Usability evaluation of academic library websites: a systematic literature review
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to systematically review the published literature on the topic of academic library website usability evaluation. It determines the most significant subattributes in the usability evaluation of academic library websites. The study also looks at the metrics that have been used to evaluate the usability of academic library websites. Then, it identifies the most significant usability evaluation method (UEM) that has been discussed in the literature. Lastly, it identifies the research gaps in the literature regarding the proposed approaches to usability evaluation of academic library websites. Design/methodology/approach: In this systematic literature review (SLR), the research conducted in the area of usability evaluation of academic library websites from 1995 to 2023 was reviewed. Findings: The results of this study disclose that “effectiveness” is the most significant usability subattribute in the context of usability evaluation of academic library websites. Furthermore, “user testing” is the most significant UEM that has been applied in most of the primary studies. Some of the metrics used for the measurement of effectiveness were user preference, error rate and number of correct answers. Similarly, some of the metrics used, for efficiency, were response time, click count, time on task, logical information architecture and efficient information retrieval and so on. The common research gap in the reviewed literature is a lack of a generalized framework applicable to any academic library website for its usability evaluation. Practical implications: This study is useful for library website developers to better understand the required features of a library website. Originality/value: This is the first SLR on the topic of academic libraries’ website usability evaluation.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Accessibility is not an inherent capability of current LLMs but a specialized constraint that is frequently overridden by training biases toward common, and often inaccessible, web design patterns.
“This finding aligns with recent evidence that accessibility is not an inherent capability of current LLMs but a specialized constraint that is frequently overridden by training biases toward common, and often inaccessible, web design patterns [43, 51, 58].”
From A Multi-Agent Framework for Accessible Web Code Generation (2026) · cites this paper as [43]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 38 · Cited by 8
- Authors
- Jilani, M. A., Sheikh, A., Shah, F. A., & Saqlain, S. M.
- Affiliations
- International Islamic University, Islamabad (PK)
- COMSATS University Islamabad (PK)
- University of Tartu (EE)
- Corresponding author
- Sheikh, Arslan
- Venue
- Information Discovery and Delivery
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2025-01-13
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 50-70
- ISSN
- 2398-6247 (ISSN-L)
- 2398-6255
- OpenAlex
- W4406228776
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 3
- FWCI
- 1.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Information Discovery and Delivery (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web and Library Services
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Architecture and Usability
- Keywords
- usability evaluation, university library websites, usability metrics, user testing, effectiveness, efficiency, information architecture, library website development, research gaps
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review