{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,2,11]],"date-time":"2026-02-11T13:28:13Z","timestamp":1770816493360,"version":"3.50.1"},"reference-count":18,"publisher":"Emerald","issue":"3","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2011,9,6]],"date-time":"2011-09-06T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1315267200000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.emerald.com\/insight\/site-policies"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2011,9,6]]},"abstract":"<jats:sec><jats:title content-type=\"abstract-heading\">Purpose<\/jats:title><jats:p>The aim of this paper is to discuss the application of a web\u2010based tool as a remote asynchronous usability testing method based on an assessment of an academic library's digital collections website.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type=\"abstract-heading\">Design\/methodology\/approach<\/jats:title><jats:p>The paper examines the selection of an asynchronous remote usability testing method, the reasons for the selection of SurveyMonkey, an evaluation of its effectiveness through an assessment of the digital collections web site, and the potential for its application in future usability studies.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type=\"abstract-heading\">Findings<\/jats:title><jats:p>SurveyMonkey can be employed as an assessment tool with advance planning by evaluators to capture the responses and opinions of users. Overall, it is a cost effective and time\u2010saving option for small assessment projects.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type=\"abstract-heading\">Research limitations\/implications<\/jats:title><jats:p>This was an informal study where a specific product, SurveyMonkey, was tested with the purpose of evaluating its effectiveness as a remote asynchronous assessment tool through its application for a specific website usability study. The assessment was not compared to other testing methods, and the tool was not evaluated through formal methods.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type=\"abstract-heading\">Practical implications<\/jats:title><jats:p>Libraries and other organizations can look to free, or low\u2010cost, web\u2010based tools as an alternative to more traditional methods, such as focus groups, when evaluating services.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type=\"abstract-heading\">Originality\/value<\/jats:title><jats:p>The paper describes the creation and implementation of a web\u2010based usability test for a library website using a specific product. It looks at the effectiveness of the assessment tool based on cost and time requirements, in addition to the benefits and disadvantages of conducting remote usability testing.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1108\/07378831111174404","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2011,9,10]],"date-time":"2011-09-10T07:32:00Z","timestamp":1315639920000},"page":"436-445","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":22,"title":["A practical application of SurveyMonkey as a remote usability\u2010testing tool"],"prefix":"10.1108","volume":"29","author":[{"given":"Emily","family":"Symonds","sequence":"first","affiliation":[]}],"member":"140","reference":[{"key":"key2022021519452109900_b13","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Andreasen, M. et al., (2007), \u201cWhat happened to remote usability testing? An empirical study of three methods\u201d, CHI 2007 Proceedings, San Jose California, 2007, ACM Press, New York, NY, pp. 1405\u201014.","DOI":"10.1145\/1240624.1240838"},{"key":"key2022021519452109900_b1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Bastien, J.M. (2010), \u201cUsability testing: a review of some methodological and technical aspects of the method\u201d, International Journal of Medical Informatics, Vol. 79, pp. 18\u201023.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ijmedinf.2008.12.004"},{"key":"key2022021519452109900_b2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Bruun, A., Gull, P., Hofmeister, L. and Stage, J. (2009), \u201cLet your users do the testing: a comparison of three remote asynchronous usability testing methods\u201d, pp. 1619\u201028, in CHI 2009 Proceedings, Boston, MA, 2009, ACM Press, New York, NY.","DOI":"10.1145\/1518701.1518948"},{"key":"key2022021519452109900_b3","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Hartson, H.R., Castillo, J.C., Kelso, J., Kamler, J. and Neale, W.C. (1996), \u201cRemote evaluation: the network as an extension of the usability laboratory\u201d, pp. 228\u201035, in CHI 96, Vancouver, British Columbia, 1996, ACM Press, New York, NY.","DOI":"10.1145\/238386.238511"},{"key":"key2022021519452109900_b4","unstructured":"King, D. (2003), \u201cThe mom\u2010and\u2010pop approach to usability studies\u201d, Computer in Libraries, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 12\u201014."},{"key":"key2022021519452109900_b6","unstructured":"Krug, S. (2010), Rocket Surgery Made Easy: The Do\u2010it\u2010yourself Guide to Finding and Fixing Usability Problems, New Riders, Berkeley, CA."},{"key":"key2022021519452109900_b7","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"McFadden, E., Hager, D.R., Elie, C.J. and Blackwell, J.M. (2002), \u201cRemote usability evaluation: overview and case studies\u201d, International Journal of Human\u2010Computer Interaction, Vol. 14 Nos 3\/4, pp. 489\u2010502.","DOI":"10.1080\/10447318.2002.9669131"},{"key":"key2022021519452109900_b9","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"McMullen, S. (2001), \u201cUsability testing in a library web site redesign project\u201d, References Service Review, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 7\u201022.","DOI":"10.1108\/00907320110366732"},{"key":"key2022021519452109900_b20","unstructured":"Norlin, E. and Winters, C. (2002), Usability Testing for Library Web Sites, American Library Association, Chicago, IL."},{"key":"key2022021519452109900_b11","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Norman, K.L. and Panizzi, E. (2006), \u201cLevels of automation and user participation in usability testing\u201d, Interacting with Computers, Vol. 18, pp. 246\u201064.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.intcom.2005.06.002"},{"key":"key2022021519452109900_b12","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Power, C., Petrie, H.L. and Mitchell, R.J. (2009), \u201cA framework for remote user evaluation of accessibility and usability of websites\u201d, in Stephanidis, C. (Ed.), Universal Access in HCI, Part I, HCII 2009, LNCS 5614, Springer\u2010Verlag, Berlin, pp. 594\u2010601.","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-642-02707-9_67"},{"key":"key2022021519452109900_b14","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Stephan, E., Cheng, D.T. and Young, L.M. (2006), \u201cA usability survey at the University of Mississippi libraries for the improvement of the library home page\u201d, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 35\u201051.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.acalib.2005.10.011"},{"key":"key2022021519452109900_b15","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Thomsett\u2010Scott, B.C. (2006), \u201cWeb site usability with remote users\u201d, Journal of Library Administration, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 517\u201047.","DOI":"10.1300\/J111v45n03_14"},{"key":"key2022021519452109900_b17","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Ward, J.L. and Hiller, S. (2005), \u201cUsability testing, interface design, and portals\u201d, Journal of Library Administration, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 155\u201071.","DOI":"10.1300\/J111v43n01_10"},{"key":"key2022021519452109900_frd5","unstructured":"Klein, L.R. (2003), \u201cThe expert user is dead\u201d, Library Journal, Vol. 128, p. 36."},{"key":"key2022021519452109900_frd8","unstructured":"McGovern, H. (2005), \u201cNot just usability testing: remembering and applying non\u2010usability testing methods for learning how web sites function\u201d, Technical Communication, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 175\u201086."},{"key":"key2022021519452109900_frd10","unstructured":"Nielsen, J. (2000), \u201cWhy you only need to test with five users\u201d, available at: www.useit.com\/alertbox\/20000319.html (accessed 7 December 2010)."},{"key":"key2022021519452109900_frd16","unstructured":"Thompson, S.M. (2003), \u201cRemote observation strategies for usability testing\u201d, Information Technology and Libraries, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 22\u201031."}],"container-title":["Library Hi Tech"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"http:\/\/www.emeraldinsight.com\/doi\/full-xml\/10.1108\/07378831111174404","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.emerald.com\/insight\/content\/doi\/10.1108\/07378831111174404\/full\/xml","content-type":"application\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.emerald.com\/insight\/content\/doi\/10.1108\/07378831111174404\/full\/html","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,7,24]],"date-time":"2025-07-24T23:33:56Z","timestamp":1753400036000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"http:\/\/www.emerald.com\/lht\/article\/29\/3\/436-445\/265041"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2011,9,6]]},"references-count":18,"journal-issue":{"issue":"3","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2011,9,6]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1108\/07378831111174404"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1108\/07378831111174404","relation":{},"ISSN":["0737-8831"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0737-8831","type":"print"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2011,9,6]]}}}