Critical characteristics in organizing and structuring ... - CiteSeerX

Critical characteristics in organizing and structuring information on academic Websites Salim Alkindi* and Abdelmajid Bouazza** *lecturer, Department of Library and Information Science, Sultan Qaboos University [email protected]

**Professor at University of Manouba, Tunisia appointed as Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Library and Information Science, Sultan Qaboos University [email protected]

Abstract: Examines the benefits of establishing critical characteristics for the organizing and structuring information on academic Websites. Provides examples and evidence from the literature with regard to how search and navigation systems support users’ ability to search for information, to navigate Websites and to improve Website accessibility. The importance of using and placing classification/faceted classification, controlled vocabulary, taxonomy, and thesauri on Websites is discussed. Keywords: academic Websites, navigation systems,information, classification

191

1. Introduction: Organizing information on a Website is vital to retrieve information from the Websites and the Internet so that the user can understand the information content. The techniques, skills, and methods of organizing and structuring information on Websites are discussed by a number of experts, such as designers and information professionals. Many studies have discussed the systems, methods, and tools used in organizing and structuring information on Websites. The design of a Website should consider users’ needs. A requirement for building a Website is to know the user (Kennedy, 2006). Usually Web users, including students and researchers, look for specific information and try to find this information quickly to move on to other tasks (Sandvig and Bajwa, 2004). Vassiliadis and Stimatz point out that students look for efficient sites “where they could locate information quickly without being inundated with a lot of text and confusing multiple links” Vassiliadis and Stimatz, (2002:341). The main purpose of this research is to review the most important characteristics of establishing an academic Website that add value to students and researchers and the reasons that make these characteristics important in information seeking, accessibility, and retrieval. Academic Websites are defined here as Websites for universities and academic libraries. Therefore, there are eight key questions addressed in this literature review: 1. To what extent are organization, navigation, search, and labeling systems used in organizing information on academic Websites and what is their importance for information search and retrieval? 2. Is it necessary to use and place classification/faceted classification, controlled vocabulary, taxonomy, and thesauri on the Website? 3. Is there a link between relevant and reliable quality information and effective organization and structuring of that information on an academic Website from the point of view of students and researchers? 4. Is it necessary to create and place links to search engines on academic Websites? 5. Is it necessary to establish links to cultural institutions’ Websites and information providers? 6. Is it necessary to place tools, Web-based tools, and materials on the Website for teaching and learning purposes? Should such tools exploit 192

new and advanced technologies? Should students have the ability to share and develop knowledge on an academic Website? 7. How can an academic Website effectively organize and structure information so as to cater appropriately to the diverse needs of different groups of users and different fields of study? 8. Is it necessary to consider cultural differences in organizing and structuring information on academic Websites? This article focuses on the important characteristics when establishing an academic Website that add value to students and researchers. This includes addressing the above eight research questions and the importance of these characteristics in information seeking, accessibility, and retrieval. This is followed by discussion of these characteristics with regard to academic Websites. Then, the article presents implications, identifies trends, and delineates research directions. 2. Related Literature: Several studies have discussed the evaluation and design of academic Websites, such as library and university Website. However, to the best of the two author’s knowledge, none of these studies have focused deeply on the organizing of information on academic Websites. On the other hand, there exist many studies which described usability and design of Websites in general, like business Websites. This literature review addresses eight questions in relation to the organizing and structuring of information on academic Websites. Organization and structuring information on academic Websites to improve search and retrieval: There are four systems which can be adopted in organizing and structuring information on a Website in general and on academic Websites in particular. Information architecture can be defined earlier as the structuring and organizing of information, or a group of labeling, search and navigation schemes within an information system. Organization systems: Organization systems are one of the most important systems that contribute to the organizing and structuring of information on academic

193

Websites and help in improving the performance of information retrieval and accessibility systems. Farnum states that the content of information can be organized in various ways on Websites. He suggests that the organization of content may take different forms, such as alphabetical ordering or geographic location (Farnum, 2002). It is important to decide which form should be adopted in academic Websites in order to access and retrieve information. Alphabetical ordering is easier for students and researchers because it is commonly used by many Websites. Also, students and researchers tend to use and browse dictionaries, directories that have alphabetical ordering. Morville and Rosenfeld stress that organization systems are a significant factor in determining the success of Websites and include two important components, the organization scheme and organization structure. Organization schemes are widely used by business or market Websites; however, these are not necessarily applicable to the academic context. They could be also useful for academic Websites to provide access to specific resources that require students and researchers to determine their specific names. The authors state that using a combination of organization schemes is vitally important. They state that “history books, magazine archives, diaries, and television guides tend to be organized chronologically” (Morville and Rosenfeld, 2006:60). It is clear from Morville and Rosenfeld that using chronological organization is important. It is a new opportunity for academic Websites to use this type of systems in organizing history books and magazines (Morville and Rosenfeld, 2006). Search engines like Google and subject directories like Yahoo are good examples of using organization systems on their Websites. For example, Morville and Rosenfeld find that Google and Yahoo organization schemes like Geographical help users to search by place and access information and add important characteristics to information (Morville and Rosenfeld, 2006). Yahoo users can select location or browse through the places. Google gives students and researchers better access to information (Bawden and Brophy, 2005). EBay is another example of organizing by topic and task. Based on the findings of Bawden and Brophy (2005), it can be noted that using organization systems provides Websites with high accessibility to information. Good information organization on Websites attracts more users and increases their satisfaction. If these comprehensive Websites use these systems to provide and organize information then this proves the importance of using such systems.

194

Organization structure is another essential component of organization systems. According to Farnum (2002) and Morville and Rosenfeld (2006), there are two important approaches to organization structure, a top-down approach that emphasizes designing a Website from the main gateway to secondary and descending levels and a bottom-up approach that emphasizes lower level pages that hold the actual content. Farnum adds that it is better for a Web designer to use a combination of two approaches in building information architecture on Websites (Farnum, 2002). Based on Farnum (2002) and Morville and Rosenfeld (2006), there is no doubt about the necessity of using the organization systems to organize and structure information on academic Websites to add value to the process of finding information by users. The success and failure of an academic Website in information retrieval and access can be determined by whether the Website is using such systems or not. In other words, the success of Websites is influenced by the effectiveness of their organization systems. Search systems: Many studies have shown that search systems are fundamental in supporting users to find information on a Website. Creation of search systems for a Website should consider the content of the Website, the users’ needs for that Website, the type of information needed, etc. (Rosenfeld & Morville, 1998). McGovern states that not every Website needs search systems, especially a Website that provides a reliable navigation system. However, a Website with a search system should have a good design; otherwise, it is just a waste of time (McGovern, 2002). From the above point, it is clear that the design of search systems for any Website must consider certain points and at the same time depend on the nature and design of the site. According to Robertson, the design of search systems should provide the user with an A-Z list for finding and browsing information. On academic Websites, the A-Z list should contain enough links (Robertson, 2006). Robins and Kelsey suggest in their study of the Louisiana State University library Website that the site redesign its A-Z list, which did not have enough links to be more comprehensive, led to some difficulties in finding information (Robins and Kelsey, 2002). On the other hand, Bond found out in his study of Web users' information retrieval skills that using the A-Z list or the side navigation bar option led to slow access and most frustrating experience for users because they had different ways of thinking than Web designers (Bond, 2004).

195

Hence, a good Website provides users with more than one option for searching with the help of links. Therefore, some Websites provide search boxes with keywords, author, title, subject, etc. In addition, they provide users with many links that are associated with the search topic. This view is supported by Rosenfeld and Morville, who state that the search interface design should respond to users’ needs and provide users with different modes of searching and browsing systems. They give a good example of search systems from www.Salon.com, which allows users to search by using different content components like body, title, URL, link, site name, image, text, description, keywords, and remote access to other texts (Rosenfeld and Morville, 1998). This view is also shared by Nielsen who states that Websites should establish page descriptions, keywords, and list of hits in the search result page, and the search option should be available from every single page on the Website in order to help students retrieve information. He adds that the search engine must work appropriately to retrieve information from the Website (Nielsen, 2000). All these characteristics are important to consider when organizing information on academic Websites. Farnum highlights the importance of designing search systems to retrieve information and help users (students and researchers) identify search strategy. Search systems provide students and researchers with the opportunity to save time and perform other tasks. It could help students determine the form of information they need rather than just let them at a lost in different forms (Farnum, 2002). Google provides students and researchers with options to search different forms of information, such as Microsoft Word, Microsoft PowerPoint, and PDF. Students and researchers have the opportunity to select the information content or form. Searching on Google is more flexible and it helps users correct their search (for example, spelling mistakes). It is clear that Google adopts information architecture in designing search systems, which adds value to the search page. Therefore, students and researchers, who are using Google, are already adopting its search systems and features. Milstein and Dornfest summarize Google search system features as follows: Google organizes and structures information on its Website by using different techniques to support users in finding information. Users can search by language, country and interface language. It organizes and displays results in different ways. Accordingly, it provides students with different options by searching in file format, limiting the search by date and 196

restricting the search to a single site or domain. Google specifies, when on a page, to search by keeping track of the text in the body of the page, in the title, and in the URL. Moreover, Google uses other search features like searching by title, searching by text, searching by anchors, searching within sites and domains and searching for related content (Milstein and Dornfest, 2004). Schneider, Blachman and Frederickson find the same search features for Google, adding that Google provides users with word definitions and search Google group (Schneider, Blachman and Frederickson, 2004). This search system with its features facilitates structuring and organizing information and then accessing it. Another example of using search systems is the eBay Website, which provides users with many options in searching, such as searching by category within general search tips and advanced search commands. According to Sandvig and Bajwa, Websites that do not have search engines and the option to search on their sites return poor results. They add that search engines provide users with the opportunity to go deep into the Websites and save time that could be used in navigation through a hierarchy of menus (Sandvig and Bajwa, 2004). Another important point in organizing information is that academic Websites are designed to be searchable. One important study conducted by Burke, using statistical analysis of specific criteria between library Websites and business Websites, demonstrated that library Websites are different from business Websites in four variables. Two of these variables are the ability to search Websites and the use of search boxes or links (Burke, 2005). It can be noted from this study that the search system is a necessary component in structuring information on academic Websites. Based on the views of Rosenfeld & Morville (1998), McGovern (2002), Robins and Kelsey (2002), Nielsen (2000), and Farnum (2002), one would tend to conclude that search systems are one of the necessary systems that should be considered in the design of a Website in order to provide quality services for its users. Serving students and researchers, academic Websites need search systems to make their sites more accessible and to support students and researchers in retrieving information. Navigation systems: Many studies of Website design have indicated that navigation systems take place either in design or in organizing and structuring information.

197

Navigation systems are an important component that helps students and researchers know where and what to find among available resources within an academic Website. According to Rosenfeld and Morville, the most significant issue that determines the success of a Website is the welldesigned navigation system, such as global navigation and local navigation. They add that the first step in designing a Website or in organizing information on a Website is to put information under two main categories: (1) well-defined sections and (2) mutually exclusive sections with consideration of information types and information characteristics (Rosenfeld and Morville, 1998). Navigation systems may include graphics, navigation bars, index, site maps, and tables of content. Contextual navigation is another type of navigation systems used “to suggest related topics and content in other areas of the site” (Farnum, 2002: 38). A good navigation design gives users the ability to browse the Website. Maurer states that the design of page layouts needs to consider the content of each page and how the user navigates through these pages (Maurer, 2004). This view is supported by Robertson, who adds that the page layout information must be organized in an effective way to help the user navigate within the site. The Website’s homepage should be well designed and should provide the user with context (Robertson, 2006). The Website’s homepage should include information about the site to give the user a good impression and clear understanding of the site contents. A good design of pages and layout leads to good structuring and organization of information and leads to better access to and use of information. Additionally, a good topic structure supports the user to find information easily and quickly (Maurer, 2004). All pages should include the name of the organization and “the navigation system should present the structure of information hierarchy in a clear and consistent manner and indicate the location within that hierarchy” (Rosenfeld & Morville, 1998: 51). These characteristics should be adopted on academic Websites in order to make Websites highly accessible. Well organized information on a homepage helps students and researchers retrieve information quickly. The Hierarchical navigation systems must be taken into account when designing academic Websites and organizing information on them. A number of authors agree that hierarchy is vital in designing Websites since it makes Websites highly accessible. According to Rosenfeld and Morville, the table of contents and the index provide users with better access to the 198

Website’s pages. In addition, they state that in designing a Website, the designer should use a navigation bar, such as search, contact us, news, help, etc. (Rosenfeld and Morville, 1998). It is clear that most Websites use this type of navigation systems, and this fact shows the importance of using these features when designing a Website. Coordinating structure, which is navigational structure, is used in designing and organizing Websites, including academic library Websites (Maloney and Bracke, 2004). Furthermore, if information is organized alphabetically (index), then it makes it easier for the user to look for it and better understand the site’s content. McGovern suggests that using specific colors when organizing information, such as black text on white background is very important (McGovern, 2002). Kennedy adds that choosing colors, fonts, links, text images, and frames makes the Website highly accessibly and flexible (Kennedy, 2006). In addition, the graphical design, which supports users to browse through the subject and navigation, helps them determine the page on which they are and where they can go (Tan and Wei, 2006). George states that some students face difficulties finding information and determining where to go when they are browsing Websites. For digital libraries and library Websites, the navigation systems help to build better sites and make them highly accessible (George, 2005). A study by Hughes, Mcavinia, and King on students indicate that most students like clear navigation in Websites. This supports them in browsing the site easily and quickly (Hughes, Mcavinia, and King, 2004). Navigation and search usability of Websites has positive effects by increasing students’ and researchers’ satisfaction (Nayak et al., 2006). Tarafdar and Zhana concluded that navigation was one of the critical Website characteristics in their study about successful Websites (Tarafdar and Zhana, 2005). One important point that is taken into account in the evaluation of any Website is the navigation system (Rau and Liang, 2003; Nayak et al., 2006). In fact, the use of navigation systems is a very important point in evaluating any Website (Rau and Liang 2003 and Nayak et al., 2006). Nielsen adopts navigation in the heuristic evaluation of Websites (Nielsen, 2000). The agreement of more than five authors should be considered as a strong argument that navigation systems are an essential component for the successful performance of Websites in general and for the finding of and accessing information in particular. Global navigation on an academic Website may include links to resources, which students and researchers can access from anywhere on the

199

site. Using these characteristics on academic Websites can help students and researchers navigate the site and facilitate access to information. It is important to save users’ time and increase students’ satisfaction. From previous discussions of the works of Rosenfeld and Morville (1998), Farnum (2002), Maurer (2004), Maloney and Bracke (2004), McGovern (2002), Kennedy (2006), Tan and Wei (2006), Mcavinia and King (2004), Tarafdar and Zhana (2005), Rau and Liang (2003), George (2005), and Nielsen (2000), it can be concluded that navigation systems are vital for academic Websites and designers of university Websites. Labeling systems: Labeling systems are another way of content organization and navigation. They are used as an indexing term or within navigation systems (Rosenfeld & Morville, 1998). In some Websites, labels come in textual format whereas in others they are in iconic format (Rosenfeld & Morville, 1998). There is no doubt that some Websites use labels as textual links in paragraphs, especially some news Websites (to state the old news associated with the topic) and academic Websites, which use links’ label to describe hypertext and to support users’ browsing the site. This means that the labeling system is also very useful for the organization of the content of a Website. Different types of labeling systems are used for different purposes (Rosenfeld & Morville, 1998). Farnum states that a number of successful Websites tend to use links on the homepage and links in navigation as a type of labeling systems (Farnum, 2002). Morville and Rosenfeld point out that Websites with labeling systems are effective and functional. Labeling systems help students and researchers reach information and data on the sites (Morville and Rosenfeld, 2006). Academic Websites should consider using labeling systems to facilitate access to information. A study conducted by Gullikson on the Dalhousie Website indicated that students found it difficult to navigate the Dalhousie University Website because of labeling problems and poor navigation system. By using these systems, students gain immediate access to the information they need by easily scanning the site and linking to other pages on the site. Students and researchers are able to interact and communicate with Websites and the use of Websites increases (Gullikson et al., 1999).

200

Review of four systems in relation to information retrieval: Based on the results and agreement of more than twenty authors, organizing information on Websites tends to depend on several factors. First, the navigation system should consider the design of the homepage, using links, graphical navigation bars, hierarchical navigation systems, frames, global navigation, local navigation, contextual navigation, table of content, and index. Second, designers should pay attention to the use of labeling systems as well as the use of searching systems. Third, designers should use organization systems on their sites to make them highly accessible and usable. All these systems provide Websites with usability and users with control and freedom when using Websites (Ahmed, 2008). These factors are important characteristics that should be considered in organizing and structuring information on academic Websites. When organizing and structuring information on academic Websites designers should adopt information architecture in order to make the sites more accessible and usable. In other words, the architectures make these sites accessible. If Websites are accessible, they are accordingly usable, which leads to the success of Websites in meeting users’ needs and expectations. Poor organization and structuring of information on Websites lead to poor results, poor navigation, and dissatisfaction among students and researchers. The necessity of using and placing classification/faceted classification system, controlled vocabulary, taxonomy, and thesauri on site: The next important characteristic, when establishing an academic Website which adds value to students and researchers, is using and placing classification/faceted, classification system, controlled vocabulary, taxonomy, and thesauri. These systems are extremely important in organizing and structuring information on a Website which facilitates information access and retrieval. This section is divided into three parts as indicated below: Classification schemes: Harvey and Hider identify some advantages of using classification on the Web which supports organizing and accessing information, especially information resources. These advantages are shown below: • Classification schemes are used in libraries and this makes the students and researchers familiar with them on the Web.

201

•

Classification schemes support and enhance other systems functions like navigation systems and browsing (Harvey & Hider, 2004) The main purpose of designing Websites is to offer service to people and provide them with access to content and classification system facilities. It should be noted that classification systems are widely used on Websites. Also, it can be observed that these systems support students in searching for information by expanding and browsing the site by subject, etc. Faceted classification system: Morville and Rosenfeld report that faceted classification systems are used by a number of successful Websites. Faceted classification adds value and flexibility to Websites and helps users retrieve information from those sites. Morville and Rosenfeld state that faceted classification is applied in the structuring of databases and can provide multiple paths to the same information (Morville & Rosenfeld, 2006). Academic Websites need such systems in organizing information on their sites by using multiple hierarchies. By adopting these systems, students and researchers can browse specific information through multiple paths. According to Uddin and Janecek, one key characteristic that influences the design of Websites and the process of organizing, searching, and browsing information and which provides users with efficiency is the classification structure/faceted classification. “A faceted classification structure, Uddin and Janecek add, overcomes the limitations of hierarchical classification by classifying digital documents into multiple categories organized from the bottom-up into a multidimensional taxonomy” (Uddin & Janecek, 2006:220). A study by the same authors provides a good example of faceted classification metadata search, the Epicurious Website (www.epicurious.com), which is a commercial Website. It is a popular Website for users who prefer to follow category-based hyperlinks rather than scrolling through the results of a keyword search, and it provides users with an accurate understanding of the area content even though they are unfamiliar with the Website content. Being a successful Website that attracts a large number of users, it supports the view that the use of faceted classification is important for the organizing of information on the site and it helps users to search and navigate the site without spending more time and effort (Uddin & Janecek, 2006).

202

Chung argues that Websites with many hyperlinks like Sina.com, which includes more than 700 hyperlinks, make browsing and searching more confusing (Chung, 2008). Classification structure could be useful for organizing and finding information on academic Websites. Diverse students and researchers at universities and colleges require understanding of the Website content in order to search and navigate it. One solution to support students and researchers is to establish faceted classification on academic Websites so they can be familiar with search interfaces. Building on Uddin and Janecek’s research, Milne found in his study of developing taxonomy/classification by the University of Dundee in Alberta that contextual classification enhanced information retrieval (Milne, 2007). It is significant for academic Websites to consider taxonomy and classification in designing and organizing information to facilitate information retrieval. According to Weinberg, Website users “do not know which primary category to click on when they have a specific topic in mind; however, most Website designers have agreement that they have to start with a taxonomy” (Weinberg, 2002: 17). It can be noted that some Websites start with classification systems in organizing information. Uddin and Janecek (2006), Milne (2007), and Morville and Rosenfeld (2006) agree that establishing faceted classification systems is fundamental for Websites, especially academic Websites, in order to help students and researchers access and retrieve information for educational purposes. Controlled vocabulary and thesauri: Using controlled vocabulary and thesauri has many advantages for information retrieval and important implications for Websites. Controlled vocabulary and thesauri have been used by librarians in organizing information and have made it highly accessible to users (Morville & Rosenfeld, 2006). According to Farnum, using thesauri on Websites supports users to discover the relationship between the terms and provides the synonyms. It also provides users with standardized vocabulary for information storage and retrieval systems (Farnum, 2002). Harvey and Hider found that controlled vocabularies are increasingly used on the Web to provide users with access to information resources (Harvey & Hider, 2004). On academic Websites thesauri play an essential role by providing synonyms which help students and researchers in searching for information

203

and also in looking for and retrieving information. Farnum states that it is significant to know that structured thesauri on Websites help in classifying the content so that users can access information (Farnum, 2002). Harvey and Hider add that online thesauri play an important role in accessing information, which encourages a number of Website designers to enhance thesauri on their site (Harvey & Hider, 2004). Using and placing classification system, controlled vocabulary, taxonomy, and thesauri on academic Websites is vital for students and researchers. It is one of the ways that help them retrieve information from the sites. Thus, university Websites need to use these systems in organizing information to make their sites usable and accessible. Organizing information on academic Websites and students and researchers: Serving diverse students and researchers who are looking for reliable, relevant and quality information, academic Websites are different from those that serve specific kinds of people in specific fields. Students need information for studying, achieving academic purposes and doing assignments. Researchers need information for their research and new information or knowledge. According to Bove, educational Websites should structure and organize quality content and information (Bove, 2008). On the other hand, Sandvig and Bajwa suggest that the quantity and diversity of information are two of many factors affecting information seeking on academic Websites and which then affect students and researchers when accessing information (Sandvig & Bajwa, 2004). This is because the designers of sites do not consider the quality of information that students and researchers need. It is not enough for an academic Website to simply contain information, but this information also needs to be available and to be of high quality. Viedma et al. divide quality of information into intrinsic contextual, representational and accessible information quality, adding that sites should include these kinds of information and not freedom of speech or inaccurate information (Viedma et al., 2006). Some Websites include too much information that is not suitable for users. Academic Websites should include quality information for students and researchers who are always looking for quality, not quantity. Tarafdar and Zhana suggest that one of the important characteristics described for any Website is the content, including information content, ease 204

of use of that content and the quality of the information it contains. They add that some researchers suggest that information should be relevant to the purpose of the Website (Tarafdar & Zhana, 2005). If the intent of the academic Website is to serve students and researchers, then the quality and relevance of information should be considered during the structuring and organizing of information on the Website. A good example in support of quality and relevant information is Google’s “Google Scholar”, which provides quality information to users, allowing them to retrieve information suitable to their needs. According to Bawden and Brophy, some users in a number of fields might tend to use Google Scholar and Google Print because of the high proportion of coverage and accessibility and the high information quality. It is notable that one characteristic that makes Google popular is the quality of its content (Bawden & Brophy, 2005). In a study, Hughes, Mcavinia and King address the reasons that make school students like sites and indicate that a higher percentage of students feel that way because of the functional content of Websites (Mcavinia & King, 2004). This clearly shows the essential nature of the content of Websites. Providing quality and reliable information with organization makes the sites more accessible and increases their usability. Hughes, Mcavinia and King draw a link between function, content and clear navigation when retrieving information. They state that a good Website design within the adopted information architecture should have good and quality content (Hughes, Mcavinia & King, 2004). Tan and Wei find that information quality assists the process of finding information. They add that “comprehensive content enables the subjects to construct a good description regarding the different Webpage landmarks, making each Webpage unique” (Tan & Wei, 2006:266). Zhang and Dran emphasize that the content that supports a Website, with appropriately detailed levels of information and accurate, relevant information is a useful criterion for the evaluation and design of Websites, which determines the level of users’ satisfaction (Zhang & Dran, 2000). According to Mansourian and Ford, unavailable and irrelevant information contributes to failure in the retrieval of information from the sites. They state that searchers have difficulty obtaining quality information because of that amount of unavailable or irrelevant information (Mansourian & Ford, 2007). Tombros, Ruthven, Jose, and Barry identify some of the factors that influence searchers on sites, such as the content of a page or document and the quality of the sources of the document. They state that

205

these factors contribute to failure in information searches on sites. Organizing good and quality information content is one means of providing high accessibility to Websites (Tombros, Ruthven & Jose, 2005; Barry, 1998). One can conclude from the writings of Bove (2008), Tarafdar and Zhana, (2005) Bawden and Brophy 2005, Hughes, Mcavinia and King (2004), Tan and Wei (2006), Zhang and Dran (2000) and Mansourian and Ford (2007) that a well structured and organized Website which provides reliable information will increase the proportion of information retrieval, the level of users’ satisfaction and the effectiveness of the Website. Placing links to search engines and creating new search engines: One factor leading to the success of well-known Websites like Google, Yahoo and eBay is their functional search engines and their way of establishing links to search engines. In contrast, a factor that contributes to failure in searches by users is search engine inefficiency (Mansourian & Ford, 2007). According to a study conducted by Islam and Panda, researchers at Sambalpuar University in India were dissatisfied because of the inefficiency of the search engine, which made it difficult to retrieve information from the university Website (Islam & Panda, 2007). It is known that use and efficiency of search engines is associated with the ability to retrieve information. Using and placing links to search engines is vital for information retrieval. According to Bond and Greenberg, more than 80 percent of Web users turn to a search engine when they are looking for information. They found that the users of Google achieved the quickest results and information retrieval (Bond, 2004; Greenberg, 2000). Kobayashi and Takeda found that around "85% of Web users surveyed claimed to use search engines or some kind of search tools to find specific information of interest" (Kobayashi & Takeda, 2000:145). Google provides users with the opportunity to restrict search results in approximately 117 languages, supported by translation services (Chung, 2008). By this feature, Google attracts worldwide attention. On the academic Website, the structure and organization of information should be supported by a search engine to help students and researchers in accessing information with high quality results. One study showed that most school students liked Websites with established search engines; because students could find the information they needed easily and quickly. The same study showed that the most popular search engines and Websites were 206

Google, Yahoo, Askjeeves and Lycos. It also showed that students liked Websites with function content (Hughes, Mcavinia & King, 2004). Bawden and Brophy state that Google created an efficient search engine that helps users, including students, to navigate through Websites and get relevant information. It has become an extremely powerful tool for researchers and students to learn (Bawden & Brophy, 2005). Academic Websites need to establish links to search engines like Google, and to create their own search engines to support their customers (students and researchers). Academic institutions, such as academic libraries "need to make their sites more highly visible in the cyberspace by opening them up to search engines” (JISC, 2008: 31). It is clear that linking Websites to search engines provides sites with usability and allows users to search and access information. Therefore, search engines add value to Websites. According to Sandvig and Bajwa, one advantage of a search engine is that it provides users with the ability to jump deep into a Website without the need to navigate the Website through a hierarchy of menus and it provides users with a list of results related to their query (Sandvig & Bajwa, 2004). Academic Websites need to create and establish links to search engines within the structuring and organizing of information, to make the Website more usable and accessible, to support students and researchers in finding information quickly and easily, to add value to Websites that can distinguish them from others and to increase the level of students and researchers’ satisfaction. Establishing links to cultural institution Websites and collaborating with information providers: The academic Websites identified in this literature review are university and library Websites. Cultural institutions may include libraries, archives and museums. According to Fisher et al., one characteristic of information communities or online communities is collaboration with a diverse range of information providers (Fisher, Unruh & Durrance, 2003). Academic Websites, like the online community, aim to provide users with access to other information sources through links to information providers or cultural institutions. One important study by Astroff indicated that the University of Michigan Website did not provide links to libraries. It showed that most students were looking for links to libraries, and explained why it is necessary to have links to libraries or other cultural institutions (Astroff,

207

2001). When academic institutions organize information on their sites they should link to other information providers in order to provide students with access to diverse information. If a Website is supported by a number of sponsors then the Website will add value to users by allowing them to have contact with information providers, to have access to a diversity of information, provide them with opportunities for feedback and to have access to other resources without any charge, like newsletters, magazines and other library resources. According to Last, Google has started having good relationships and agreements with five great libraries, including Oxford’s Bodleian library, as well as with publishers, and is expanding its list of library partners (Last, 2007). Caufield points out that Google has adopted many library values and this has led to Google’s success (Caufield, 2005). This highlights the importance of linking Websites to cultural institutions. If the most popular Website or search engine has tried to establish links to libraries, then that is evidence of the necessity to establish links to information providers. Academic Websites should add links on their sites to information providers so that students and researchers can have access to other libraries, museums and archives to meet their needs. The followers of Google development can observe how successful it has been in attracting users, and it can be observed that Google adds value to itself by improving its relationships, by linking its site to information providers who are the main sources of information. The link between academic Websites, online communities and Google is that they all aim to serve users (students, researchers, community members, etc.). These customers need to have opportunities to contact information providers in order to obtain information for different purposes. From previous observations and the views of Fisher et al. (2003), Last (2007) and Caufield (2005), it seems that it is necessary to establish links to search engines and to cultural institution Websites, and to collaborate with information providers in order to add value to academic Website and offer better services to students and researchers. The necessity of placing tools, exploiting advanced technologies and the ability to share and develop knowledge on the academic Website: In this section, the literature review will examine the importance of using tools and technologies and explain how they facilitate information access and retrieval. 208

Placing tools, Web-based tools, services and materials for teaching and learning: Huge search engines like Google have a tendency to establish tools on their site to make it more accessible and to help users in gathering information and exploiting useful tools for specific purposes. Websites establish tools that can add value to them and provide features for organizing and structuring information to support users in retrieving information. Google has built and created huge databases, which make information and reference material highly accessible. It provides users with different services and collections of information in a digitized and organized format. According to Mullen and Hartman, Google Scholar provides similar services as do university libraries through a database list, Google Scholar search box, advanced Scholar search, Scholar preference, and citations of particular authors’ work (Mullen & Hartman, 2006). Bawden and Brophy add that with Google Print, Google provides access to full text resources and print books and links to other books, abstracts and articles from academic publishers, professional societies, libraries and organizations (Bawden & Brophy, 2005). This view is shared by Lewinski and Mayr who state that Google offers full-text database and relevant collections (Lewinski & Mayr, 2006). Google and some academic Websites provide users with electronic search, dictionaries, directories, encyclopaedias and online catalogs. Google services and its tools support the organizing of information on its Website. These tools successfully support Google, by introducing information in a good format, and which is accessible and widely used. Hence, the popularity of Google has become obvious. In their previously mentioned study, Islam and Panda indicated that the researchers at Sambalpuar University, India, stated that the articles were provided by the university on its Web were insufficient (Islam & Panda, 2007). The results of the study tend to support the argument that academic Websites need to provide students and researchers with materials and tools to retrieve these documents. Rao found that an academic Website with "courses syllabi and excellent educational materials is likely to be well received by students" (Rao, 1998: 92). It is clear from Rao’s viewpoint that successful, accessible academic Websites need to have quality educational materials and tools.

209

If a huge Website like Google’s creates a centre of attention to different users by establishing tools, services and materials, then academic Websites need to establish tools to support students and researchers in accessing and retrieving information. According to JISC, researchers, students and scholars tend to use Google Print (Google Books), for it has tools and materials that are available to this category of users (JISC, 2008). It services students by providing them with access to books and other materials. It can, therefore, be noted that tools and materials provide unique features to a Website. Goldsborough identifies new developments in Web searching that enhance accessing and retrieving information on academic Websites, such as Answers.com, HighBeam, Refdesk and Dialog (Goldsborough, 2007). These tools can support students and researchers in gathering information. Academic institutions should establish links and add tools to their sites to increase the satisfaction of students and researchers. According to Hughes, Mcavinia and King, teachers feel that it is important to establish these features to allow students to interact with the content (Hughes, Mcavinia & King, 2004). It can be observed from Hughes, Mcavinia and King that the tools are one characteristic that can add value to academic Websites. Good examples of tools and software that can add value to Websites are those using Web 2.0 tools and free open source software, such as: § RSS (Really Simple Syndication). According to Stephens, this allows users to collect Web content from different places. In other words, it aggregates the content from multiple Web sources in one place. Students and researchers can stay up to date in areas of interest with regard to library materials and new items (Stephens, 2007) § Blogs are added by many libraries to their Websites. According to Stephens, some libraries tend to add blogs to their Web server, as blogging for a good book is the newest trend in readers' services. This helps students, teachers and researchers to use libraries for teaching and learning purposes. They can receive comments on the blog from other community groups, and build an interesting, interactive community and academic Websites (Stephens, 2007). The relationship between these advanced tools and information retrieval, information seeking and organization on academic Websites is evidenced in the high quality of the support system they provide in organizing and 210

structuring information, and in making information more accessible. As a result, students and researchers are able to find what they need. Exploit new and advanced technologies: A well-designed online community using new technology will present a rich set of features and quality information that people can share in an online community. Fisher et al. point out that the Internet provides information providers with services and facilities to share information by allowing them to find places to post information, update for the public and build links to other relevant information (Fisher, Unruh & Durrance, 2003). From the view of Fisher et al., it can be observed that Websites using new technology have more features and are better designed. If Websites do not use and exploit new and advanced technology, then they will start losing their customers. People need new services and technology to organize information to help them retrieve information easily and quickly. There are agreements on the advantages of tools and materials on Website which support in achieving better information retrieval and helping designers establish tools to organize information. Tools and technologies allow academic Websites to do things more effectively, give users more opportunities and achieve more goals. Ability to share and develop knowledge on academic Websites: Organizing and structuring information on Websites significantly help students and researchers participate and share knowledge with others. Digital repositories develop knowledge in teaching and learning which could be created on Websites. Rao suggests that this type of “development will build the capacity for innovation in teaching and improvement in learning environment for both faculty and students” (Rao, 1998: 48). Hersberger, Murray and Rioux add that information accessibility and communication are significant determinants of virtual communities or Websites. Information exchange and information sharing are important in building academic Websites to support people's needs and to enable them to access and use information (Hersberger, Murray & Rioux, 2007). Chung provides good examples of Websites like Yahoo and MSN, which provide users with services, such as email and instant messaging that help them share and exchange information (Chung, 2008). If a Website has a well-designed structure and it provides well- organized information, then students and researchers will be able to share and use

211

information. Additionally, tools help students to exchange information and share different types of knowledge by using, for example, chat, discussion groups and email. An academic Website effectively organizes and structures information to cater appropriately for the diverse needs of different groups of users and different fields of study: It is obvious to state that different users have different purposes for visiting Websites within a variety of goals, needs and predispositions. According to Tarafdar and Zhana, Websites should have diverse combinations of characteristics and properties that satisfy user needs and requirements (Tarafdar & Zhana, 2005). From this viewpoint, one should conclude that it is natural to base the design, structuring and organizing of information on Websites on users’ needs. The results of a study by Mansourian and Ford indicated that diverse users in different fields with different academic positions had different experiences and knowledge in accessing and retrieving information from the same Website (Mansourian & Ford, 2007). Academic Websites have different groups of users (for example, students with different majors and knowledge and researchers from different areas). Organizing information should be based on students’ and researchers’ needs and requirements. According to Vassiliadis and Stimatz “Web designers are not intuitively aware of the organizational culture and the specific needs of the site’s users”. They add that academic library Websites serve many diverse types of users but are required to fulfil the needs of students (Vassiliadis & Stimatz, 2002: 339). Building on the results of Vassiliadis and Stimatz’s study, it should be noted that students find it difficult to retrieve information because the designers of academic Websites ignore students’ and researchers’ needs which leads to failure in accessing information. The designers do not consider the students’ needs when organizing information on academic sites. Sandvig and Bajwa find that the diversity of the Web user population affects the site design. They add that the design of academic Websites should be based on the information users’ needs, which affect the finding of information and the Website’s effectiveness (Sandvig & Bajwa, 2004). Accordingly to this view, it seems that there are obvious links between organizing information on sites, users’ needs and information retrieval and seeking. Building on Sandvig and Bajwa’s view, the Websites that are based 212

on users’ needs will have highly accessible information. Therefore, as Nayak et al. suggest, Websites designed for older adults need to have specific attributes for retrieving health information (Nayak et al., 2006). It is clear that each Website’s design depends on the type of users and that the organizing and structuring of information should be based on the site's profile of Web users. Some academic institutions strive to have effectively organized and structured information on their sites, so they tend to rely on students’ and researchers’ needs when organizing information. This view is supported by Poock who states that students need to locate the information they desire but fail to find because Websites do not contain the sought after information. This contributes to information retrieval failure (Poock 2005). One important study conducted by Gullikson et al. indicated that the level of students’ satisfaction in accessing information on the Dalhousie University Website decreased because it did not meet their needs. The designers did not see the university programs or services in a similar way as the students did. They added that some university Websites apply user-centred methods in designing and identifying the type of information the users might seek (Gullikson et al., 1999). Additionally, “it is important for Website evaluators and designers to be aware of different roles the same factors have for different types of Websites” (Zhang & Dran, 2000: 1265). Based on Zhang and Dran’s point of view, it seems vitally important to identify the customers who will benefit from the Website. Based on the studies and views of Vassiliadis and Stimatz (2002), Sandvig and Bajwa (2004), Nayak et al., (2006), Gullikson et al. (1999) and Zhang and Dran (2000), it seems that there is a clear agreement that the effectiveness of the organizing and structuring of information on a site depends on the following factors: the profile of the users of the site, their needs, the type of Website, and the type of information published on the site. Academic Websites should effectively organize and structure information in an appropriate way to make it easily accessible to their students and researchers. The necessity of respecting cultural differences when organizing and structuring information on academic Websites: The way information is organized and structured on a Website differs from one culture to another. According to Chen, the use of the Internet in non-English speaking regions, such as Latin America and the Middle East,

213

has increased rapidly, and the cultural differences in these regions have contributed to the design and structure of their Websites. Chen states that language is one of the factors that affect Website design. Therefore, in Arabic, Chinese, and Spanish-speaking countries, people search for different things and use different search engines with different methods of page collecting, indexing, and ranking. He adds that people in Hong Kong rely on both English and Chinese when searching the Web. Chen’s study indicates that Chinese Websites use different versions of the same language because the language is used differently by people in different regions. Search engines rely on Chinese phrase lexicons to extract phrases. Spanish Web portals support Spanish-speaking regions, whereas with Arabic Web portals, the "user interface uses right-to-left text and a virtual keyboard to facilitate Arabic input" (Chen, 2008: 38). Chen adds that Arabic Web content and the characteristics of the online population affect the design and structure of Websites, with a number of Websites affected by economic and political developments in the Arab World (Chen, 2008). According to Chen, cultural differences affect interface design by focusing on users' needs and the scope and needs of the community for whom the interface is designed. The organization of the text and information also depends on the languages of countries and the customers of the Website. The use of search engines depends on the function of the Website and each Website serves different communities within different countries (Chen, 2008). Nantel and Glaser argue that, "the quality of language and its compliance with the culturally determined metaphors, attitudes, and preferences are one important factor which determines the usability of a Website." (Nantel & Glaser, 2008:114). According to Marcus and Gould, different cultures in different countries use different data when making decisions about Website design, content, and organization (Marcus & Gould, 2001). Academic Websites should provide content in a variety of languages to make their information more widely usable and accessible and encourage globalization of knowledge sharing and research. Hofstede identified five dimensions of culture and rated 50 countries on these dimensions. The five dimensions of culture are described below. Power Distance: Power distance "refers to the extent to which less powerful members expect and accept unequal power distribution within a 214

culture" (Hofstede, 1994:8). Power distance could influence Website design and the way information is structured and organized on the Website in the following ways: - Countries with high power distance are likely to have different content access than those with low power distance. - High power distance can lead to more hierarchical organization of information. - Content in countries with high power distance is more likely to highlight moral order and social roles. Individualism and Collectivism: Hofstede states that individualism "implies loose ties; everyone is expected to look after one's self or one’s immediate family but no one else" (Hofstede, 1994: 12). Collectivism, on the other hand, "implies that people are integrated from birth into strong, cohesive groups that protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty" (Hofstede, 1994:12). Whether a culture is more individual or more collective it could influence Website design and the way that information is structured and organized on Websites in the following ways: - Individualist cultures are more likely to focus on change and novelty, and use new technology when organizing and structuring information, while collectivist cultures are more focused on tradition and history. - Individualism and collectivism affect the Website designer’s objectivity or subjectivity. Individualists are motivated by a need for personal achievement while collectivists will have greater social morality and it will therefore be important to them that information is reliable and true. Content will be more or less about society vs. individuals. Gender: gender refers here to how prevalent traditionally feminine or masculine characteristics are in a society. They also refer to the extent to which a society embraces or rejects these traditional gender roles. In Website design, a culture with high masculinity may, for example, make more use of graphics, sounds, animations, and navigation systems for exploration, and will be more task-oriented, assertive, and concerned with achievement and mastery. Feminine cultures might be more inclined to emphasize "mutual cooperation, exchange and relational support (rather than mastery and winning)" (Hofstede, 1994:17). Uncertainty Avoidance: Uncertainty avoidance differs from one culture to another and it affects the rituals and values of that culture regarding punctuality, social requirements, and tolerance, etc. Cultures with high

215

uncertainty avoidance may focus, in Website design, on security features and navigation systems to prevent users from becoming lost and to reduce user’s errors. Cultures that are low in uncertainty avoidance, however, may be more likely to adopt complex structures and pay less attention to navigation systems or to careful monitoring of content. They might also offer multiple links and use color and novel ideas more boldly. Long and Short-Term Time Orientation: The time orientation of a culture measures the extent to which it looks ahead to long-term results or is impatient for immediate results. Cultures with a short-term time orientation would be liable to utilize Web design with "content focused on practice and practical value, and relationships as a source of information and credibility" (Hofstede, 1994: 22). Cultures with a long-term time orientation would be more likely to choose “content focused on truth and certainty of beliefs and rules as a source of information and credibility" (Hofstede, 1994: 22). It is clear that culture is a significant issue that should be considered during Website design so that sites are accessible and usable for the target population. This view is supported by Hall, Jong, and Steehouder who found that the cultural dimensions developed by Hofstede have a significant effect on Website usability, design, and characteristics (Hall, Jong, & Steehouder, 2004). Singh, Zhao, and Hu found that the local Websites of China, India, Japan, and the US have culturally unique styles that differ considerably from one another according to Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (Singh, Zhao, & Hu, 2005). According to Nantel and Glaser, Websites that are sensitive to cultural differences are found by users to be more accessible and usable, to offer clearer navigation, and to generally provoke more positive attitudes (Nantel & Glaser, 2008). Respect for cultural differences is important and should be considered in the organization and structuring of information on academic Websites. Students and researchers from different backgrounds and cultures need to retrieve information quickly and easily from such sites. Each Website reflects the language and cultural patterns of its own country; however, designers should consider who uses their site.

216

Conclusion This literature review addressed eight research questions with regard to the benefits of establishing critical characteristics for the organizing and structuring of information on academic Websites. It shows how these systems support users’ ability to search for information, to navigate Websites and to improve Website accessibility. Based on these results, the study recommends the following points of focus regarding Website design and user needs: • Use of the characteristics on a Website should not overlap or repeat the functions of another, as it would confuse students and researchers. • Develop classification information and base it on user needs. • Use efficient search engines or link to search engines (customization). • Avoid unnecessary links and attributes that do not add value to students and researchers. • Consider using an information architecture that facilitates information access and retrieval based on usability. • Use the A-Z list for Website with a lot of content and different users. • Use an alphabetical index and site index to facilitate information access and retrieval. • Use a site map to help users to understand the scope of the site. In terms of user focus, the study recommends the following points: • Establish links to cultural institutions and make a guide or list to inform the users and researchers about those culture institutions. • Provide link to public libraries in the country. • Ensure that all links are relevant to other pages and that they work appropriately. • Ensure that tools and technology support students and researchers in information access and retrieval. • Develop new tools and technology to support Web accessibility. • List tools and materials that will support Web accessibility. • Avoid useless information. • Provide opportunities for students and researchers to share and exchange knowledge via the tools and technologies. The academic institution should evaluate the usability of its site by considering accessibility, user satisfaction, efficiency, learnability, flexibility of use, and availability of information.

217

References: 1. Ahmed, S. (2008). A comparison of usability techniques for evaluating information retrieval system interfaces. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 9(1), 48-58. 2. Astroff, R. (2001). Searching for the library: University homepage design and missing links. Information Technology and Libraries , 20 (2), 93-99. 3. Bond, C. (2004). Web users' information retrieval methods and skills. Academic Research Library, 28 (4), 254-259. 4. Bove, A. (2008). Internet–based medical education. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine , 51(1), 61-70. 5. British Library and Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) (2008). Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future, conducted by the Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research (CIBER) at University College London . Retrieved 12 April, 2009 from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/resourcediscovery/google gen.aspx 6. Brophy, J. & Bawden, D. (2005). Is Google enough? Comparison of an Internet search engine with academic library resources. Aslib Proceedings, 57 (6), 498-512. 7. Burke, P. (2005). Library homepage design at medium-sized universities: A comparison to commercial homepages via Nielsen and Tahir. Academic Research Library, 21(3), 193-208 8. Caufield, J. (2005). Where did Google get its value. Libraries and the Academy. 5 (4), 555-571. 9. Chung, W. (2008). Web searching in a Multiannual World. Communications of the ACM, 51 (5), 32-40 10. Digital Library for Earth System Education (DLESE). Retrieved 12 April, 2009 from http://mercury.ornl.gov/metadata/esip/sgml/esipWeb/record11449.sgm 11. Farnum. C. (2002). Information architecture: Five things information managers need to know. Information Management Journal , 36 (5), 3339. 12. Fisher, K. Unruh, K. & Durrance, J. (2003). Information communities: Characteristics gleaned from studies of three online networks. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 40 (1). 218

13. George, C. (2005).Usability testing and design of a library Website: An iterative approach. Academic Research Library, 21 (3), 167 -180. 14. Goldsborough, R. (2007). New developments in Web searching. Academic Research Library. 35, (1), 50-51 15. Grefsheim, S. & Rankin, J. (2007). Information needs and information seeking in a biomedical research setting: A study of scientists and science administrators. Journal of the Medical Library Association , 95 (4), 426-234. 16. Guenther, K. (2003). Assessing Website usability. Online, 27 (2), 65-68. 17. Gullikson, S, Blades, R., Bragdon, M. & McKibbon, S. (1999). The impact of information architecture on academic Website usability. The Electronic Library, 17 (5), 293-304. 18. Hall. , M, Jong, M. & Steehouder, M. (2004). Cultural differences and usability evaluation: Individualistic and collectivistic participants compared. Academic Research Library, 51 (4), 489-503. 19. Harvey, R. & Hider, H. (2004). Organizing Knowledge in a Global Society: Principles and practice in libraries and information centres . Wagga Wagga: Charles Sturt y: centres of information studies. 20. Hersberger, J., Murray, A. &, Rioux, K. (2007). Examining information exchange and virtual communities: An emergent framework. Online Information Review, 31 (2), 135-148. 21. Hughes, J., Mcavinia, C. & King, T. (2004). What really makes students like a Website? What are the implications for designing Web-based language learning sites? ReCALL: the Journal of EUROCALL , 16 (1), 85-93. 22. Islam, A. & Panda, K. (2007). Web-based information retrieval trends of researchers: A case study of Sambalpur University (India). The Electronic Library, 25 (6), 757-765. 23. Kennedy, J. & Schauder, C. (1998). Records Management: A guide to corporate recordkeeping, 2nd ed. South Melbourne: Longman. Addison Wesley Longman Australia Pty Limited. 24. Kennedy. P. (2006).” Accessibility tips for Website construction”. Retrieved 21 September, 2007, from http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/kmc_accessibilitytips/index.html 25. Kobayashi, M. & Takeda, K. (2000). Information retrieval on the Web. ACM Computing Surveys, 32 (2), 144-173. 26. Last, J.V. (2007). Google and its enemies. The Weekly Standard, 13, (13), 16-21.

219

27. Lewandowski, D. & Mayr, P. (2006). Web. Library Hi Tech, 24, (4), 529-539. 28. Madden, A. (2000). A definition of information. Aslib Proceedings, 52 (9), 343– 349. 29. Maloney, K. & Bracke, P. (2004). Beyond information architecture: A systems integration approach to Website design. Information Technology and Libraries , 23, (4), 145-152. 30. Mansourian, Y. & Ford, N. (2007). Web searchers' attributions of success and failure: An empirical study. Journal of Documentation , 63, (5), 659-679. 31. Marcus, A & Gould, E. (2001), Cultural dimensions and global Web user-interface design: What? So what? Now what? Experience intelligent design. Retrieved 23 January, 2008 from http://www.amanda.com/resources/hfWeb2000/AMA_CultDim.pdf 32. Maurer. D. (2003). Escaping the organization chart on your intranet. 21 Retrieved September, 2007 from http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/cmb_orgchartl 33. Maurer. D. (2004). Using a straw man for page layout design. Retrieved 21 September, 2007 from http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/cmb_strawman/index.html 34. Maurer. D (2004). Why are intranets structured like the organizational chart. Retrieved September 21, 2007, from http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/cmb_orgchart/index.html 35. McGovern.G. (2002). JRR Tolkien was an information architect. Retrieved 21 September, 2007 from http://www.gerrymcgovern.com/nt/2002/nt_2002_06_03_tolkhtm 36. McGovern.G. (2006). Do you really need search on your Website. Retrieved 21 September, 2007 from http://www.gerrymcgovern.com/nt/2006/nt-2006-05-08-searchengine.htm 37. Milne, C. (2007). Taxonomy development: assessing the merits of contextual classification. Records Management Journal , 17 (1), 7-16. 38. Milstein, S. & Dornfest, R (2004). Google: the missing manual . (2 nd Ed) Sebastopol, California: O’Reilly. 39. Morville, P. & Rosenfeld, L. (2006). Information architecture for the World Wide Web. USA: United O'reilly Media..

220

40. Mullen, L. & Hartman, K (2006). Google Scholar and the library Website: The early response by ARL libraries. College & Research Libraries, 67 (2), 106-122. 41. Nakayam, T., Kato, H.& Yamane, Y. (2000). Discovering the gap between Website designers' expectations and users' behaviour. Computer Networks, 33 (1/6), 811-822. 42. Nantel, J. & Glaser., E (2008). The impact of language and culture on perceived Website usability. Journal of Engineering and Technology 25 (1/2), 112- 122. 43. Nayak, L., Priest, L., Hamilton, I. & White, A. (2006). Website design attributes for retrieving health information by older adults: An application of architectural criteria. Universal Access in the Information Society, 5 (2), 170-179. 44. Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing Web usability: Practice of simplicity . Indianapolis: New Riders. 45. Rao, .U.S. (1998). Creating a Website for teaching in the 21st century American Business Review, 16 (2), 91-96. 46. Rau, P. and Liang, S. (2003). Internationalization and localization: Evaluating and testing a Website for Asian users. Ergonomics, 46 (1/3), 255-270. 47. Robertson, J. (2006), Design intranets all the way to the bottom. Retrieved 21 September, 2007 from http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/cmb_designall/index.html 48. Robins, D. & Kelsey, S. (2002). Analysis of Web-based information architecture in a university library: Navigating for known items. Information Technology and Libraries , 21 (4), 158-169. 49. Rosenfeld, L. & Morville. P. (1998), Information Architecture for the World Wide Web. Sebastopol, California: O’Reilly: Reilly and associates. 50. Sandvig, J. & Bajwa, D. (2004). Information seeking on universities Websites: An exploratory study. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 45 (10), 13-22. 51. Schneider, Blachman, N. & Frederickson, E. (2004). How to do everything with Google. California : McGraw-Hill/Osborne. 52. Singh, N, Zhao, & Hu, X. (2005). Analyzing the cultural content of Websites: A cross-national comparison of China, India, Japan, and US. International Marketing Review, 22 (2), 129- 146.

221

53. Stephens, M. (2007). Web 2.0 and you. Academic research Library, 38, (11), 32. 54. Tan, G. & Wei, k. (2006). An empirical study of Web browsing behaviour: Towards an effective Website design. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications , 5 (4), 261-271. 55. Tarafdar, M. & Zhana, J. (2005). Analysis of critical Website characteristics: A cross-category study of successful Website. The Journal of Computer Information Systems , 46 (2), 14-24. 56. Tombros, A., Ruthven, I., Jose, J. (2005). How users assess Web pages for information seeking. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 56 (4), 327-342. 57. Uddin , M & Janecek, P. (2007). Faceted classification in Web information architecture; A framework for using semantic Web tools. The Electronic Library, 25 (2), 219-233. 58. Vassiliadis , K. & Stimatz , L. (2002). The instruction librarian’s role in the creation of a usable Website. Academic research library, 30 (4), 338-342. 59. Viedma , E. , Pasi, G. , Herrera, A. & Porcel , C. (2006) Evaluating the information quality of Websites: A methodology based on fuzzy computing with words. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 57 (4), 538-594. 60. Young, S., Holzberg, C. & Poftak, A. (2003). Website accessibility (Universal Design). Technology & Learning, 24 (3), 48-49. 61. Zhang, P. & Dran, G. (2000). Satisfiers and dissatisfies: A two-factor model for Website design and evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science , 51 (14), 1253-1268. 62. Zhang, Y. (2008). The influence of mental models on undergraduate students' searching behavior on the Web. Information Processing & Management, 44 (30), 1330 – 1345.

222