淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


下載電子全文限經由淡江IP使用) 
系統識別號 U0002-1607201311405000
中文論文名稱 學術電子書平台可用性研究:以淡江大學為例
英文論文名稱 A Usability Study of Online E-book Platforms in the Academic Library: A Case Study of Tamkang University
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 資訊與圖書館學系碩士班
系所名稱(英) Department of Information and Library Science
學年度 101
學期 2
出版年 102
研究生中文姓名 江子隆
研究生英文姓名 Tzu-Lung Chiang
學號 699000161
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
口試日期 2013-06-21
論文頁數 92頁
口試委員 指導教授-賴玲玲
委員-張玄菩
委員-林頌堅
中文關鍵字 可用性  電子書  學術電子書平台  圖示型標籤  文字型標籤  介面設計 
英文關鍵字 usability  e-books  academic e-book platforms  iconic labels  text labels  interface design 
學科別分類 學科別人文學圖書資訊學
中文摘要 本研究探討學術圖書館之電子書平台之可用性 (Usability),以淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館為例,期望藉由研究結果來探究學術電子書平台應如何滿足學術使用者的需求,以提供更適切的閱讀介面。本研究以淡江大學研究生為對象,並藉由文獻研究之熱門程度及本校之使用頻率為平台選擇依據;選擇EBSCOhost eBook Collection和SpringerLink E-Books兩學術電子書平台作為研究標的。可用性之評估標準則是取自文獻探討中所歸納之10項指標功能及Whitney Quesenbery (2003) 所提出之5Es作為基礎。透過分析深入訪談與可用性測試結果來歸納受測者使用偏好,再以網路問卷調查佐證,進而探討兩學術電子書平台之可用性以及使用者對於該類型平台之使用需求。研究最後,本文提出一套實際可行之學術電子書平台設計建議,其層面包括功能、圖示與介面設計,期望未來可供圖書館與供應商作為開發或採購之參考。
英文摘要 This research examines usability issues of e-book platforms in an academic library. Chueh-Sheng Memorial Library of Tamkang University is chosen as a testing environment of the study. By exploring and examining the usability of academic e-books platform from the user’s point of view, this study aims to provide an interface that suits the user’s liking based on the results of the study. In this research, representative graduate students with varied academic backgrounds are chosen as the testing participants; EBSCOhost eBook Collection and SpringerLink E-Books are selected based on the analysis of most-used platform in the school and the most-studied platform in the literature review. The criteria of usability evaluation are ten features summarized from the e-book related literature as well as and “5Es” that Whitney Quesenbery (2003) proposed. The researcher investigates user preferences through the usability testing and in-depth interviews; also an online survey is carried out as a method of triangulation. The results of the study reveal usability issues and user’ demands on academic e-book platform. At last, this study proposes a practical recommendation for academic e-book platform. Also, suggestions for improvements, including icons designs, layout of an interface, and a complete template of simulated platform, are provided, which the researcher hopes can be used as a reference for e-book platform designers and for library practitioners when making purchasing decisions.
論文目次 Outline
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 6
2.1. E-BOOK RELATED RESEARCH 6
2.1.1. Perceptions of the E-book 8
2.1.2. Use of the E-book 10
2.1.3. Pros and Cons of E-book/Platforms 12
2.2. HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION 15
2.2.1. Usability 19
2.2.2. Similar Research Studies 25
3. METHODOLOGY 28
3.1. PARTICIPANTS 28
3.2. PLATFORMS 30
3.3. DATA COLLECTION 32
4. RESEARCH RESULTS 37
4.1. THE ASSESSMENT OF TEN FEATURES 38
4.1.1. Necessary Features 40
4.1.2. Secondary Features 50
4.1.3. Unnecessary Feature 56
4.2. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE TWO PLATFORMS 59
4.2.1. Overall Responses to the Survey 59
4.2.2. Five Es Assessment 62
4.3. DISCUSSION 67
5. CONCLUSION 74
REFERENCE 79
Appendix 1 – Content of Questionnaires 83
Appendix 2 – The Actual Screen of Online Questionnaires 85
Appendix 3 – Consent Form 90
Appendix 4 – Success Rate and Spent Time of 10 Features 91

List of Table
Table 1 Overview of E-book Related Research 6
Table 2 Respondents Use of E-books 11
Table 3 Pros and Cons for E-book 13
Table 4 Components of E-book Platforms 15
Table 5 Content of HCI 17
Table 6 Websites and Used in Usability Testing 26
Table 7 Number of Students and Participants Decided 29
Table 8 E-book Platforms in the Literatures 31
Table 9 Usage Statistics of E-book Platforms at TKU 32
Table 10 Participants’ Demographical Information 37
Table 11 Classification and Definition of 10 Features by Importance 38
Table 12 Time Spent and Success Rate on “Page turn” 41
Table 13 Time Spent and Success Rate on “Window Resize” 43
Table 14 Time Spent and Success Rate on “Search” 45
Table 15 Time Spent and Success Rate on “Copy and Paste” 49
Table 16 Number of Participants Who Need the Secondary Features 50
Table 17 Time Spent and Success Rate on “Notes” 51
Table 18 Time Spent and Success Rate on “Translatioin” 53
Table 19 Time Spent and Success Rate on “Print” 55
Table 20 Time Spent and Success Rate on “Share” 57
Table 21 Overview Result of Usability Testing 58
Table 22 Demographics of Survey Respondents: Gender 59
Table 23 Demographics of Survey Respondents: Education Background 60
Table 24 Demographics of Survey Respondents: Field of Study 60
Table 25 Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Statistics 61
Table 26 Descriptive Statistics 61
Table 27 Overall Usability Scores with Weighted Mean 66
Table 28 Ten Features of User’s Preference on Academic E-book Platforms 75

List of Figures
Figure 1. Trends in e-book circulation at DCL 1
Figure 2. Average amount of e-books of the college library collections in Taiwan. 2
Figure 3. Reading areas versus features areas on academic e-book platforms 5
Figure 4. Two pixels dead border with red marks 16
Figure 5. Human-Computer Interaction 18
Figure 6. The TMI-2 control panel of Three Mile Island nuclear generating station 20
Figure 7. In this case, the 5Es are evenly balanced 24
Figure 8. Two websites applied with weighted 5Es 24
Figure 9. Five Es diagram for an example 25
Figure 10. Method of online respondents classification 30
Figure 11. Data collection of methods 33
Figure 12. Testing environment 35
Figure 13. Two methods to obtain the 5Es’ performance of two platforms 36
Figure 14. Feature comparisons on EB 39
Figure 15. Feature comparisons on SP 40
Figure 16. “Page turn” on EB & SP 42
Figure 17. “Window resize” on EB & SP 43
Figure 18. SP’s buttons disappeared from the screen when rolling down 44
Figure 19. The duplicated icons on both the platform and the embedded PDF screen 45
Figure 20. “Search” on EB & SP 46
Figure 21. Tooltip language switching of “search” feature on EB 46
Figure 22. Black border of reading panel with the red arrow point out 47
Figure 23. Changes in the scope of search range by different page 48
Figure 24. “Notes” on EB 52
Figure 25. “Translate” on EB 54
Figure 26. “Print” on EB & SP 55
Figure 27. “Share” on EB & SP 57
Figure 28. Percentage of users category 60
Figure 29. Mean questionnaire responses by expert user 62
Figure 30. Mean questionnaire responses by intermediate user 64
Figure 31. Mean questionnaire responses by novice user 65
Figure 32. “Page thumbnails” on other interfaces 65
Figure 33. The 5Es dimension of “e-book platforms” 66
Figure 34. An example of “icon/text pairing label” form jetBlue.com 69
Figure 35. The “icon/text integrated label” 70
Figure 36. The UI layout model of academic e-book platforms 71
Figure 37. A proposed UI template of an academic e-book platform 72
Figure 38. The new interface of SP 73
參考文獻 Albers, M. J., & Mazur, B. (2003). Content and complexity: Information design in technical communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Albers, M. J., & Still, B. (2011). Usability of complex information systems: Evaluation of user interaction. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Anuradha, K. T., & Usha, H. S. (2006). Use of e-books in an academic and research environ-ment: A case study from the Indian institute of science. Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems, 40(1), 48-62.
Bevan, N. (2001). International standards for HCI and usability. International Journal of Hu-man-Computer Studies, 55(4), 533-552.
Chin, J. P., Diehl, V. A., & Norman, K. L. (1988). Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface. In E. Soloway, D. Frye, & S. B. Sheppard (Eds.), Proceedings of the ACM CHI 88 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference (pp. 213-218). New York, NY: ACM Press.
Corley, K., & Hunsinger, S. (2012). Google chrome and the paradigm shifts in the browser market among users. Journal of Information Systems Applied Research, 5(3), 31-39.
Faulkner, L. (2003). Beyond the five-user assumption: Benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35(3), 379-383.
Gray, W. D., & Salzman, M. C. (1998). Damaged merchandise? A review of experiments that compare usability evaluation methods. Human–Computer Interaction, 13(3), 203-261.
Hawkins, D. T. (2000). Electronic Books. (cover story). Online, 24(4), 14.
Hewett, T. T., Hefley, B., Card, S., Carey, T., Gasen, J., Mantei, M., Perlman, G., Strong, G., & Verplank, W. (1992). Curricula for human-computer interaction. New York, NY: ACM Press.
International Digital Publishing Forum (2010). US trade wholesale electronic book sales. Retrieved March 6, 2012, from International Digital Publishing Forum Web site: http://idpf.org/about-us/industry-statistics
International Organization for Standardization (1998). Ergonomic requirements for office work with Visual Display Terminals (VDTs) — Part 11: Guidance on usability. Retrieved March 10, 2012, from http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=16883
Jamali, H. R., Nicholas, D., & Rowlands, I. (2009). Scholarly e-books: The views of 16,000 academics: Results from the JISC national E-book observatory. Aslib Proceedings, 61(1), 33-47.
Kumar, R. (2005). Human computer interaction. New Delhi, India: Laxmi Publications.
Letchumanan, M., & Rohani, A. T. (2011). E-book utilization among mathematics students of Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM). Library Hi Tech, 29(1), 109-121.
Lund, A. M. (2001). Measuring usability with the USE questionnaire. STC Usability SIG Newsletter, 8(2). Retrieved May 3, 2012, from http://www.stcsig.org/usability/newsletter/0110_measuring_with_use.html
Miller, R. (2011). Dramatic Growth. Library Journal, 136(17), 32-34.
Morville, P., & Rosenfeld, L. (2002). Information Architecture for the World Wide Web. Se-bastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
Nicholas, D., Rowlands, I., Clark, D., Huntington, P., Jamali, H. R., & Olle, C. (2008). UK scholarly e-book usage: A landmark survey. Aslib Proceedings, 60(4), 311-334.
Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Nielsen, J. (2003). Usability 101: Introduction to usability. Alertbox: Current issues in Web usability, 249. Retrieved May 8, 2012, from http://www.nngroup.com/articles/usability-101-introduction-to-usability/
Norman, D. A. (2002). The design of everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.
O’Neill, L. C. (2009). A Usability Study of E-book Platforms (Unpublished graduate dissertation). Science in Library Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC.
Peppa, V., Lysikatos, S., & Metaxas, G. (2012). Human-computer interaction and usability testing: Application adoption on B2C web sites. Global Journal of Engineering Educa-tion (GJEE), 14(1), 112-118.
Perlman, G. (1985). Electronic surveys. Behavior Research Methods, 17(2), 203-205.
Perlman, G. (2011). User interface usability evaluation with web-based questionnaires. Re-trieved May 15, 2012, from ACM SIGCHI HCI Bibliography: Human-Computer Interac-tion Resources Web site: http://hcibib.org/perlman/question.html
Quesenbery, W. (2003a, June). Dimensions of Usability: Opening the Conversation, Driving the Process. In J. Kramer & D. Wilson (Chairs), Usability Professionals’ Association (UPA) 2003 Conference. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the User Experience Professionals Association, Scottsdale, AZ.
Quesenbery, W. (2003b). The five dimensions of usability. In M. J. Albers & B. Mazur (Eds.), Content and complexity: Information design in technical communication (pp. 75-94). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Quesenbery, W. (2004). Balancing the 5Es of usability. Cutter IT Journal, 17(2), 4-11.
Rogers, Y. (2004). New theoretical approaches for human-computer interaction. Annual Re-view of Information Science and Technology, 38(1), 87-143.
Root, R. W., & Draper, S. (1983). Questionnaires as a software evaluation tool. In G. Atlanta (Eds.), Proceedings of the ACM CHI 97 Human Factors in Computing Systems Confer-ence (pp. 83-87). New York, NY: ACM Press.
Sendze, M. (2012). The e-book experiment. Public Libraries, 51(1), 34-37.
Shelburne, W. A. (2009). E-book usage in an academic library: User attitudes and behav-iors. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 33(2-3), 59-72.
Silberer, Z., & Bass, D. (2007). Battle for eBook mindshare: It’s all about the rights. Interna-tional Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) Journal, 33(1), 23-31.
Spolsky, J. (2001). User interface design for programmers. Berkeley, CA: Apress.
Tsao, S. C. (2010). The Impact of the Operation Model of Taiwan Academic E-books Consor-tium on Collection Development of University Libraries in Taiwan (Unpublished gradu-ate dissertation). National Chung-Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan.
Tucker, J. C. (2012). Ebook collection analysis: Subject and publisher trends. Collection Building, 31(2), 40-47.
U.S. President’s Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island, & Kemeny, J. G. (1979). The need for change, the legacy of TMI: report of the President’s Commission on the Ac-cident at Three Mile Island (U.S. Government Printing Office, No. 1979 0 - 303-300). Retrieved from http://www.threemileisland.org/downloads/188.pdf
Vassiliou, M., & Rowley, J. (2008). Progressing the definition of “e-book”. Library Hi Tech, 26(3), 355-368.
Zinn, S., & Langdown, N. (2011). E-book usage amongst academic librarians in South Afri-ca. South African Journal of Library & Information Science, 77(2), 104-115.
論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2013-07-25公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2013-07-25起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2281 或 來信