. I have happened upon users in these groups during user testing, but now I will seek them out.
  • I am inspired to heed Kit Heyam’s call to make our library as inclusive and welcoming to trans and non-binary students as possible (within my power). I’ve started looking at our website for gender-neutral language. But that’s just a first step and I hope I can spiral upward from there. Perhaps try to do something to minimize the “staff lottery” for our users.
  • I’m inspired to heed Janine Bradbury’s call to decolonise the library (again, within my power), perhaps with the model of Harinder and Adam’s work on Black History at the University of Leicester.
  • I’m inspired to heed Andy Priestner’s call to think bigger about UX in my library. In many ways, I feel like I’m stuck at first steps and want to start to get to embedding and influencing.
  • I’m inspired by Chad Haefele to keep thinking of new ways to make the library website better, and by Nicola Walton to keep finding new ways to test it. I’ve been letting our site stagnate a bit.
  • I’m inspired by Jon Earley to write better documentation! To streamline spaghetti systems, to improve performance, and to always trust the words of our users.
  • I’m inspired by Danielle Cooper to learn more about indigenous research and look at better supporting indigenous students in my library.
  • And I’m inspired by the people I met and the conversations I had at the conference to keep doing the work, to stay in libraries, to do scary things, to stay connected.

SuHui Ho’s idea that we “act within our power” to improve inclusion turned out to be really inspiring to me. On first blush, it seems a suffocatingly small idea if you feel like you have very little power. However, when I thought about it more I realized that by acting, I can expand my power, which then gives me more scope to act, and it can turn into a wonderful upward spiral. I think it can also be inspiring for those times I’m feeling daunted and overwhelmed, for when I’m uninspired, hopeless, useless. I don’t have to fix everything, I don’t have to do everything, I just have to act within my power.

So, in the spirit of acting within my power, I’d like to invite you to collaborate with me on UX work. Or perhaps invite you to invite me to collaborate with you. I have a sabbatical coming up in July 2019 and I know I’m not suited to spending an entire year working on a project all by myself. So I’m seeking collaborators, co-conspirators for projects large or small. I’ll be staying in Ottawa, so the collaboration would likely be at a distance but I’m definitely open to some travel. I’ve been very vaguely thinking about looking at student help-seeking, or whether we can improve the UX of being a library worker. But I’m completely open to other ideas. It’s still a year out, so there’s lots of time to think and plan.

It feels slightly ridiculous and not a little scary to do this. But dammit, I’m going to cringe and hit “Publish” anyway. Please do do do get in touch.