請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/47636
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 吳明德(Ming-Der Wu) | |
dc.contributor.author | Chia-Yin Lin | en |
dc.contributor.author | 林佳穎 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-15T06:09:54Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2010-08-16 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2010-08-16 | |
dc.date.issued | 2010 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2010-08-13 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Alling, E., & Naismith, R. (2007). Protocol analysis of a federated search tool: Designing for users. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 12(1-2), 195-210.
Brinck, T., Gergle , D., & Wood, S. D. (2002). Usability for the web :Designing web sites that work. San Francisco : Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. British Library. (2008). Information behavour of the researcher of the future. Retrieved March 19, 2009, from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/reppres/gg_final_keynote_11012008.pdf Calhoun, K. (2006). The changing nature of the catalog and its integration with other discovery tool. Retrieved November 10, 2008, from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/calhoun-report-final.pdf Cockrell, B. J. & Jayne, E. A. (2002). How do I find an article? Insights from a web usability study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(3), 122-132. Coyle, K. (2007). The library catalog: Some possible futures. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(3), 414-416. Dorner, D. G., & Curtis, A. (2004). A comparative review of common user interface products. Library Hi Tech, 22(2), 182-197. Dow, R. F., Meringlo, S., & Clair, G. S. (1995). Academic collections in a changing environment. In McCabe, G. B., & Person, R. J (Eds.), Academic libraries: Their rationale and role in america higher education (pp. 101-123). Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. Elliott, S. A. (2004). Metasearch and usability: toward a seamless interface to library resources. Retrieved Dec. 12, 2008, from http://www.lib.uaa.alaska.edu/tundra/msuse1.pdf Ex Libris. (2006). Endeavor to be merged with Ex Libris, to create global leader in library software and services. Retrieved April 15, 2009, from http://www.exlibrisgroup.com/?catid={EA905028-F9F0-41BD-A941-EBCF202EE007}&itemid={C6D526DA-3971-4198-AC22-A64BA35CD1BA} George, C. A. (2008). Lessons learned: Usability testing a federated search product. The Electronic Library, 26(1), 5-20. Gibson, I., Goddard, L., & Gordon, S. (2009). One box to search them all: Implementing federated search at an academic library. Library Hi Tech, 27(1), 118-133. Google Inc. (2009). Hoover's Company Records,59101. Retrieved March 24, 2009, from Hoover's Company Records database. Hane, P. (2003, October). The Truth About Federated Searching. Information Today, 20(9), 24-24. Haya, G., Nygren, E., & Widmar, W. (2007). Metalib and Google Scholar: A user study. Online Information Review, 31(3), 365. Helfer, D., & Wakimoto, J. (2005, February). Metasearching: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Making It Work in Your Library. Searcher, 13(2), 40-41. Isfandyari Moghaddam, A. (2007). Web metasearch engines: A comparative study on search capabilities using an evaluation check-list. Online Information Review, 31(3), 300-309. Jung, S., Herlocker, J. L., Webster, J., Mellinger, M., & Frumkin, J. (2008). LibraryFind: System design and usability testing of academic metasearch system. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(3), 375-389. Kuniavsky, M. (2003). Observing the user experience : A practitioner's guide to user research. San Francisco, CA : Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Library of Congress Portal Application Issues Group. (2005). Federated Search Portal Products and Vendors. Retrieved May, 16, from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/lcpaig/portalproducts.html Luther, J. (2003). Trumping google? Metasearching’s promise. Library Journal, 128(16), 36-39. MuseGlobal. (2009). MuseGlobal: partner showcase. Retrieved May 9, 2009, from http://www.museglobal.com/partner/showcase.html New York Public Library. (2007). Help with WebFeat. Retrieved May 13, 2009, from http://www.nypl.org/databases/images/help.pdf Nielsen, J. (2000). Why you only need to test with 5 users. Retrieved February 15, 2009, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20000319.html. Nielsen, J., & Loranger , H. (2006). Prioritizing web usability. Berkeley, Calif. : New Riders. Ponsford, B. C., & vanDuinkerken, W. (2007). User expectations in the time of google: Usability testing of federated searching. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 12(1-2), 159-178. Ross Pendergraft Library. (2009). WebFeat Tutorial. Retrieved May 13, 2009, from http://library.atu.edu/tools/guides/wfguide.php Rubin, J. (1994). Handbook of usability testing: how to plan, design, and conduct effective tests. New York : Wiley. Sadeh, T. (2007). Transforming the metasearch concept into a friendly user experience. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 12(1/2), 1-25. State Library of Louisiana. (2008). Using the WebFeat Interface. Retrieved May 13, 2009, from http://www.state.lib.la.us/la_dyn_templ.cfm?doc_id=470 Tacoma Public Library. (2005). OneSearch help: WebFeat federated searching at Tacoma Public Library. Retrieved May 13, 2009, from http://www2.tpl.lib.wa.us/webfeat/webfeathelp.pdf Tang, R., Hsieh-Yee, I., & Zhang, S. (2007). User perceptions of MetaLib combined search: An investigation of how users make sense of federated searching. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 12(1-2), 211-236. Tennant, R. (2003). The right solution: federated search tools. Library Journal, 128(11), 28-30. University of British Columbia Library. (2007). How to use MetaLib. Retrieved May 13, 2009, from http://toby.library.ubc.ca/webpage/webpage.cfm?id=693 University of California Berkeley Libraries. (2008). Meta-search engines. Retrieved December 13, 2008, from http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/MetaSearch.html Usability. Gov. (2009). Usability methods. Retrieved April 15, 2009, from http://www.usability.gov/methods/ Webster, P. (2004, March). Metasearching in an Academic Environment. Online, 28(2), 20-23. Quensenbery, W. (2003). The five dimensions of usability. In M.J. Albers & B.Mazur (Eds.), Content & complexity: Information design in technical communication (pp. 81-102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Usability. Gov. (2009). What is usability?. Retrieved July 20, 2009, from http://www.usability.gov/basics/whatusa.html 國家圖書館編(2006)。中華民國圖書館年鑑。臺北市 : 國家圖書館。 國家圖書館編(2007)。中華民國圖書館年鑑。臺北市 : 國家圖書館。 國家圖書館編(2008)。中華民國圖書館年鑑。臺北市 : 國家圖書館。 臺灣大學圖書館(2007)。系統試用:MUSE電子資源整合查詢系統。上網日期:2009年6月11日,檢自:http://epaper.ntu.edu.tw/view.php?listid=34&id=3990 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/47636 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 整合查詢系統以單一介面檢索多種異質資料庫,近年來已受到圖書館重視,許多圖書館皆安裝系統彙整館內及館外資源,以提供整合查詢服務,然而目前相關之使用者研究尚屬缺乏。是故,本研究以臺灣大學圖書館安裝之Muse整合查詢系統為例,由使用者角度探討其好用性,包括效率、效能、容易學習程度、吸引性及錯誤容忍程度五個面向,以供未來系統修改之參考。
本研究採用觀察法及訪談法蒐集使用者對Muse整合查詢系統之意見,徵集10位分布於人文、社會、自然科學、生物醫學、工程技術領域的臺灣大學研究生為受測者,給予四項指定之查詢任務,並於過程中觀察記錄受測者與系統互動情形。測試結束後進行結構式訪談,訪談內容包括對系統好用性之看法、建議及滿意程度,以了解受測者的主觀想法。 彙整觀察及訪談的結果,本研究依據好用性的五個面向加以闡述結論。在系統效率面向上,本研究發現:一、Muse整合查詢系統的效率難以依據查詢任務完成時間判定;二、由訪談內容中可判斷,效能並非是令人完全滿意。在系統效能面向上,共有五點結論:一、Muse整合查詢系統整體而言能達到選擇查詢範圍、個人化設定、整理檢索結果、以及處理檢索結果的效能;二、各功能中以去除重複、設定個人資料庫的效能最高;三、能讓多數受測者接觸到新資料庫,引起使用興趣;四、能檢索出令多數受測者滿意的結果;五、能達到整合查詢的效能。在容易學習面向上,共有四點結論:一、多數受測者認為操作十分容易,但功能位置是造成較難學習的原因;二、導覽列使用之術語令多數受測者不解;三、資源群組的展示方式不夠清晰,不便於使用;四、整體畫面配置與資訊呈現尚屬清晰。在吸引性面向上,共有三點結論:一、建立個人化資料庫以及去除重複功能最受喜愛;二、檢索時間雖會令受測者不耐,但整體而言多數受測者的使用心情偏向正面;三、多數受測者喜歡Muse系統,並願意再次使用。在錯誤容忍面向上,共有二點結論:一、半數受測者認為系統未能提供適當幫助,或是協助不夠;二、缺乏即時指引,協助功能的位置不當以及使用說明太過艱澀,造成受測者無法獲得協助。 根據結論,本研究針對Muse電子資源整合查詢系統提出四點建議:一、改善資訊呈現方式;二、新增或修改系統功能;三、增加系統能提供之協助;四、修改難懂之術語。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Metasearch systems perform simultaneous searches across heterogeneous electronic resources through a single entry. In order to serve users, more and more libraries install metasearch systems to integrate their resources. However, only a few user studies of such systems have been conducted. This study aims to investigate the usability of Muse Search, the metasearch system which installed in National Taiwan University Library, and to understand users’ viewpoints toward this system. Five components of usability were analyzed: efficient, effective, learnable, engaging, and error.
Observations and interviews were conducted in this study. Ten graduate students from the fields of humanities, social science, nature science, life science, and engineering science were solicited in the study. Students were requested to achieve four tasks. While they searching through Muse Search, researcher observed their behaviors and took notes. After tasks were completed, students were interviewed by asking questions concerning the usability of Muse Search. Their comments and satisfaction level were also collected. The conclusions were divided into 5 components of usability. In the efficient part, results indicated that the efficiency of Muse Search could not be judged by time. In the effective part, there are five conclusions: 1. In Muse Search, users could choose several databases to search, set personal work place, organize search results, and obtain results effectively. 2. De-duplication and setting personal database list are the most effective functions. 3. Muse Search helps students to learn more relevant databases and they are willing to use those databases again. 4. Students are satisfied with the search results of Muse Search. In the learnable part, there are four conclusions: 1. Muse Search is easy to use to most students, however some function icons are hard to discover, making it unlearnable. 2. The terminologies used in the toolbar can not be understood by most students. 3. The display of resource groups is not clear enough. 4. Half of students pointed out that the whole system interface design is easy to learn. In the engaging part, there are three conclusions: 1. Students like personal database list and de-duplication. 2. Half of students feel impatient when waiting for search results, but most of them still have positive attitudes throughout the process. 3. Most students like Muse Search and are willing to use it again. In the error part, results indicated that half of students could not receive appropriate help service due to lack of instant instructions, improper location of help icon, and the inappropriate content in help screen. According to the findings of this study, suggestions to Muse Search are as follows: 1. to revise improper display of information in Muse Search. 2. To add new search functions, or revise old ones to meet users’ needs. 3. To improve help service. 4. To revise terminologies which are difficult to understand. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-15T06:09:54Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-99-R95126016-1.pdf: 1161271 bytes, checksum: ad20f2c9067354bd5d25a6a9e079e97e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 謝辭 i
摘要 iii Abstract v 目次 vii 表、圖目次 ix 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 問題陳述 1 第二節 研究目的與問題 4 第三節 研究範圍與限制 5 第四節 名詞解釋 6 第二章 文獻分析 8 第一節 整合查詢之定義及其運作 8 第二節 整合查詢之問題 12 第三節 整合查詢系統之好用性研究 17 第三章 整合查詢系統之比較與分析 25 第一節 整合系統之介紹 25 第二節 整合系統之分析比較 28 第四章 研究設計與實施 37 第一節 研究設計 37 第二節 臺灣大學MUSE整合查詢系統 40 第三節 研究實施 43 第五節 研究工具 49 第六節 研究步驟 51 第五章 MUSE整合查詢系統好用性分析 52 第一節 整合查詢系統之效率分析 52 第二節 整合查詢系統之效能分析 54 第三節 整合查詢系統之容易學習程度分析 65 第四節 整合查詢系統之吸引性分析 79 第五節 整合查詢系統之錯誤容忍程度分析 83 第六節 小結 85 第六章 結論與建議 87 第一節 結論 87 第二節 建議 91 第三節 進一步研究之建議 96 參考書目 98 附件一 受測說明同意書 103 附件二 受測者背景資料 104 附件三 查詢任務 105 附件四 訪談大綱 107 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 圖書館電子資源整合查詢系統之好用性評估:以臺灣大學圖書館Muse電子資源整合查詢系統為例 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Usability Test of Library Metasearch System: A Case Study of National Taiwan University Library’s Muse Search | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 98-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 黃慕萱(Mu-Hsuan Huang),陳光華(Kuang-Hua Chen),陳昭珍(Chao-Chen Chen) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 整合查詢,Muse電子資源整合查詢系統,好用性測試,使用者研究, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Metasearch,Muse Search,Usability test,User study, | en |
dc.relation.page | 108 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2010-08-15 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 文學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 圖書資訊學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 圖書資訊學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-99-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 1.13 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。