ProQuest Ebook Platform Outperforms EBSCO Ebook Platform in Functionality and Usability Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A Review of: Calhoun, E., & Zhu, M. (2023). A comparison study and heuristic evaluation of two aggregator ebook platforms: ProQuest eBook Central and EBSCOhost eBooks. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 35(2), 132–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/1941126X.2023.2197754 Objective – To identify the strengths and limitations in functionality and usability of two electronic book (ebook) platforms. Design – Comparison study and heuristic evaluation. Setting – University of Toronto Libraries. Subjects – The user interfaces and the library administration portals of the ProQuest and EBSCO ebook platforms. In ProQuest, the user interface is Ebook Central, and the administration portal is LibCentral. In EBSCO, the user interface is EBSCOhost eBooks, and the administration portal is EBSCO Collection Manager. Methods – The evaluation was conducted in August 2022. The authors compared the user interfaces for ease of use, searching and reading functionality, additional features, and accessibility. To evaluate the usability of features, the authors performed a heuristic evaluation by evaluating common tasks that a user would perform against the set of heuristic principles developed by Jakob Nielsen. When usability issues were identified, they were given a severity rating of critical, moderate, or minor. The authors then compared the administration portals using a set of common tasks that a library administrator would perform when managing ebook collections. A heuristic evaluation of the administration portals was not performed. Main Results – The ProQuest and EBSCO user interfaces have similar functionality. Users can search across the platform and within an ebook, view digital rights and bibliographic information, and access the full-text of a book. However, the heuristic evaluation revealed usability issues with both platforms. On the ProQuest platform, minor issues include misleading feature availability and non-descript link labelling. On the EBSCO platform, there are several issues with varying severity ratings. The most critical issue is that there is no warning that content saved to folders will be lost unless the user is signed into the platform. The moderate issues include a lack of autocorrection or spelling alternatives when searching, hyperlinks that blend into regular text, and a cluttered results page. Minor issues include inconsistent font hierarchies and different full-text access pathways depending on whether ebooks are available or unavailable to access. In the administration portal comparison, the two platforms are comparable for managing ebook download periods. When generating reports and configuring alerts, the ProQuest platform offers more customization options than the EBSCO platform. Conclusion – This study describes the strengths and limitations of the ProQuest and EBSCO ebook platforms. Overall, the ProQuest platform outperformed the EBSCO platform. For users, the ProQuest interface has fewer and less significant issues than the EBSCO interface. For library administrators, ProQuest offers more options for customizing reports and alerts. The findings of this comparison study and heuristic evaluation may help librarians and library staff choose the most suitable ebook platform for library users and administrators.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,020 | 0,042 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».