Say No to Library Jargon (and Hello to a Controlled Vocabulary)
In 2012, John Kupersmith conducted an extensive analysis of 51 usability studies from academic libraries across the United States. The findings were startling: the average user success rate for locating a journal article was a mere 52%. This meant that about half the time, users couldn’t find the information they needed from the library website.
Changing the terminology used in links was found to be the most significant factor in improving user success rates. Using natural language and action verbs (e.g., changing “Online Resources” to “Search databases” and “Interlibrary Loans” to “Find books from another library service”) outweighed all other design considerations such as repositioning links, resizing them, or adding visual cues and images.
This got me thinking: beyond our websites, are libraries using jargon that prevents our communities from understanding, accessing, or even being aware of our services?
Inspired by a research project I participated in during my postgraduate studies, I developed a set of criteria and decided to evaluate every Victorian public library website to examine the (in)consistency of terminology used. None of the websites I evaluated met the basic criteria for essential information, and the variances between terms used to describe common services and resources were significant.
For example, 32% of public libraries in Victoria labeled their online resources as “eLibrary.” 18% labeled them as “eResources,” with the remaining libraries opting for some variation of “online/electronic resources”.
Additionally, 43% of public libraries referred to their downloadable audiobooks as “eAudiobooks”.
This lack of consistency makes it difficult for users to find what they’re looking for, and for libraries to promote their services effectively. Beyond our websites, these jargon words are found in our brochures, newsletters, posters, and are likely being spoken by customer service staff to the community.
It’s likely that library members use multiple services, and visit different library websites to find information. Are we providing the best user experience by using different terms to describe the same things?
The Solution: A Controlled Vocabulary
The Libraries Change Lives campaign has shown the power of unified messaging and the positive impact it can have on our communities. By aligning our messages, we’ve been able to advocate more effectively for the vital role libraries play in people’s lives.
In the same way, we can enhance our service delivery by standardizing the terminology used on our websites, and across our services. Imagine the benefits of having consistent, clear language across all library websites and digital platforms. This would not only make it easier for users to find the information and resources they need but also enable us to create standardized messaging and perhaps even statewide branding for certain programs.
A controlled vocabulary can help us achieve this. By adopting a set of standardized terms to describe our resources and services, we can ensure that all users, regardless of which library they visit online, will have a seamless and intuitive experience. This consistency will also strengthen our collective identity, making it easier to promote our services and advocate for the importance of libraries on a larger scale.
Disclaimer
It’s important to note that it’s been about eight years since this research was conducted. I’m currently conducting a fresh evaluation on Victoria’s public library websites and hope to share the findings in early 2025. Do you think we’ve improved since?
Update:
You can read more about my re-evaluation in the articles below.
~
Further reading
Kupersmith, J. (2012). Library terms that users understand.
Powers, B. S. (2011). Oh, What a Tangled Web We Weave! An Evaluation of Pennsylvania’s Public Library Websites for a Basic Level of Web Presence and Beyond. Current Studies in Librarianship, 31(1).
Velasquez, D. L., & Evans, N. (2018). Public library websites as electronic branches: A multi-country quantitative evaluation. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, 23(1), n1.
Velasquez, D., & Campbell-Meier, J. (2024). Library Website Evaluation: How Do Australian States Compare?. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, 1–26.
