Interaction Mapping
Heuristic Analysis
Comparative Evaluation
Survey Crafting
Usability Testing
The Archive-It website allows institutions like libraries, museums, and universities to record old iterations of webpages. This record can then be referenced for academic, creative, or legal purposes.
As part of Needs Assessment and Usability Evaluation, a graduate research course, our team partnered directly with Archive-It's professional team to audit the search, discovery, and filtering experience across their public collections. Over the course of the project we interviewed the Archive-It team, maintained ongoing communication, and presented our findings to them directly.
Interaction Mapping
We began by exploring the website and mapping the different paths users could take to find information. We focused on three common user journeys:
Finding content through a collection or collecting organization
Searching for content using keywords
Finding help resources when they were unsure how to use the platform
This process helped us identify potential points of frustration, such as pages without archived content that were not clearly labeled.
User Interviews
Although we had identified potential usability issues, we needed to hear directly from users about how they interacted with the site. We focused our research on two groups: archivists and researchers. This allowed us to understand both how curators expected users to explore their archives and how researchers actually used them.
Based on our interviews, we identified three key patterns:
1. Lack of standardized filtering
Filtering on the Internet Archive depended on custom tags and metadata created by uploaders. However, archivists rarely used metadata when organizing collections. Researchers, on the other hand, relied on metadata to determine which articles were relevant to their work.
2. Overwhelming search interface
Archivists and researchers found the initial search results overwhelming because of the volume of information and the difficulty of narrowing results. They also found the two search bars confusing because they were unsure when to use each one.
3. Unclear information pathways
Users struggled to choose between multiple ways to search and often felt unsure where to begin.
These findings helped us identify areas for improvement, but we needed additional feedback from a larger group of users to validate our observations.
User Survey
We deployed a survey to collect feedback from a larger group of users in a short period of time. Our goal was to better understand users' backgrounds, how they used the platform, and the challenges they experienced.
To recruit participants for our pilot survey, we used purposive sampling. We intentionally reached out to people with known or likely experience using Archive-It. This approach helped ensure that participants could provide informed feedback based on real interactions with the platform rather than limited exposure.
Our findings showed that many of the Archive-It users we reached did not always approach the platform with a specific goal in mind. As a result, some survey questions were difficult for them to answer. This revealed that users may interact with the platform in a more exploratory way, browsing and discovering information rather than searching for a predetermined resource.
A search based on a collection or collecting organization
A search based on keywords used in a search bar
A search oriented towards help resources.
Heuristic Evaluation
We conducted a heuristic evaluation using Nielsen's 10 Usability Heuristics. We began by reviewing key user pathways from our earlier interaction map. Each team member independently evaluated a different pathway, documenting where the interface aligned with or violated usability principles. We then grouped findings by heuristic, identified recurring issues across pathways, and assigned severity ratings from 1–4 using Nielsen's scale to prioritize the most significant problems.
The evaluation identified several usability issues:
1. Limited return-to-search controls
On captured pages, the interface provided limited ways to return to previous search results or refine a search without relying on the browser's back button.
2. No clear indication of empty or inaccessible results
Search results could include collecting organizations without publicly accessible captures, which may lead users to spend time exploring unavailable content.
3. Search help is difficult to find
The "Help with Search" guide was located at the bottom of a search tab rather than near the search controls where users would likely look for assistance.
4. Unclear error messages
Messages such as "This page cannot be displayed due to an internal error" did not explain the cause of the issue or provide guidance on what users should do next.
Comparative Evaluation
After identifying what users needed from Archive-It and where the platform created challenges, we evaluated potential solutions. We conducted a comparative analysis of Archive-It alongside both direct and indirect competitors, including the Library of Congress Web Archives, Archive.today, JSTOR, Google Scholar, GitHub, and Are.na.
Our comparison revealed three key opportunities for improvement:
1. Capture timeline navigation
Archive-It's calendar-based capture timeline made it difficult to scan available captures efficiently, especially when navigating through periods with limited activity. Competitor platforms demonstrated alternative approaches, such as collapsible year and month lists, that allowed information to be organized in a more scannable format.
2. Search and advanced search
Archive-It's search experience separated primary search and advanced search into different pathways. Compared with competitor platforms, this created a more fragmented experience and increased the complexity of finding and refining results.
3. Search guidance and help resources
Archive-It provided search guides, but these resources were not prominently integrated into the search experience. Compared with other platforms, help content was less visible at the point where users might need assistance.
Overall, we determined some central areas that needed revision.
Insights
Confusion over Multiple Search Bars
Multiple testers lost track of the advanced search bar while performing a task.
Recommendation
Remove the advanced search bar from the side tab.
Add it as a button/link beside the search bar.
Button/Link should take user to a separate page or a pop-up.
Highly Sensitive Search Function
Users during the test struggled with the highly precise wording required to find a page.
Our interviewed archivists noted there wasn't a consistent base of key words to draw from when organizing.
Recommendations:
Add search prompts while the user is typing.
Add a corrective search option post-search.
General Filter Issues
Identified problems:
Dense and unstandardized filter list
Inability to select multiple filters simultaneously
Inability to clear filters without resetting the whole search
Recommendations
Implement collapsible/accordion menus to reduce visual clutter
Standardize filter categories and labels for clarity
Allow multi-select filter functionality
Allow a clear filter option that does not reset the entire search
Confusing Terminology
Finding:
Participants were confused about the difference between the meaning of "collections" vs "collecting organizations."
Users assumed searching within a tab would limit the results to that tab's category, but it didn't.
Recommendation:
Tooltips could be used to help users learn the purpose of different tabs within the Archive-It interface.
Keep users on the active tab after searching, even with no results, to preserve context.
We presented our findings in a final report to the Archive-It team, and they agreed that our recommendations were sound.
Since then, the Internet Archive team has been working to implement our changes. At the time of writing, they have revised their interface so that when users search using a specific tab, such as a "sites" tab, they will first see the results for that tab. This will help users keep track of their place in the search progress and allow them to maintain control over their results.
