Kathryn Sullivan from the University of Manchester outlines the work they have done to their Primo environment - looking closely at customer journey testing and tracking.

1. Primo Discovery System:
New Developments with Primo
Kathryn Sullivan
Bibliographic Services Manager
(Metadata & Discovery)

2. Our Library Search journey
• impetus for change through consultation and feedback 2014 - 2016
• enhancing discovery and search: an iLibrary2 project
• interface specification
• UX testing and light usability review
• launching the new version
• UX group and future changes

5. Assessment of the Library’s interface systems
• improve the sense of unity with the rest of the Library estate
• make Library Search the key search interface for all resources
• make it a priority to bring the visual and navigational design in line with website
• make logging on easier to find and execute
• clearer navigation labels and explanation of search options
• improve connection between digital and physical
• journals AZ – give this interface less prominent positioning

7. iLibrary2 project
Enhancing discovery and search: 11 work packages
1. Assess changes made to Library Search
2. Role of metadata in Library Search
3. Presenting results in a more relevant way
4. Improving metadata in Library Search
5. Investigating the use of data collection, analysis to better understand
discovery
Other iLibrary2 projects affecting Library Search
• Exposing our content
• Personalised and interactive iLibrary

8. Qualitative analysis: what to test
• single search box
• finding physical items made easy
• finding versions of titles - button more obvious
• clear understandable access to content
• improved searching for journals
• login for more results
• access to help
• results ranking
• subject searching and advanced searching
• use of facets – intuitive navigation
• facebook and Twitter – who uses this?

9. Methodology
Subject: Library Search Interface
Focus: Proposed changes made by software developer as part of
Enhancing Search - strand of iLibrary 2 project
Volunteers: 6 people: 3 UG, 2 PG and 1 Researcher
Incentive: £15 Amazon vouchers
Attendance Rate: 5/6
Venue: Interactive Analysis and Modelling (IAM) Usability Suite
Method: Task-based Usability Testing (Plus questionnaire)
Capture methods: Video and voice recording, screen capture and eye-line
monitoring using Tobii software
Timeframe: 5 x 45 minute sessions
Legal frame: All the data was collected anonymously.
All 5 participants agreed to sign a Confidentiality form
Analysis: Qualitative (Tasks & Questionnaire), Quantitative (Questionnaire: Likert scale)
Facilitators: Ruth Burns, Marta Knight, Helen Scott.
Out of six participants that were recruited from The University of Manchester, five
completed the Library Search usability testing program: 2 UG, 2 PG and 1 Researcher

11. Changes in the new Library Search interface Principles
1 Prominent Single Search box - Improved visibility (Bento style). A
2 Use of Login - Increased visibility. B
3 Use of Library Chat. B
4
‘Show only’ facet = Available in the Library / Full Text online / Peer-reviewed Journals [Now on top of
Search results] C
5 Effective use of the Filter function / Navigation. C
6 Directional terminology – e.g. Find in Library / Find online. C
7 Presentation of e-content and e-services. B
8 Space rationalised on results screen to display more item results. D
9 Centralise View all Editions / Versions button. C
10 Personalise your results - Tailor results for your areas of interest. D
11 Use of Twitter and Facebook. B
A The visibility of the search box and the implementation of One Search
B How customers interact with e-content and e-services
C Navigation and the effective use of the filter function – intuitive design
D Improved presentation of results

12. Ranking Theme Comments
1 Terminology I don’t have any problem understanding
I thought it was very clear
I preferred the View Online/Find in Library better than just View it/ Get it
2 Layout I thought it was really organised
I liked the organisation of it
It’s quite easy to find things…the only thing I think could be improved is that there are certain functions
you want in more prominent locations
3 Navigation It’s quite easy
I think it was only a bit difficult using it 'cos it was the first time, after two or three times it would be a
breeze It’s quite simple though I struggled a bit finding the online books because there was three tabs.
=4 Single Search Box
Results
Very good
First thing I notice
Meets my expectations but sometimes results are more than I need
I thought it was really good
Most of them did [meet my expectations] the only one I didn’t think was very useful was the journal
[results]
6 Confidence I’m quite confident but there are some functions I don’t know yet
I feel like there’s still a lot of things that I’m not aware of
I’m generally quite confident…except for things I’ve never done before like reserving books
7 Speed There was a bit of a lag
I thought it was really fast especially how it adapts to your search suggestion
Sometimes it depends on the internet speed but when I do it at home its usually quite fast

15. Positive experience…..
•. ‘I think the search box is very big and very obvious…the first thing I
notice is the search box, it’s very good.’
‘.. to have even a Single search box, quite a lot of suggestions come out
of it, and the results were quite relevant, including the author in the
search as well, which is usually quite useful’.
•‘I click on ‘Available in the Library’ and in ‘Show only’. ‘..it’s good that
you have these ‘Show only: ‘Available in the library, ‘Full Text online’,
‘Peer-reviewed journals’ right at the top, so it’s easy to navigate for
such a big search theme’.
•I liked the view online view in library better than the view it/get it- that
was much clearer. It sounds like a small thing but…’
•The feature to ‘Browse shelves’ was also liked: ‘you can see these
other things on the shelves then, oh that’s actually super helpful.’
•‘I feel a bit more drawn to the books that have a cover on it, not the
ones that don’t have anything on it because… I want to see what it
looks like…’

17. Light user review process
regular light touch review process
IAM computer suite: qualitative/quantitative
trained facilitators
methodology
UXG group: usability working group
analytics and visualisations to inform change

18. ‘I did think it was really good and quite clear. It seems
to be better than what’s running now and it’s a bit
daft but it’s more aesthetically pleasing. The current
one looks a bit grim.’