Thanks to all the LIS staff who responded to the LIS Website Team’s survey! There were 63 responses to our 2009 survey, prior to the redesign of the LIS Website, and 24 responses to our more recent survey, after the launch of the new site. In this post, I will share some of the results of these surveys and compare the feedback between the two surveys. I’ll discuss the student survey in another post.
A usability report – shared by Mike Lynch.
This is a quick and dirty attempt at a survey… Let’s see if we can get feedback from LIS student employees staffing Circulation, Helpdesk, Tech processing, P&P, Stacks, ILL (and at least some representation from branches).
Email intro something like:
Dear student employee,
To go along with the College web makover, we are creating a new LIS website and we would love your feedback on what works, what doesn’t, and what you would like to see on the site.
Please try to answer these questions from your perspective as a student!
- What do you use most often on the LIS website? [we could give options or leave it wide open]
- What features of the LIS website work or could be improved? [same as LIS staff version]
- Is there anything missing from the LIS website?
- Rate your level of comfort with these technologies [same as LIS staff version]
- Is there anything else we should know?
I started the LIS Website Recommendations document a few weeks ago, based on my personal views of the project and some of the discussions we have had early on during team meetings. I will commit to working later in this week to flesh this document out more with specific references to materials which support the changes it recommends. However, here are some framing questions we can use to think about these recommendations.
What sections of this document conflict with goals of the team?
What goals of the team are missing from this document?
What changes do we need to make to these recommendations based on the survey results?
What changes do we need to make to these recommendations based on other data sources?
What resources should we reference within this document to support the recommendations it proscribes?
I’ve prepared a spreadsheet of MCMS editing permissions for the LIS website. This also includes the Telephone Services site, which is under /administration, rather than the rest of the LIS site, which is in /academics. The permissions are structured as a hierarchy, so if you are in the “(middcms) www – academics – lis” group, you can edit anywhere within the LIS site.
Here are what the roles means:
- Channel Manager: can edit anywhere, approve all changes, and change the IA.
- Editor: can make changes and publish their changes. Can approve changes by others.
- Author: can make changes, but cannot approve changes for publication.
- Resource Manager: can upload files (images/documents).
- Subscriber: can view content (used for content in restricted channels).
We only came up with 2.5 questions that we want answered by looking at the analytics. Do you have other suggestions for things we could look at? What are some key resources or pages on the site that we want to look at click paths to? To refresh everyone, here are the questions we came up with:
- What are the top 5 search terms, specific to the LIS site?
- What are the top 5 pages on the LIS site?
- What are the common click paths to [resource] on the LIS site?
Suggestion for change to the intro:
“To do this we need your help! Please answer the following questions about the LIS Website to the best of your ability. Don’t worry if you don’t know the answer! What you do and do not know about the LIS Website will help the LIS Website Team design a better website. Please feel free to tell us what you think! Your name will not be associated with this survey. Please do let us know who you are if you want us to contact you. Many thanks!”
I propose that we add 2 additional questions at the end of the survey.
Please rate your overall experience in navigating the LIS website while taking this survey.
Pleasant, Slightly Frustrating, Extremely Frustrating and Comment box.
Is there anything else you’d like the LIS Website Team to know about?
Question 6 – What pieces of the LIS website work, aren’t present or could be improved?
I think this is an important question – and will help us design a better LIS website – but it may need to be tweaked a little to clarify intent.
Can we change “aren’t present” to “does not work” or “not there”? The term “aren’t present” caused confusion during testing.
Change the word “pieces” above to “features”?
Maybe add “(optional)” to the comments column?
Can we clarify the category terms/text? There is some confusion about intent/meaning.
Library guides – change to library research guides and catalog?
Service availability – change to system availability alerts?
Technical documentation – change to computing guides or how-to guides?
Multimedia – what are we asking?
Hours – change to library hours/hours of service?
Project updates – define intent?
Staff accomplishments – this is clear – and important (is it part of staff info?)
Emergency procedures – this is clear – and important
Organizational information – Combine staff stuff, org goals and info into 1 category? Or was the intent to ask about each one?
Tagging – change to tags, reviews, ratings?
Calendars – what are we asking about?
Search – change to search box?
Organizational goals – see above
Staff information – are we asking about the directory?
Is location information referring to buildings and/or people?
Add the following categories?
Wiki and blog?
Help, who to contact for what?