MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7126861337

Usability of the Management System of Public Libraries of Iran (SAMAN) from the perspective of Visually Impaired Users

2024· article· en· W7126861337 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Accessibility for Disabilities
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityTask (project management)Perspective (graphical)Exploratory researchFocus groupUsability labFocus (optics)Usability inspectionPluralistic walkthrough
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The purpose of this research is to assess the usability of the management system of public libraries (Saman) from the perspective of visually impaired users. Method: The research was applied a formal usability testing. The usability of the system was evaluated through exploratory observation of users with visual impairments (think-aloud protocol) by defining three real tasks. 10 users were selected by purposeful sampling method. Task completion was monitored using screen recording software. Data analysis was conducted using Excel and MAXQDA. Guba and Lincoln's criteria were employed to ensure data credibility. Results: On average, each user spent approximately 30.9 minutes locating a resource, over 11 minutes for electronic membership requests, and about 7 minutes for sending inquiries to librarians. Few users were able to navigate the system without assistance, and some users were unsuccessful in completing their tasks. Ninety percent of users rated the ease of use of the system as poor and expressed dissatisfaction with the time spent on task completion. Key usability barriers were identified across 177 codes and five categories. The most frequent barriers included accessibility of combo boxes or dropdown menus, proper design, keyboard accessibility, logical heading structure, search complexity, system messages, and conveying information with senses. Conclusions: Usability is a fundamental condition for the sustained performance of websites. Libraries and inclusive websites focus on diverse stakeholders. Engaging real end-users is a vital aspect of user-centered design, highlighting the need for continuous assessment of their expectations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.255
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it