Review and comparison of User Interface Characteristics of (Springer, Elsevier, Ebsco, ISI(WOS) and Ovid) as Perceived by University of Tehran Users

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Fatima Fahimnia 1
Parvin Goodarzian 2
1 Associate Professor, Faculty of Knowledge and Information Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 MA of Knowledge and Information Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Background and Aim: The present investigation intends to compare and review various user interfaces from user standpoint and to ascertain its linkage with user satisfaction.

Method: The research incorporated a descriptive survey of University of Tehran graduate student body. Using a targeted sampling, graduate students from the faculties of chemistry and Biology were selected. The instruments used were: A researcher-constructed questionnaire based on Nielsen’s 10 component model; and QUIS user satisfaction questionnaire. Each database UI were evaluated based on five indicators of general features, search features, retrieval features, display features and user-friendliness.

Results: Findings indicated that with an average of 3.88 the Elsevier database had the highest score. Users surveyed believed that the quality of user interface was in better shape than other UI. One should note that this advantage is not indicative of overall database quality and the relatively better interaction on the part of users could be ascribed to their familiarity with the said database and its resource location process.

Conclusion: The main purpose of designing and developing a database is to accruing user satisfaction in search and retrieval process. Hence User satisfaction directly connected to user interface
Keywords
User interface
ISI (WOS)
Springer
Elsevier
EBSCO
Ovid
University of Tehran
Crastini, Fabio; et al. (1991). "A Graphical User Interface for the Retrieval of Hierarchically Structured Documents"; Information Processing & Management, Vol. 40( 2). 269-289.
Ladner, B; and Tierney, B. (2004). "Cinhal on the web: Ebsco, Ovid and Silver Platter". Charleston Advisor. 3(4): 5-11
Nielson, Jakob. (2005)."Ten usability Heuristic". Available at http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic-list.html
Neilsen, Jakob. (1994). How to conduct a heuristic evaluation-[online]. Available at:http://useit.com/papers/ heuristic/heuristic-evaluation.html
Othman, R; and NorSahlawaty H. (2004). "Retrieval Features for online Data bases: Common, Unique and expected". Online Information Review. 28(3): 200-210.
Shneiderman, Ben. (1992). Designing the User Interface: Strategies for effective human – computer interaction. UK: working ham
Ibid. (1998). Designing the user interface. Maryland: University of Maryland Stewart, Ron; Narendra, Vivek and Schemtzek, Axel.(2004). “Accessibility and Usability of Online Library Databases”.Library Hi Tech, 23(2):265286.
Yashiana, m; Abdul R; widya, w. (2007). OPAC "Heuristic evaluation of interface Usability for a web-based". OPAC Library Hi tech, Vol. 25, No.4:538-549 Available at www.emeraldinsight.com /0737-8831html.
Yu, L.C; Lin, I.Y. (2002). What should we consider for user interface design? [on-line]. Available http://sign/interface/vesource.html
Human and Information Interaction
Volume 1, Issue 1
Spring 2014
Pages 68-76