Semiotic scale for library software interfaces: : Development and validation
Pages 704 - 716
Abstract
This study presents a significant advancement in the realm of information science by exploring and validating a semiotic scale tailored for library software interfaces. Employing a design‐based approach, the investigation identifies 14 crucial semiotic elements specific to library software interfaces, forming the cornerstone of its theoretical framework. The process of developing the semiotic scale involves creating user personas, conducting a comprehensive semiotic analysis, and engaging in productive collaboration with experts. Through meticulous evaluation and refinement, achieved by expert assessments and user testing, the scale offers actionable insights for guiding interface enhancement. The study's findings encompass a breadth of revelations, including user needs, user personas, outcomes of semiotic analysis, criteria development, and evaluation results across a diverse range of library software interfaces. Serving as a valuable tool for interface designers, the semiotic scale facilitates the alignment of design choices with user preferences and requirements. Its inherent adaptability ensures applicability across a spectrum of library software interfaces. The study's paramount contribution lies in bridging the gap between theoretical semiotics and practical design considerations. The comprehensive model offered by the development and validation of the semiotic scale empowers the evaluation of semiotic elements' impact on user perceptions and interface usability.
References
[1]
Aljohani, M., & Blustein, J. (2015). Heuristic evaluation of university institutional repositories based on dspace. In A. Marcus (Ed.), Design, user experience, and usability: Interactive experience design (Vol. 9188, pp. 119–130). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20889-3_12
[2]
Alkatheiri, M. S. (2022). Artificial intelligence assisted improved human‐computer interactions for computer systems. Computers and Electrical Engineering, 101, 107950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2022.107950
[3]
Amith, M., Manion, F., Liang, C., Harris, M., Wang, D., He, Y., & Tao, C. (2019). Architecture and usability of OntoKeeper, an ontology evaluation tool. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 19(S4), 152. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-019-0859-z
[4]
Auletta, G. (2016). From Peirce's semiotics to information‐sign‐symbol. Biosemiotics, 9(3), 451–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-016-9275-2
[5]
Bowler, L., & Large, A. (2008). Design‐based research for LIS. Library & Information Science Research, 30(1), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2007.06.007
[6]
Brier, S. (2006). The foundation of LIS in information science and semiotics. LIBREAS. Library Ideas, 4. https://libreas.eu/ausgabe4/001bri_c.htm
[7]
Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A ‘quick and dirty’ usability. Usability Evaluation in Industry, 189(3), 189–194.
[8]
Burton‐Jones, A., Storey, V. C., Sugumaran, V., & Ahluwalia, P. (2005). A semiotic metrics suite for assessing the quality of ontologies. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 55(1), 84–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2004.11.010
[9]
Carpenter, S. (2018). Ten steps in scale development and reporting: A guide for researchers. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2017.1396583
[10]
Cecil, J., Kauffman, S., Cecil‐Xavier, A., Gupta, A., McKinney, V., & Sweet‐Darter, M. (2021). Exploring human‐computer interaction (HCI) criteria in the design and assessment of next generation VR based education and training environments. 2021 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW), 524–525. https://doi.org/10.1109/VRW52623.2021.00144
[11]
Chapman, J., DeRidder, J., & Thompson, S. (2015). Developing best practices in digital library assessment: Year one update. D‐Lib Magazine, 21(11/12). https://doi.org/10.1045/november2015-chapman
[12]
Clemens, R. (2020). Intersection of information science and crisis pregnancy decision‐making. In G. M. Wrobel, E. Helder, & E. Marr (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of adoption (1st ed., pp. 62–75). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429432040-5
[13]
Cun, A., Abramovich, S., & Smith, J. M. (2019). An assessment matrix for library makerspaces. Library & Information Science Research, 41(1), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2019.02.008
[14]
De Souza, C. S., Leitão, C. F., Prates, R. O., & da Silva, E. J. (2006). The semiotic inspection method. Proceedings of VII Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/1298023.1298044
[15]
Engebretsen, M., & Kennedy, H. (2020). Data visualization in society. Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9789048543137
[16]
Gretzel, U., & Collier De Mendonça, M. (2019). Smart destination brands: Semiotic analysis of visual and verbal signs. International Journal of Tourism Cities, 5(4), 560–580. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijtc-09-2019-0159
[17]
Hair, J. F., Gabriel, M. L. D. S., Da Silva, D., & Braga Junior, S. (2019). Development and validation of attitudes measurement scales: Fundamental and practical aspects. RAUSP Management Journal, 54(4), 490–507. https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP-05-2019-0098
[18]
Hartson, H. R., Andre, T. S., & Williges, R. C. (2001). Criteria for evaluating usability evaluation methods. International Journal of Human‐Computer Interaction, 13(4), 373–410. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327590IJHC1304_03
[19]
Hee Kim, H., & Ho Kim, Y. (2008). Usability study of digital institutional repositories. The Electronic Library, 26(6), 863–881. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640470810921637
[20]
Holt, M. (2017). Semiotics and design: Towards an aesthetics of the artificial. The Design Journal, 20(Suppl 1), S332–S341. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352860
[21]
Hong, A. J., & Kim, H. J. (2018). College students' digital readiness for academic engagement (DRAE) scale: Scale development and validation. The Asia‐Pacific Education Researcher, 27(4), 303–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-018-0387-0
[22]
Hornbæk, K. (2010). Dogmas in the assessment of usability evaluation methods. Behaviour & Information Technology, 29(1), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290801939400
[23]
Ibri, I. A. (2022). Semiotics and pragmatism: Theoretical interfaces. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09625-9
[24]
International Organization for Standardization . (2010). ISO 9241‐210:2010 Ergonomics of human‐system interaction—Part 210: Human‐centred design for interactive systems. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9241:-210:ed-1:v1:en
[25]
Islam, M. N., Bouwman, H., & Islam, A. K. M. N. (2020). Evaluating web and mobile user interfaces with semiotics: An empirical study. IEEE Access, 8, 84396–84414. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2991840
[26]
Jackson, M., Crouch, S., & Baxter, R. (2011). Software evaluation: criteria‐based assessment. https://software.ac.uk/sites/default/files/SSI-SoftwareEvaluationCriteria.pdf
[27]
Joint, N. (2006). Evaluating library software and its fitness for purpose. Library Review, 55(7), 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1108/00242530610682119
[28]
Kambhampati, S., Sreedharan, S., Verma, M., Zha, Y., & Guan, L. (2022). Symbols as a lingua franca for bridging human‐ai chasm for explainable and advisable ai systems. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 36(11), 12262–12267. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v36i11.21488
[29]
Khatun, A., & Ahmed, S. M. Z. (2018). Usability testing for an open‐source integrated library system: A task‐based study of the Koha OPAC interface. The Electronic Library, 36(3), 487–503. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-03-2017-0049
[30]
Kline, J., & Barlow, D. (2006). Integrated ecommerce in the library: A software development partnership between innovative interfaces and the Westerville Public Library, Ohio. Journal of Library Administration, 44(3–4), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1300/J111v44n03_12
[31]
Körber, N., & Suleman, H. (2008). Usability of digital repository software: A study of DSpace installation and configuration. In G. Buchanan, M. Masoodian, & S. J. Cunningham (Eds.), Digital libraries: Universal and ubiquitous access to information (Vol. 5362, pp. 31–40). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89533-6_4
[32]
Laitano, M. I. (2015). Semiotics contributions to accessible interface design. Proceedings of the 12th International Web for All Conference, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1145/2745555.2746673
[33]
Liu, W., Cao, Y., & Proctor, R. W. (2021). How do app icon color and border shape influence visual search efficiency and user experience? Evidence from an eye‐tracking study. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 84, 103160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2021.103160
[34]
Mohammed, Y. B., & Karagozlu, D. (2021). A review of human‐computer interaction design approaches towards information systems development. BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 12(1), 229–250. https://doi.org/10.18662/brain/12.1/180
[35]
Nadin, M. (1988). Interface design: A semiotic paradigm. Semiotica, 69(3–4), 269–302. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1988.69.3-4.269
[36]
Nielsen, J. (1993). The usability engineering lifecycle. In Usability engineering. Academic Press.
[37]
Nielsen, J., & Landauer, T. K. (1993). A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – CHI'93, 206–213. https://doi.org/10.1145/169059.169166
[38]
Pauwels, L., & Mannay, D. (2020). The sage handbook of visual research methods. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526417015
[39]
Prates, R., de Souza, C., & Barbosa, S. (2000a). Methods & tools: A method for evaluating the communicability of user interfaces. Interactions, 7(6), 31–38.
[40]
Prates, R. O., Barbosa, S. D. J., & de Souza, C. S. (2000b). A case study for evaluating interface design through communicability. In Proceedings of the 3rd conference on designing interactive systems: Processes, practices, methods, and techniques. https://doi.org/10.1145/347642.347777
[41]
Rathee, S., Kumar, A., Kaushik, S., Kazimieras Zavadskas, E., Banaitis, A., & Garza‐Reyes, J. A. (2020). An MCDA cause‐effect factors model for the implementation of Greenstone Digital Library software. Management Decision, 58(11), 2543–2564. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-2019-1268
[42]
Sadeh, T. (2010). Open products, open interfaces, and Ex Libris open‐platform strategy. Library Review, 59(9), 677–689. https://doi.org/10.1108/00242531011087006
[43]
Sandoval, W. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Design‐based research methods for studying learning in context: Introduction. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 199–201. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3904_1
[44]
Shahbazi, M., Farajpahlou, A., Osareh, F., & Rahimi, A. (2019). Development of a scale for data quality assessment in automated library systems. Library & Information Science Research, 41(1), 78–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2019.02.005
[45]
Sousa, K., Schilling, A., & Furtado, E. (2007). Integrating usability, semiotic, and software engineering into a method for evaluating user interfaces. In A. Dasso & A. Funes (Eds.), Verification, validation and testing in software engineering (pp. 55–81). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-851-2.ch003
[46]
Stamper, R., Liu, K., Hafkamp, M., & Ades, Y. (2000). Understanding the roles of signs and norms in organizations ‐ a semiotic approach to information systems design. Behaviour & Information Technology, 19(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/014492900118768
[47]
Szalay, R. (2023). Towards strengthening software library interfaces with granular and interactive type migrations. 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE‐Companion), 230–234. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE-Companion58688.2023.00063
[48]
Tramullas, J., Sánchez‐Casabón, A.‐I., & Garrido‐Picazo, P. (2013). An evaluation based on the digital library user: An experience with greenstone software. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 73, 167–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.02.037
[49]
Weber, W. (2019). Towards a semiotics of data visualization – An inventory of graphic resources. 2019 23rd International Conference Information Visualisation (IV), 323–328. https://doi.org/10.1109/IV.2019.00061
[50]
Wells, M. J. (2015). Social semiotics as theory and practice in library and information science. Journal of Documentation, 71(4), 691–708. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-01-2014-0018
[51]
Wong, M. (2019). Multimodal communication: A social semiotic approach to text and image in print and digital media. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15428-8
[52]
Xie, I., & Matusiak, K. K. (2016). Interface design and evaluation. In Discover digital libraries (pp. 205–230). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-417112-1.00007-7
[53]
Zenker, S., Braun, E., & Gyimóthy, S. (2021). Too afraid to travel? Development of a pandemic (COVID‐19) anxiety travel scale (PATS). Tourism Management, 84, 104286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104286
[54]
Zhang, T., Maron, D. J., & Charles, C. C. (2013). Usability evaluation of a research repository and collaboration web site. Journal of Web Librarianship, 7(1), 58–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/19322909.2013.739041
Recommendations
Semiotic approaches to user interface design
CHI EA '00: CHI '00 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing SystemsHartson (1998) has pointed out that although people have studied interfaces and applied theories (mostly cognitive psychology) to them, and that the majority of the guidelines and principles applied have arisen mostly out of practice than theory. He ...
The role of semiotic engineering in software engineering
TOSE '16: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Theory-Oriented Software EngineeringSemiotic engineering is based upon the semiotic theory of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), which focuses on communication between designers and users. Semiotic engineering tries to improve users' interpretation through meta-communication and emphasizes ...
Intermediated Semiotic Inspection Method
IHC '18: Proceedings of the 17th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing SystemsSemiotic Engineering is a consolidated HCI theory that perceives an interactive system's interface as a designer-to-user communication. In this context, the relevant quality property to be considered is communicability. Currently, there are two ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
© 2024 Association for Information Science and Technology.
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
United States
Publication History
Published: 08 February 2024
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 0Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)0
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 16 Dec 2024