Testing, testing: a usability case study at University of Toronto Scarborough Library
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose With the rise of virtual library users and a steady increase in digital content, it is imperative that libraries build websites that provide seamless access to key resources and services. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach Usability testing is a valuable method for measuring user habits and expectations, as well as identifying problematic areas for improvement within a website. Findings In this paper, the authors provide an overview of user experience research carried out on the University of Toronto Scarborough Library website using a mixture of qualitative and quantitative research methods and detail insights gained from subsequent data analysis. Originality/value In particular, the authors discuss methods used for task-oriented usability testing and card sorting procedures using pages from the library website. Widely applicable results from this study include key findings and lessons learned from conducting usability testing in order to improve library websites.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it