Bibliographic information was presented using five different prototype systems, including four different visualizations of FRBR-based bibliographic information and one more traditional bibliographic information system. This study reports user performance and perceptions using the same tasks across the different visualizations. Users include undergraduate students of a large university in the USA. The study’s methodology is based on a continuation of a study testing the same prototype interfaces in Slovenia, with a number of modifications. The findings show visualization displays performing better on a number of measures than the traditional library catalog interface. A comparison of results highlights some of the differences in findings between the two groups of users. The paper concludes with a discussion on the implications for the design of future bibliographic information interfaces.
AalbergTMerčunTŽumerM (2017) Interactive displays for the next generation of entity-centric bibliographic models. In: Digital libraries: Data, information, and knowledge for digital lives, ICADL 2017 (eds ChoemprayongSCrestaniFCunninghamS), Bangkok, Thailand, 13–15 November 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10647, pp. 199–211. Cham: Springer.
2.
CarlyleA (2006) Understanding FRBR as a conceptual model: FRBR and the bibliographic universe. Library Resources & Technical Services50(4): 264–273.
3.
DickeyTJ (2008) FRBRization of a library catalog: Better collocation of records, leading to enhanced search, retrieval, and display. Information Technology & Libraries27(1): 23–32.
4.
FaganJC (2006) Usability testing of a large, multidisciplinary library database: Basic search and visual search. Information Technology and Libraries25(3): 140–150.
5.
FuBNoyNFStoreyMA (2013) Indented tree or graph? A usability study of ontology visualization techniques in the context of class mapping evaluation. In: The semantic web, ISWC 2013 (eds AlaniH, et al.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8218, pp. 117–134. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
6.
IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (1998) Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Record, Final Report. Munich: KG Saur
7.
KatiforiAHalatsisCLepourasG, et al. (2007) Ontology visualization methods: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys39(4): Article 10.
8.
KilnerK (2005) The AustLit Gateway and scholarly bibliography: A specialist implementation of the FRBR. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly39(3/4): 87–102.
9.
KoutsomitropoulosDAHyvönenEPapatheodorouTS (2012) Semantic web and reasoning for cultural heritage and digital libraries. Semantic Web3(1): 1.
10.
MadisonOMA (2005) The origins of the IFLA study on functional requirements for bibliographic records. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly39(3/4): 1–13.
11.
MadisonOMA (2006) Utilizing the FRBR framework in designing user-focused digital content and access systems. Library Resources & Technical Services50(1): 10–15.
12.
MerčunTSalabaAŽumerM (2016a) User testing of prototype systems in two different environments: Preliminary results. In: Digital libraries: Knowledge, information, and data in an open access society, 18th international conference on Asia-Pacific digital libraries, ICADL 2016 (eds MorishimaA, et al.), Tsukuba, Japan, 7–9 December 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10075, pp. 104–109. Cham: Springer.
13.
MerčunTŽumerMAalbergT (2016b) Presenting bibliographic families: Designing an FRBR-based prototype using information visualization. Journal of Documentation72(3): 490–526.
14.
MerčunTŽumerMAalbergT (2017) Presenting bibliographic families using information visualization: Evaluation of FRBR-based prototype and hierarchical visualizations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology68(2): 392–411.
NowellLTFranceRKHixD, et al. (1996) Visualizing search results: Some alternatives to query-document similarity. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, Zurich, Switzerland, 18–22 August 1996, pp. 67–75. New York: ACM.
17.
RivaP (2007) Introducing the functional requirements for bibliographic records and related IFLA developments. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology33(6): 7–11.
18.
SalabaAMerčunT (2017) User interactions with bibliographic information visualizations. In: Research and advanced technology for digital libraries: 21st international conference on theory and practice of digital libraries, TPDL2017, 2017 (eds KampsJ, et al.), Thessaloniki, Greece, 18–21 September 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Sciencevol. 10450, pp. 1–6. Cham: Springer.
19.
SmiragliaRP (2002) Further reflections on the nature of ‘a work’: An introduction. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly33(3/4): 1–11.
20.
SvenoniusE (2000) The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21.
TillettBB (1998) Report on the international conference on the principles and future development of AACR, held October 23–25, 1997 in Toronto, Canada. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly26(2): 31–55.
22.
YeeMM (2005) FRBRization: A method for turning online public finding lists into online public catalogs. Information Technology and Libraries24(3): 77–95.
23.
ZhangYSalabaA (2007) FRBR-based systems to effectively support user tasks and facilitate information seeking. Available at: http://frbr.slis.kent.edu (accessed 10 June 2018).
24.
ZhangYSalabaA (2009) Implementing FRBR in Libraries: Key Issues and Future Directions. New York: Neal-Schuman.
25.
ZhangYSalabaA (2012) What do users tell us about FRBR catalogs?Cataloging & Classification Quarterly50(5/7): 705–723.
26.
ZhaoSMcGuffinMJChignellMH (2005) Elastic hierarchies: Combining treemaps and node-links diagrams. In: INFOVIS ’05: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE symposium on information visualization, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 23–25 October 2005, pp. 57–64. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
