바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.24 No.3
Citation Share

A Study on Usability Evaluation of Reference Resources Management Tools

Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management / Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, (P)1013-0799; (E)2586-2073
2007, v.24 no.3, pp.219-244
https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2007.24.3.219


& (2007). A Study on Usability Evaluation of Reference Resources Management Tools. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 24(3), 219-244, https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2007.24.3.219
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

Reference resources management tools can be divided into three types: Desktop-based, Web-based, and Web 2.0-based. This study is intended to compare and analyze the functions provided by the three types of tools and also to compare and evaluate their usability. Each Tools were chosen to represent each type. For comparison and analysis of the functions provided by the three types of tools, we divided the process of using reference resources management tools into four steps and then compared and analyzed sub items in each step. Satisfaction, understandability, conformance and efficiency that items for comparison and evaluation of the usability were compared using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. We surveyed the participants to collect data for quantitative research; and interviewed them and analyzed the results for qualitative research. Here are the results from evaluating the usability of Tool A(Desktop-based), B(Web-based), C(Web 2.0 based). First, Tool B had the highest mean user satisfaction, followed by Tool A and Tool C. Secondly, Tool B had the lead in understandability, followed by Tool A and Tool C. Thirdly, Tool A had the highest mean conformance, followed by Tool B and Tool C. Fourth, Tool B had the highest mean efficiency, followed by Tool A and Tool C.

keywords
Reference Resource, Reference Management Tool, Usability, Usability Evaluation, Information Management, Information Sharing, 참고정보원, 참고정보원 관리도구, 사용성, 사용성 평가, 정보관리, 정보공유

Reference

1.

(2004). 청소년 대상 과학분야 메타검색시스템과 교과별 디렉토리 시스템 연구. 38(2), 189-212.

2.

(2006). 웹기반 소프트웨어 품질 평가 지침. , -.

3.

(2006). 패키지 소프트웨어 사용성 평가 지침. , -.

4.

(2006). KERIS 해외전자정보 컨소시엄 현황. , -.

5.

(2006). 이용자의 참여, 협력, 공유를 근간으로 하는 학술정보 포털서비스: Connotea, CiteULike를 중심으로. 13, 63-70.

6.

(1997). Quality in Use: Incorporating Human Factors into the Software Engineering Lifecycle. 3, 169-179.

7.

(2007). CiteULike Homepage. [online]. [cited 2007. 03. 22]. <http://www.citeulike.org>. , -.

8.

(2007). Connotea Homepage. [online]. [cited 2007. 03. 24]. <http://www.connotea.org>. , -.

9.

(2003). Bibliography Management. , -.

10.

(2006). RefWorks tutorial. , -.

11.

(2004). Bibliography Formatting Software: An Evaluation Template. , -.

12.

(2007). EndNote Homepage. [online]. [cited 2007.03. 28]. <http;//www.endnote.com>. , -.

13.

(1998). Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals(VDTs) - part 11. , -.

14.

ISO/IEC 9126. 1991. Software Product Evaluation-Quality Characteristics and Guidelines for Their Use.. , -.

15.

(2007). ProCite Homepage. [online]. [cited 2007. 03.29]. <http://www.procite.com>. , -.

16.

(2007). Reference Manager Homepage. [online]. [cited 2007. 03. 25]. <http://www.referencemanager.com>. , -.

17.

(2007). RefWorks Homepage. [online]. [cited 2007. 04. 01]. <http://www.refworks.com>. , -.

18.

(1999). Evaluation of reference management software on NT. , -.

19.

(2006). Reference Manager user's guide. , -.

20.

(2006). EndNote user's guide. , -.

21.

(1996). A Model of Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use: Development and Test. 27(4), 411-426.

Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management

e-Submission OA Policy