In this paper, we present a preliminary study to seek to find user experience implications for encouraging collaborative research cultures in complex data-intensive research fields by placing more design focus on user experience and context of use. One hundred thirty-one participants responded to a number of self-reporting measures. We characterize current user experience in open access knowledge sharing platforms, perceived usefulness and ease of use. We then address areas to further expend in applying user experience design to support complex data-intensive domains. Finally, we discuss opportunities to enhance user experiences and address practical issues faced by UX professionals.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BullA.T.WardA.C.GoodfellowM. (2000). Search and discovery strategies for biotechnology: the paradigm shift. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 64(3), 573-606.
2.
ChilanaParmit K.WobbrockJacob O.KoAndrew J. (2010). Understanding usability practices in complex domains. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
DavisFred D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340.
5.
DubayChristopherGormanPaulHershWilliam. (2004). Applying task analysis to describe and facilitate bioinformatics tasks. Paper presented at the MEDINFO: Proceedings of the… World Conference on Medical Informatics.
6.
GobleCarole AnneRoureDavid Charles De. (2007). myExperiment: social networking for workflow-using e-scientists. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on Workflows in support of large-scale science, Monterey, California, USA.
7.
GortonIanGreenfieldPaulSzalayAlexWilliamsRoy. (2008). Data-intensive computing in the 21st century. Computer, 41(4), 30-32.
8.
KayeJaneHeeneyCatherineHawkinsNaomiDe VriesJantinaBoddingtonPaula. (2009). Data sharing in genomics—re-shaping scientific practice. Nature Reviews Genetics, 10(5), 331-335.
9.
LiJing-WoeiSchmiederRobertWardR. MatthewDelenickJoannOlivaresEric C.MittelmanDavid. (2012). SEQanswers: an open access community for collaboratively decoding genomes. Bioinformatics, 28(9), 1272-1273. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts128
10.
MirelB. (2009). Supporting cognition in systems biology analysis: findings on users’ processes and design implications. J Biomed Discov Collab, 4, 2. doi: 10.1186/1747-5333-4-2
11.
NeumannEricPrusakLarry. (2007). Knowledge networks in the age of the Semantic Web. Briefings in bioinformatics, 8(3), 141-149.
12.
PalmerJudith. (1991). Scientists and information: II. Personal factors in information behaviour. Journal of documentation, 47(3), 254-275.
13.
ParnellL. D. (2011). BioStar: An Online Question & Answer Resource for the Bioinformatics Community. PLoS computational biology, 7(10), e1002216.
14.
PreeceJennyNonneckeBlairAndrewsDorine. (2004). The top five reasons for lurking: improving community experiences for everyone. Computers in human behavior, 20(2), 201-223.
15.
ProcterRobWilliamsRobinStewartJames. (2010). If you build it, will they come?How researchers perceive and use Web2.0.
16.
ProcterRobWilliamsRobinStewartJamesPoschenMeikSneeHeleneVossAlexAsgari-TarghiMarzieh. (2010). Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 368(1926), 4039-4056.
17.
RoosD.S. (2001). Bioinformatics–trying to swim in a sea of data. Science, 291(5507), 1260-1261.
18.
WardR. MatthewSchmiederRobertHighnamGarethMittelmanDavid. (2013). Big data challenges and opportunities in high-throughput sequencing. Systems Biomedicine, 1(1), 23-28.
19.
YarfitzS. (2000). A library-based bioinformatics services program. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 88(1), 36.
