a case study of Indian academic library websites - NOPR - niscair

Annals of Library and Information Studies Vol. 57, December 2010, pp. 403-416

Establishing content awareness evaluation criteria for library websites: a case study of Indian academic library websites Akhandanand Shukla1 and Aditya Tripathi2 1

Assistant Professor, Department of Library & Information Science, Mizoram University, Aizwal, Email: [email protected] 2 Assistant Professor, Department of Library & Information Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Email: [email protected] Examines status of content on websites of libraries’ belonging to Indian academic institutions. Establishes a method to measure Overall Website Performance Calculation (OWPC) and Criteria-wise Website Performance Calculation (CWPC) of library websites. Comparative study of 20 central universities and 19 institutes of national importance including Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) academic libraries from India suggest that the library websites of institutes of national importance have better content awareness than central university library websites as per the identified criteria. The criteria studied would be helpful for librarians and webmasters to improve content awareness status of their library websites.

Introduction The recent years have seen the emergence of websites as an ideal medium through which knowledge and information can be disseminated very efficiently to every nook and corner of the world. Libraries also use their websites for disseminating information among users and to popularize their services. Content richness of library websites depends upon its collection, services, facilities, administrative support and updating policy etc. These features are collectively referred as content awareness of library websites1. Content awareness indicates qualitative and quantitative aspects of information provided on the library websites. Evaluating library websites through content awareness is one of the methods for measuring usefulness of websites. In this paper, an empirical approach is used for the development of content awareness criteria of academic library websites. Literature review The Web offers libraries the possibility to become disseminators of information through websites. The most effective library website appears to be the one that has a clear sense of purpose as well as a clear

sense of users’ needs. Therefore, an important aspect of planning and maintaining a website is to identify the likely users and to review their needs2,3. RozicHristovski, Todorovski and Hristovski reported about developing a library website and included a guide to library services and resources in 19974. In the early 1990s Nielsen5 and Rubin6 pioneered the testing of websites to determine whether [websites] met users’ needs. They adapted usability engineering techniques developed for computer software design and applied them to Web design. The usability is recognized as an important quality factor of any modern website. Usability testing has since become the focus of considerable attention both for commercial and academic Web sites. Usability tests revealed that the way material is arranged, labeled, and presented on the Web (the site’s ‘information architecture’) has a major impact on users and their ability to operate a site effectively7. Head8 and Fichter9 each furnished a good synopsis of usability testing and delineated the possible hazards for test givers and test takers which are likely to be encountered. Norlin & Winters10 also provided an excellent “how to” guide aimed specifically at libraries and library staffs who wish to conduct usability testing. Avouris et al11 proposed the techniques for usability evaluation of a website and described their use. They discussed the applicability of the developed techniques in a wide area of Web

404

ANN. LIB. INF. STU., DECEMBER 2010

based applications and their importance in the context of today’s Web applications development. Most notably, Rubin’s12 Handbook of Usability Testing and Dumas & Redish’s13 A Practical Guide to Usability Testing provided invaluable ideas and input in the process of instrument development. Rubin outlined the four types of usability tests (i.e. exploratory; assessment; validation / verification; and comparison). He further promotes the User Centered Design (UCD) philosophy, and described five attributes common to organizations practicing UCD:

Chignell & Keevil25 model have more than 180 questions. Fraser et al26 supplemented the literature by providing an important reminder about accessibility in the interface design with respect to users with disabilities, a feature curiously absent in many studies. Owen27 further emphasizes that accessibility should not be ignored in visual design of a site. Harley & Henke28 conducted an experimental analysis of two commonly-used methods for exploring the use of university based Web based resources: Transaction log analysis (TLA)# and online site surveys. Works related to library websites’ usability

1. a phased approach that includes user input and feedback at all crucial points; 2. a multidisciplinary team approach; 3. concerned management; 4. a “learn as you go” perspective; and 5. usability goals and objectives. Additionally, Rubin offers a detailed overview of the entire process including all aspects of planning, budgeting, test design and execution, as do Barnum14 and Dumas & Redish15. Dumas & Redish gave important insights into the interpersonal aspects of the testing process, such as the consideration given to human-computer interaction and the impact of certain behaviours on those giving and taking the tests. Nielsen16 and Spool17 have created effective website design guidelines and provided extensive practical advice and hints. Nielsen developed heuristic evaluation method* for quick, cheap, and easy evaluation of a user interface design and provided a list of ten recommended heuristics for usable interface design. Constantine18, Morville19 and Rowlands20 also presented their viewpoints on good practices for design. McClements & Becker21 suggested that useful hints and design features must be included. Keevil22 developed Web Usability Index Checklist on the models provided by Ravden & Johnson23 and Chignell & Keevil24 which have a series of questions that could be answered with a “Yes” or “No”. The Human Computer Interface (HCI) checklist of Ravden & Johnson has 120 detailed questions while

There is substantial literature on library usability testing (Norlin & Winters29). Letnikova30 introduces an excellent annotated bibliography of usability assessment sources whereas Chisman et al31, Dickstein & Mills32, Battleson et al33 and Augustine & Greene34 presented comprehensive case studies which included detailed descriptions of the planning and implementation phases of usability testing at their institutions. Common website problems were discussed in the findings which included the excessive use of library terminology, an overabundance of information on opening pages, complicated or distracting graphics, poor website organization, and lack of breadcrumb trails**. Chisenga35 conducted a usability test for university libraries’ home pages in Sub-Saharan Africa and concluded that libraries are mainly providing general information about themselves and its services on their home page. Battleson et al36 have given a comprehensive case study for usability tests of academic library website of University of Buffalo. Houghton37 shared his experience for designing and implementation process of developing an academic library website at De Montfort University (DMU) and gave practical guidance and advice. McMullen38 conducted an interview with users to find insight about users’ behaviour with Library Web Interface for information seeking and revealed problems related to unclear terminology, proper use of color, size, and location for navigational links, and the need for

____________ *Heuristic evaluation method is most popular usability inspection methods and it also point out major and minor problems in a user interface. # Transaction log analysis (TLA) takes advantage of the computerized log files that automatically record online access to any Web site. By analyzing these logs, one can determine a number of characteristics of the site's users and summarize total site use. ** Web designers use the term “breadcrumbs” to describe navigational clues that show users where they are on a website. They trace the path the user has taken from the home page to their present location.

SHUKLA & TRIPATHI: CONTENT AWARENESS EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR LIBRARY WEBSITES

context sensitive help, built-in redundancy, and clear and consistent navigation. Rozic-Hristovski et al39 build CMK library website and evaluated the website by using Web server log files data whereas Milunovich40explored the design and maintenance of Law library websites and described various design principles and identified elements that are typically included in such sites. VandeCreek41 conducted a usability analysis using a trilateral approach: usability testing, focus group sessions, and survey questionnaires for the Northern Illinois University Library website. There is an effort for usability testing of virtual libraries by Allen42 for the University of South Florida, for a new interface design. There are few studies found for redesigning of library websites by applying usability approach. George43 evaluated the usability studies conducted for the redesign of website of Carnegie Mellon University library and found key weaknesses with respect to navigation, screen design and labeling, leading to more revisions and the final release. During evaluation he found that color and graphics attract attention; font, labels, and placement increase visibility; chunking and leading with keywords increase readability; and consistency increases usability. Fang44 conducted a survey for Rutgers-Newark Law Library, to improve its design and content by using Google Analytics##. By analyzing the visitors’ behaviour, changes were made to the library website and again compared which showed an improved. Craven45 explored the awareness levels of website developers in a supporting study for DISinHE (now TechDIS) between 1999 and 2000. Abels et al46 identified user based design criteria in websites and found that users’ rate content and ease of use as more important than appearance. Vasantha Raju & Harinarayana47 analysed the usability features of thirty (30) library websites of top science universities and institutes around the world (list of world’s top science universities published by the Times Higher Education Supplement). Works related to library websites’ content evaluation

405

are exclusively quantitative and have greater concentration on counting the number of pages, links, spelling mistakes, etc. An example of a study of this type has been carried out by Stover & Zink49 who dealt with 40 higher education libraries in North America. On the basis of quantitative data, the websites scored points and a top 20 list was prepared and some recommendations made. A noteworthy study by Clyde50, analyzed the contents of the websites of 50 public libraries and 50 school libraries from a number of different countries by applying quantitative method, more thorough than Stover & Zink51 and concluded that ‘the most effective library websites or home pages appeared to be those that had a clear sense of purpose and a clear sense of the needs of users. Clyde gave ten advices for library website designers: 1. The page should have a sensible title ... that includes the keywords likely to be used by people searching for the page. 2. Graphics and photographs can make a page very attractive. If they are too large or too complex, or there are too many of them, transmission may be too slow for the busy user. 3. The page should clearly identify the library, its location and the organization of which it is a part. 4. The page should provide a good overview of the library and its services. 5. For foreign users, a short explanation in English would be helpful. 6. The page should have features that will encourage first-time visitors to read on and then to return. 7. People will be encouraged to use the page on an ongoing basis if they know that they will always find something new on it when they visit. 8. Links to other Internet resources can be very useful to the users of a library home page. 9. The page should incorporate some means by which visitors to the page can contact the library staff. 10. Other important features: a “way out” of the page, last update, postal or street address for the library. Csir52 evaluated six websites that provide access to online reference materials at academic and public libraries while concentrating on their currency,

The number of studies on library websites content evaluation is relatively small48. Most of these studies ____________ ## The Google Analytics reports provides information on where visitors came from, what pages they visited, how long they stayed on each page, how deep into the site they navigated, where their visits ended, and where they went from there.

406


accuracy, relevancy, structure, presentation, maintenance, and features. King53 examined the home pages of all 120 libraries in the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) to compare design similarities and differences. Clausen54 carried an extensive pilot study and prepared 38 evaluation criteria for high quality Web pages with library and information centre specific criteria. Each of the evaluation criteria was rated on a scale from -2 to +2. Clausen attempted to develop new methods of user oriented evaluation of library and information centre web pages because not many studies have been dealing with the specific problems of library and information centre websites. The main areas investigated by Clausen are: design and structure; information quality; links and navigation; visual quality; and updating. Abdullah conducted a research for the comparative study of eight (8) university library websites of Malaysia and designed extensive evaluation criteria and concluded that libraries of Malaysia are ready to provide online services to the users55. Raward developed a 100 questions based checklist for best practice design principles for academic library websites using a Usability Index Checklist (UIC) with the help of Human Computer Interface (HCI) literature56. He divided user’s category into primary and secondary based on their information needs. Hider and Ferguson57 evaluated the information architectural qualities, given by Gullikson et al.58, of 20 Australian library websites by heuristic inspection which were compared with 10 retail websites and concluded the need of improvement and training. Holly59 dealt with the need, challenges, tools and methods for library Web content management and provided several case studies of library websites. Schaffner60 emphasized the need for good library Web interface and online public access catalogs (OPAC). Dinkelman and Stacy-Bates61 examined the availability and access mechanism of electronic books available in the websites of academic libraries in the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) and provided useful suggestions to improve it. Similar effort has been made by Rich and Rabine62 for electronic serials in academic library websites and Ganski63 for e-resources in theological library websites. Krueger et al.64 adapted Web usability techniques to assess student’s awareness of their library websites by using a Web browser. They

categorized various approaches according to students’ preference and revealed that forty five percent (45%) of the students utilized the library website as first tool of choice. Despite these studies in Web user interface design and evaluation of library websites, the user oriented content awareness testing or theoretical model are still rare (Clausen65) and extensive theory of content awareness is yet to come. The present study is focused on the design, development and establishment of user oriented content awareness evaluation criteria of academic library websites. Objectives of the study 1. To design a scale for content awareness evaluation for academic library websites; 2. To establish criteria for content analysis for evaluating academic library website; and 3. To devise website performance gradation system for transparent evaluation of academic library websites. Scope of the study The current study is conducted to develop criteria for evaluation of library websites based on content analysis of their content awareness. The criteria selected for the study are based on the content offered by the websites. A scale of evaluation criteria that has been developed was applied to the websites of central universities and institutes of national importance of India. There are 20 central universities and 13 institutes of national importance established by the Government of India (University Grants Commission [UGC], New Delhi66. Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) are included under institutes of national importance because these are also premier institutes in India that conduct technical and professional courses. Appendices 1 and 2 give the list central universities and institutes of national importance that have been included in this study. Methodology The evaluation criteria has been set to assess the user oriented content awareness of Indian academic and research institute library websites. There are a few library websites’ evaluation criteria available which evaluate accuracy, currency, authenticity, and


407

usability etc. Abdullah67 has made an attempt to design qualitative criteria for the evaluation of academic library websites of Malaysia. The study categorized quality criteria into three categories with further sub-categories under each. Scores were provided for answers, which were structured in Yes (1) and No (0) format. The criteria those are not designed in this format were judged by specific evaluation system adopted by the author. Some quality criteria of website evaluation (developed by Abdullah) are also similar to the present content awareness evaluation criteria but the present one more extensive. Raward68 developed a usability checklist for Australian academic library websites based on the Keevil’s69 Web Usability Index Checklist which has 100 questions and divided into four sections. Clausen70 carried an extensive pilot study and prepared 38 evaluation criteria for high quality Web pages with criteria specific to library and information centres. Each of the evaluation criteria was rated on a scale from -2 to +2. Jurkowski71 has made a code sheet for evaluation of colleges and university library websites those serving distance education to their students.

converted into questionnaire format. For bias free and easy answering, two variables ‘Yes’ & ‘No’ have been chosen. For making the evaluation criteria more extensive, conditional and additional scenario were added as per requirement. For example:

For designing content awareness evaluation criteria, following steps are taken:

Additional evaluation points have been added in evaluation criteria when the library website provides information regarding additional items besides common items of the library website. The below mentioned items have been added as additional evaluation criteria which are not commonly found in each of the library website:

Collection of check points

The websites of Indian academic and research institution libraries were visited and all possible features were tabulated. Besides, ideas and views from library and information science professionals were also consulted to know the other possible features that should be included in the study. Literature available in the articles of journals, encyclopedias, library science handbooks, other library websites etc. were also consulted. Matching, removal and grouping of check points

The tabulated features were matched with each other and duplicates were removed from the tabulated data. The similar features (concepts) were grouped at a place. Designing of content awareness evaluation criteria (check points)

The grouped similar features (concepts) were

Does the library website have? (1) Multiple Web pages? (2) Single Web page*?

(

)

[2 Point]

*If Single Web page, then Does the library Web page have the collection of library related content solely? (1) Yes (2) No

( (

) )

[1 Point] [0 Point]

In the above cited evaluation criteria, the first question is the main evaluation criteria which will be fulfilled by two answer options (1) and (2) where the option 2 will be further qualified by conditional evaluation criterion.

(1) Image Gallery of Library (2) Standards/Patents Information (3) Library Blog (4) Media Resource Centre

( ( ( (

) [1/2 Point] ) [1/2 Point] ) [1/2 Point] ) [1/2 Point]

For purposeful evaluation, the following scoring system was adopted: Answer variables Yes (Normal) No (Normal) Yes (Conditional) No (Conditional) Yes (Additional)

Score allotted +2 0 +1 -2 +½

The highest scoring of answers is 108 points which is rarely extensible when all the conditions will be


408

fulfilled by the library websites. On the basis of scoring points, 108 point scale parameters based website performance grade table was devised. For assessing the academic library websites content, two formulae Overall Website Performance Calculation (OWPC) and Criteria-wise Website Performance Calculation (CWPC) has been developed. The CWPC represents current status of content awareness of academic library websites. The exhaustive list of the content awareness evaluation criteria is at http://www.niscair.res.in/jinfo/ALIS/alis_dec10_appe ndix.pdf.

2. Easy to answer: The evaluation criteria are very simple to answer. 3. Bias free: The evaluation criteria has been made bias free by using ‘Yes’ & ‘No’ answer variables. 4. Easy calculation: Evaluation points can be calculated easily. 5. Simple guidelines: Simple and very expressive guidelines i.e. definitions, notes, and scope notes has been given wherever felt necessary. 6. Any additional item that cannot be categorized with any group has been added separately.

Method of calculation for content awareness

Lengthy: The evaluation criterion is very lengthy (in terms of number) due to extensive nature.

Suppose a university library website obtains 63 points on the basis of content awareness evaluation criteria. Then its Overall Website Performance Calculation (OWPC) is calculated as: Total points obtained x 100 Maximum points

=

63 x 100 108

=

58.33 %

Thus, if 63 points were scored on the basis of attempting 28 criteria out of total 41, then the CWPC would be: Total points obtained x 100 Maximum points of attempted criteria

63 x 100 =

77

=

81.81 %

Addition of definitions, notes and scope notes

Definitions, explanations, notes and scope notes are given to the check-points wherever felt necessary. Testing of content awareness evaluation criteria (check points)

The check-points, drafted for evaluation of content awareness of academic library websites were tested by pilot studies (twice) on Indian academic & research institute libraries. Difficulties faced during first instance of pilot study were removed and after that second instance of pilot study was again conducted for making error free content awareness evaluation criteria. Features of content awareness evaluation criteria

1. Easy to understand: The evaluation criteria have been made very simple. Terminological difficulties have been resolved.

Limitations of content awareness evaluation criteria

Ambiguous: Sometimes evaluation criteria show ambiguous nature due to close relationship between evaluation check points. Apart from that, it was also observed that for one aspect there are different levels or methods of representation on the two different websites. Sometimes it is observed that detailed explanation or detailed insight is given for a particular aspect. In such situation it becomes very difficult for evaluator to assess the grading. For example, some library website like Banaras Hindu University (BHU) provides an alphabetical list of acquired e-journals where as North-Eastern Hill University (NEHU) provides details of each e-journal. From an evaluator’s point of view both the Universities do give information about the e-journals and grade-wise both are given same points although NEHU’s website is more informative than that BHU. Web appearance of Indian academic library websites The web appearance of academic library websites of India has been searched during June, 2009 and found that a few of the central universities and institutes of national importance do not have separate library websites. It is found that URL of Nagaland University Library website is not extractable due to use of JavaScript in Web page designing, though evaluative study of the Nagaland University Library website has been conducted. Except University of Delhi and University of Hyderabad, none of the central universities libraries have separate Web sites. The URSL of central universities’ library websites is listed in Table 1.


409

Table 1––Central universities’ libraries websites Sl. No.

Central universities

1. 2. 3.

Aligarh Muslim University Assam University Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University Banaras Hindu University Central Agricultural University Indira Gandhi National Open University Jamia Millia Islamia Jawaharlal Nehru University Mahatma Gandhi Antarrashtriya Hindi Vishwavidyalaya Manipur University Maulana Azad National Urdu University Mizoram University Nagaland University North-Eastern Hill University Pondicherry University Tezpur University University of Allahabad University of Delhi University of Hyderabad Visva-Bharati University

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

Library URL (Accessed in June 2009) http://www.amu.ac.in/index2.asp?sublinkid=194 http://assamuniversity.nic.in/library.html http://www.bbauindia.org/central_library/central_library.htm http://210.212.61.250/bhulibrary/index.html Library website not available http://www.ignou.ac.in/divisions/library/home.htm http://www.jmi.nic.in/ZHL/ZHlibrary.htm http://www.jnu.ac.in/main.asp?sendval=Library Library website not available http://manipuruniv.ac.in/library/Library.htm http://www.manuu.ac.in/Library.html http://www.mzu.edu.in/central%20library.html Library URL not extractable (but evaluated) http://www.nehu.ac.in/library/index.html http://www.pondiuni.edu.in/facilities/facilities_library.htm http://www.tezu.ernet.in/Library/ http://www.alldunivpio.org/Library%20Facilities.htm http://crl.du.ac.in/ http://igmlnet.uohyd.ernet.in:8000/ http://www.visva-bharati.ac.in/Library/Contents/LibraryContents.htm

As regards to institutes of national importance, IIM, Bangalore and PGIMER, Chandigarh, have library web pages which are accessible through institute’s home pages. About seven (37%) institutes of national importance libraries have separate website for themselves. The detailed web appearance of institutes of national importance library websites is listed in Table 2. Status of content awareness of Indian academic library websites The contents awareness of academic library websites of India has been evaluated as per the designed evaluation criteria. Table 3 gives the OWPC and CWPC scores for the central universities’ libraries websites. The 108 point scale has been divided in five grades each showing 20 percent of the total. Grades are labeled Excellent, Very Good, Good, Average and Unsatisfactory. On the basis of content awareness evaluation criteria, results are given in Table 3 and the analyzed results are given in Table 4. None of the central university (CU) library websites fall in “Excellent” and “Very Good” status of content

awareness. Among twenty (20) Central Universities, two universities (10%), Central Agricultural University, Imphal and Mahatma Gandhi Antarrashtriya Hindi Vishwavidyalaya, Wardha do not have separate library websites, though both of the universities have websites. Five of the CU library websites (25%) have “Good” status of content awareness. Highest number of the CU library websites (40%) have “Unsatisfactory” status of content awareness whereas five CU library websites ( 25%) have “Average” status of content awareness. On analyzing, it is found that highest number of CU library websites (65%) have obtained OWPC points below 43.2 which indicates there is a big gap between information availability in the libraries and information dissemination through web media. However, a separate study can be done to get the detail insight. There are only 25% CU library websites which have obtained OWPC points above 43.2 and these library websites are disseminating sufficient knowledge and information (whatever available) to users via web media i.e. higher status of content awareness. The CWPC points indicate content awareness at individual level only. It shows information availability and their content management in web media individually. The CWPC is an indicator to librarians and webmasters to show how they have

410

ANN. LIB. INF. STU., DECEMBER 2010 Table 2––Institutes of national importance libraries web appearance

Sl. No.

Institutes of national importance

1. 2. 3.

All India Institute of Medical Sciences DBHPS Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad Indian Institute of Management Bangalore Indian Institute of Management Calcutta Indian Institute of Management Indore Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode Indian Institute of Management Lucknow Indian Institute of Technology Bombay Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur Indian Institute of Technology Madras Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee Indian Statistical Institute Kolkata National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, Mohali Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

Library URL (Accessed in June 2009) http://www.aiims.edu/aiims/library/library.html Library website not available http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/library/ No index URL available for library website (but evaluated) http://library.iimcal.ac.in/ http://www.iimidr.ac.in/iimi/pages/institute/iimi-library.php http://www.iimk.ac.in/libportal/index.htm http://ganga.iiml.ac.in/%7Elibrarian/index.htm http://www.library.iitb.ac.in/ http://web.iitd.ac.in/~library/ http://www.iitg.ernet.in/rs/lib/public_html/index.html http://library.iitk.ac.in/ http://www.library.iitkgp.ernet.in/ http://www.cenlib.iitm.ac.in/docs/library/index.php http://www.iitr.ac.in/centers/library/pages/About_.html http://www.isical.ac.in/~library/ Library has no separate website No index URL available for library website (but evaluated) http://www.sctimst.ac.in/library/index.htm

Table 3––Data representing content awareness of CU library websites Sl. No.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

Central universities’ library websites

Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh Assam University, Silchar Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi Central Agricultural University, Imphal Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi Mahatma Gandhi Antarrashtriya Hindi Vishwavidyalaya, Wardha Manipur University, Imphal Maulana Azad National Urdu University, Hyderabad Mizoram University, Aizwal Nagaland University, Kohima North Eastern Hill University, Shillong Pondicherry University, Pondicherry Tezpur University, Tezpur University of Allahabad, Allahabad University of Delhi, Delhi University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad Visva-Bharati University, Santiniketan

OWPC Points (in %)

CWPC (in %)

13 (12.03) 11.5 (10.64) 23.5 (21.75) 23.5 (21.75) N.A. 48 (44.44) 43.5 (40.27) 31 (28.70) N.A. 18.5 (17.12) 26.5 (24.53) 11 (10.18) 14 (12.96) 63 (58.33) 17 (15.74) 28 (25.92) 11 (10.18) 50.5 (46.75) 53.5 (49.53) 10 (09.25)

59.09 44.23 58.75 45.19 N.A. 70.58 63.04 44.92 N.A. 40.21 40.76 68.75 50 81.81 32.07 53.84 34.37 75.37 66.04 41.66


411

Table 4––Status of content awareness of CU library websites Points Achieved (Percentage)

Grading

Central Universities Library Websites

Excellent

None

Very Good

None

≤ 108 (≤ 100%)

≤ 86.4 (≤ 80%)

≤ 64.8 Good (≤ 60%)

≤ 43.2 Average (≤ 40%)

≤ 21.6 Unsatisfactory (≤ 20%)

managed information earlier and how they have to manage? It also reveals level of interest of librarians and webmasters in dissemination of information available in the libraries to its users. On the basis of OWPC points, it is found that 65% CU libraries of India must improve their web content awareness. Institutes of national importance library websites

The 108 point scale has been divided in five grades each showing 20 percent of the total is discussed in the above section of this article. On the basis of content awareness evaluation criteria, results are given in Table 5 and the analyzed results are given in Table 6. Again it is found that none of the Institutes of National Importance (INI) library websites have the “Excellent” and “Very Good” status of content awareness according to present study. Among nineteen (19) INI, two institutes (i.e. 10.52%),

North Eastern Hill University, Shillong (63) University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad (53.5) University of Delhi, Delhi (50.5) Indira Gandhi National Open Uni., New Delhi (48) Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi (43.5) Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi (31) Tezpur University, Tezpur (28) Maulana Azad National Urdu Uni., Hyderabad (26.5) Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Uni., Lucknow (23.5) Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi (23.5) Manipur University, Canchipur Imphal (18.5) Pondicherry University, Pondicherry (17) Nagaland University, Kohima (14) Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh (13) Assam University, Silchar (11.5) Mizoram University, Aizwal (11) University of Allahabad, Allahabad (11) Visva-Bharati University, Santiniketan (10)

Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Chennai and National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, Mohali have no separate library websites, though both of the institutes have websites. There are six INI library websites (i.e. 31.56%) have “Good” status of content awareness and two of the INI (i.e. 10.52%) library websites have “Unsatisfactory” status of content awareness. On analysing, it is found that about 31.56% INI library websites have obtained OWPC points above 43.2 which indicates their high status of content awareness whereas 47.36% of INI library websites have obtained OWPC points between 21.6 to 43.2 i.e. “Average” status of content awareness. Among seven Indian Institutes of Technology, four (i.e. 57.14%) have “Good” status of content awareness. However, among six Indian Institutes of Management, four (i.e. 66.66%) have “Average” status of content awareness. Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi (61) and Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow (59) have highest OWPC points in their concerned categories.


412

Table 5––Data representing content awareness of INI library websites Sl. No.

Name of Institutes of National Importance

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Chennai Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta Indian Institute of Management, Indore Indian Institute of Management, Kozhikode Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur Indian Institute of Technology, Madras Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, Mohali Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram

OWPC Points & (in %) 25 (23.14) N.A. 42.5 (39.35) 26 (24.07) 40 (37.03) 21 (19.44) 41 (37.96) 59 (54.62) 61 (56.48) 25.5 (23.61) 27 (25) 46 (42.59) 60 (55.55) 55 (50.92) 22 (20.37) 49.5 (45.83) N.A. 29 (26.85) 21 (19.44)

CWPC (in %) 43.85 N.A. 68.54 65 55.55 52.50 68.33 76.62 70.93 60.71 54 71.87 74.07 66.26 45.83 68.75 N.A. 76.31 55.26

Table 6––Status of informational content awareness of INI library websites Points Achieved (Percentage)

Grading

Institutes of National Importance Library Websites

≤ 108 Excellent

None

Very Good

None

(≤ 100%)

≤ 86.4 (≤ 80%)

≤ 64.8

Good

(≤ 60%)

≤ 43.2

Average

(≤ 40%)

Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi (61) Indian Institute of Technology, Madras (60) Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow (59) Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay (55) Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata (49.5) Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur (46) Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (42.5) Indian Institute of Management, Kozhikode (41) Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta (40) Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (29) Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (27) Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore (26) Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati (25.5) All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi (25) Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee (22)

≤ 21.6 (≤ 20%)

Unsatisfactory

Indian Institute of Management, Indore (21) Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute For Medical Thiruvananthapuram (21)

Sciences

and

Technology,


Conclusion On the basis of result analysis and discussion, it is found that library websites of Institutes of National Importance have better content awareness than Central University library websites. There are no library websites of Institutes of National Importance and Central Universities which have “Excellent” and “Very Good” status of content awareness. Comparatively, there are more numbers of Institutes of National Importance library websites which have higher OWPC points (above 43.2) than Central University library websites. These results reveals that library websites of Institutes of National Importance have shown much interest to share more informational contents with their users than library websites of Central Universities. Librarians and webmasters of Institutes of National Importance have shown high level of interest to disseminate information available in the library than Central Universities. Central University library websites are in alarming condition to improve their content awareness. Librarians and webmasters should follow the content awareness evaluation criteria for improving content awareness status of academic library websites. Website usability techniques and content awareness evaluation criteria jointly become very effective guidelines for designing academic library websites with higher status of content awareness. These evaluation criteria may also be used for content awareness evaluation of websites of public libraries. This content awareness evaluation criterion also covers websites usability techniques which makes library websites more useful. References 1. Shukla A, Evaluating Indian academic and research library websites based on web impact factor analysis [Doctoral Dissertation], Department of Library and Information Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, 2009. [Unpublished] 2. Clyde L A, The library as information provider: the home page, The Electronic Library, 14 (6) (1996) 549– 558. 3. Hightower C, Sih J and Tilghman A, Recommendation for benchmarking website usage among academic libraries, College & Research Libraries, 59 (1) (1998) 61–79. 4. Rozic-Hristovski A, Todorovski L and Hristovski D, Developing a medical library website at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, Program, 33 (4) (1999) 313–325.

413

5. Nielsen J, Usability engineering, Ed. 13 (Academic Press; Boston), 1993, 358. 6. Rubin J, Handbook of usability testing: how to plan, design and conduct effective tests, (John Wiley & Sons; New York), 1994, 330. 7. Rosenfeld L B and Morville P, Information architecture for the World Wide Web, (O’Reilly; Sebastopol, CA), 1998, 202. 8. Head A J, Web redemption and the promise of usability, Online, 23 (6) (1999) 20-23. 9. Fichter D, Head start: usability testing up front, Online, 24 (1) (2000) 79-81. 10. Norlin E and Winters C M, Usability testing for library websites: a hands-on guide, (American Library Association; Chicago), 2002, 69. 11. Avouris N, Tselios N, Fidas C and Papachristos E, Website evaluation: a usability-based perspective, In Y Manolopoulos et al. (Eds.), PCI 2001, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) 2563, (2003) 217-231. 12. Rubin Op. cit. 13. Dumas J S and Redish J C, A practical guide to usability testing, Revised ed. (Intellect Books), 1993. 14. Barnum C, Usability testing and research, (Longman; New York), 20020, 428. 15. Dumas J S and Redish J C Op. cit. 16. Nielsen J Op. cit. 17. Spool J, Website usability: the big picture, (1998). Available at http://web.archive.org/web/19991013021157/ http:// webreview.com/pub/web98east/23/spoolx.html (Accessed on June 5, 2009). 18. Constantine L, Usage-centered Web design, (1999), Available at http://web.archive.org/web/19991012141354/ http:// webreview.com/pub/1999/06/25/feature/constantine.html (Accessed on 5 June 2009). 19. Morville P, Information, architecture, and usability, Web Architect, (1999). Available at http://web. archive.org/web/19991013024942/http://webreview.com/ pub/1999/03/ 12/arch/index.html (Accessed on June 23, 2009). 20. Rowlands C, Usability matters - what is good design?, (March, 2000). Available at http://web.archive.org /web/20000815215258/www.webreview.com/pub/2000/ 03/10/feature/index3c.html (Accessed on June 23, 2009). 21. McClements N and Becker C, Writing Web page standards, College & Research Libraries News, 57 (1) (1996) 16-17. 22. Keevil B E, Measuring the usability of your website: usability index checklist for websites, (1998). Available at http://www3.sympatico.ca/bkeevil/sigdoc98/checklist/W ebCheck_Sep13.html (Accessed on June 23, 2009). 23. Ravden S J and Johnson G I, Evaluating the usability of human computer interfaces: a practical method, (E. Horwood; Chichester), 1989. 128 pages. 24. Chignell M H and Keevil B E, Developing usable online information for a Web authoring tool, presented at the annual SIGDOC96 Conference (North Carolina) on 21 October 1996.

414


25. Ibid 26. Fraser B, Comden D and Bergstahler S, Including users with disabilities: designing library websites for accessibility, CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, 35 (1998) 35-37. 27. Owen J, Making your website accessible, Library & Information Update, (January 2003). Available at http://web.archive.org/web/20040911055913/www.cilip. org.uk/publications/updatemagazine/archive/archive2003 /january/update0301c.htm (accessed on April 17, 2010) 28. Harley D and Henke J, Towards an effective understanding of website users: advantages and pitfalls of linking transaction log analyses and online surveys, DLib Magazine, 13 (3/4) (April 2007). 29. Norlin E and Winters C M , Op. cit. 30. Letnikova G, Usability testing of academic library websites: a selective bibliography, Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 8 (4) (2003) 53-68. 31. Chisman J, Diller K and Walbridge S, Usability testing: a case study, College & Research Libraries, 60 (6) (1999) 552-569. 32. Dickstein R and Mills V, Usability testing at the University of Arizona library: how to let users in on the design, Information Technology & Libraries, 19 (3) (2000) 144-151. 33. Battleson B, Booth A and Weintrop S, Usability testing of an academic library website: a case study, Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27 (3) (2001) 188-198. 34. Augustine A and Greene C, Discovering how students search a library website: a usability case study, College & Research Libraries, 63 (4) (2002) 354-365. 35. Chisenga J, A study of university libraries’ home pages in Sub-Saharan Africa, Libri, 48 (1) (1998) 49-57. 36. Augustine A and Greene C, Op. cit. 37. Houghton D, Building an academic library website: experiences at De Montfort University, Program, 34 (3) (July 2000) 269–280. 38. McMullen S, Usability testing in a library website redesign project, Reference Services Review, 29 (1) (2001) 7-22. 39. Rozic-Hristovski A, Hristovski D and Todorovski L, Users' information-seeking behavior on a medical library website, Journal of the Medical Library Association, 90 (2) (2002) 210–217. 40. Milunovich K, Designing and maintaining Law library websites: some practical considerations. Law Library Journal, 94 (3) (2002) 487-508. Available at http://www. aallnet.org/products/pub_llj_v94n03/2002-29.pdf (accessed on June 23, 2009) 41. VandeCreek L M, Usability analysis of Northern Illinois University libraries' website: a case study, OCLC Systems and Services, 21 (3) (2005) 181-192. 42. Allen M, A case study of the usability testing of the University of South Florida’s virtual library interface design, Online Information Review, 26 (1) (2002) 40-53. 43. George C A, Usability testing and design of a library website: an iterative approach, OCLC Systems & Services, 21 (3) (2005) 167-180. 44. Fang W, Using Google analytics for improving library website content and design: a case study, Library Philosophy and Practice 2007 (LPP Special Issue on

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50. 51. 52.

53.

54. 55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

Libraries and Google), (June 2007), Available at http://www. webpages.uidaho.edu/~mbolin/fang.htm (accessed on June 21, 2009). Craven J, Accessibility and usability of websites, Library & Information Update (CILIP Magazine) (May 2003), Available at http://web.archive.org/web/20040911055154/www.cilip. org.uk/publications/updatemagazine/archive/archive2003 /may/update0305d.htm (accessed on April 17, 2010). Abels E G, White M D, and Hahn K, Identifying userbased criteria for Web pages, Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 7 (1997) 252–262. Vasantha Raju N and Harinarayana N S, An analysis of usability features of library websites, Annals of Library and Information Studies, 55 (2) (2008) 111-122. Clausen H, User-oriented evaluation of library and information centre websites, New Library World, 100 (1146) (1999) 5-10. Stover M and Zink S D, World Wide Web home page design: patterns and anomalies of higher education library home pages, Reference Services Review, 24 (3) (1996) 7-20. Clyde L A Op. cit. Stover M and Zink S D Op. cit. Csir F J, Evaluation and criteria of the World Wide Web: reference websites, [Unpublished master’s thesis] Kent State University, (1996), available at http://www.eric.ed.gov /ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/00000 19b/80/15/10/66.pdf. (accessed on June 24, 2009). King D L, Library home page design: a comparison of page layout for front-ends to ARL library websites, College & Research Libraries, 59 (1998) 458–465. Clausen H Op. cit. Abdullah A R, A comparative study of academic libraries websites in Malaysia [dissertation for the Degree of M. Sc. in Information Management], Faculty of Information Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA, May 2001. Available at http://eprints.ptar.uitm.edu.my/27/1/ABD_RASHID_AB DULLAH_01.pdf. (accessed on June 17, 2009). Raward R, Academic library website design principles: development of a checklist, Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 32 (2) (2001). Available at (http://www.alia.org.au/publishing/aarl/32.2/raward.html ) (Accessed on June 4, 2009). Hider P and Ferguson S, An evaluation of the information architectural qualities of Australian library websites, ALIA 2006 Biennial Conference, 19-22 September 2006, Available at http://conferences.alia.org.au/alia2006/Papers/Philip_Hid er.pdf (accessed on June 21, 2009). Gullikson S, Blades R, Bragdon M, McKibbon S, Sparling M and Toms E G, The impact of information architecture on academic website usability, The Electronic Library, 17 (5) (1999) 293-304. Holly Y, Content and workflow management for library websites: case studies, (Information Science Publishing; Hershey), 2005, 259.


60. Schaffner J, Good design for library websites and online public access catalogs (White paper, LIS 488), (April 24, 2007). Available at http://web.simmons. edu/~schaffne/whitepaper.pdf (accessed on June 22, 2009). 61. Dinkelman A and Stacy-Bates K, Accessing e-books through academic library websites, College & Research Libraries, 68 (1) (2007) 45-58. 62. Rich L A and Rabine J L, How libraries are providing access to electronic serials: a survey of academic library websites, Serials Review, 25 (2) (1999) 35-46. 63. Ganski K L, Accessibility of e-resources from theological library websites, Theological Librarianship, 1 (1) (June 2008) 38-45. 64. Krueger J, Ray R L and Knight L, Applying Web usability techniques to assess student awareness of

65. 66.

67. 68. 69. 70. 71.

415

library Web resources, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30 (4) (2004) 285–293. Clausen Op. cit. University Grants Commission [UGC], Available at http://web.archive.org/web/20060425221616/http://www .ugc.ac.in/inside/utype.php?st=Central+University (accessed on April 17, 2010) Abdullah A R Op. cit. Raward R Op. cit. Keevil B E Op. cit. Clausen H Op. cit. Jurkowski O L, An analysis of library websites at colleges and universities serving distance education students. In E D Garten, D E Williams and J M Nyce, Advances in Library Administration and Organization, 22 (2005) 23-77.


416

Appendix 1 Central Universities in India Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Universities Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh (AMU) Assam University, Silchar (ASU) Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow (BBAU) Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi (BHU) Central Agricultural University, Imphal (CAUI) Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi (IGNOU) Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi (JMI) Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi (JNU) Mahatma Gandhi Antarrashtriya Hindi Vishwavidyalaya, Wardha (MGAHV) Manipur University, Imphal (MANI) Maulana Azad National Urdu University, Hyderabad (MANUU) Mizoram University, Aizwal (MIZUNI) Nagaland University, Kohima (NAGUNI) North Eastern Hill University, Shillong (NEHU) Pondicherry University, Puducherry (PONDI) Tezpur University, Tezpur (TEZU) University of Allahabad, Allahabad (UOA) University of Delhi, Delhi (UOD) University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad (UOH) Visva-Bharati University, Santiniketan (VBU) Appendix 2 Institutes of National Importance

Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Institutes All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi (AIIMS) Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Chennai (DBHPS) Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIMA) Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore (IIMB) Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta (IIMC) Indian Institute of Management, Indore (IIMI) Indian Institute of Management, Kozhikode (IIMK) Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow (IIML) Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay (IITB) Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi (IITD) Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati (IITG) Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (IITK) Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur (IITKGP) Indian Institute of Technology, Madras (IITM) Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee (IITR) Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata (ISIK) National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, Mohali (NIPER) Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (PGIMER) Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram (SCTIMST)