1. Introduction
2. Prototype
3. Method
4. Test measures
5. Results
6. Discussion
7. Appendices

1. Introduction
The Names Access Project is a searchable resource designed to help trace the individual histories of Holocaust Survivors and Victims, including information from French deportation lists, Auschwitz registration forms, Lodz resident lists, and the Registry of Holocaust Survivors. Search tools are provided to help users formulate and expand their queries, while browse tools facilitate exploration. Users interested in learning about other users' search experiences may view detailed accounts submitted to the Museum. Scanned images of the original documents, information on the project and its resources, and links to related resources are also included.

In an effort to get user feedback and identify system problems before full-scale implementation, a lo-fi test was conducted with four potential users. Participants were given a set of predefined queries to observe their interactions with specific system tools and layouts. Although their search experience will be much different with a fully functioning system, the test was helpful in identifying problems and eliciting suggestions for improvement. Further tests will clearly be needed before the system is made publicly available, however, these tests provided valuable feedback that will help improve the system and save time in the overall development process.

2. Prototype
The lo-fi prototype included a menu, a start page, an advanced search form, two different search outputs and browse interfaces, two index cards with search criteria, and an error page. In an effort to simulate a Web-based interface, the prototype used underlined text for hyperlinks, rounded rectangular shapes for buttons, small squares for check-boxes, and arrows to simulate scrolling. Participants could use all of these widgets with their fingers, for example, they could tap on the hyperlink to bring up the next page and press on the arrow to scroll up or down. Other symbols were used, such as squiggly lines instead of text, to represent incomplete or unavailable information. Entry fields were covered in strips of Post-it paper, allowing users to write their queries in the fields and making it easier to reuse the prototype for future tests (see Advanced Search).

The start page (see Start Page) included links to all of the system features, however, only two of the core search tools, Advanced Search and Browse Surnames, were active. Since the browse tools have essentially the same functionality and similar content, we assumed that common problems could be detected through tests with Browse Surnames. The About and Help pages will contain static text and images, however, the prototype simply linked to a document with the text, "Sorry, that service is not available at this time. Please return to Names Access Project." Similarly, links were provided to sections of the Museum home page, however, the same message was displayed instead of the complete pages. As the detailed accounts of user search experiences have not been compiled yet, the prototype includes placeholders.

The first task provided a browse tool that displayed ranges of names, such as Altman - Baum, in a two-column, alphabetical format (see Browse 1). Once the user browsed to the correct name, clicking on the name brought up any records containing that name. These records were displayed in a four-column table, with the name linked to the individual record, and the resource name linked to information about the resource . The individual record contained more detailed information about the person, and some had additional links to other family members. The second task provided browse tools and search output in a frames format composed of three separate elements: a menu, an index, and a window to display parts of the hierarchy or an individual record. To browse, for example, users could click on the range A - B in the index to display names that begin with A and B in the window . Similarly, for search results, users could click on an individual name in the index to view the corresponding record in the window (see Search Results 2).

3. Method
3.1 Participants
Four participants were selected for the test, including a Holocaust educator, a writer, a social worker, and a graduate student. Because the educator has extensive experience helping K-12 teachers introduce Holocaust studies into their classrooms, she understands which topics and tools are appropriate for each grade level. Although the writer does not have a direct connection to the Holocaust, she is well educated about the subject, and sensitive to the privacy issues surrounding public access to personal information. The social worker deals primarily with Holocaust survivors and is also a survivor, thus she understands the needs of survivors from both a personal and professional perspective. The graduate student is majoring in information technology, specializing in information retrieval. The writer and the graduate student use a computer and the Internet on a daily basis. The social worker uses both about once a week, whereas the educator uses them only once a month or less. Similarly, the writer and graduate student have experience with a wide-range of search tools, while the other participants had limited experience with search tools of any kind. In terms of demographics, all of the participants were women and their approximate ages are 26, 27, 35, and 60.

3.2 Scenarios
Participants were asked to perform two tasks based on different survivor profiles. For the first task, they were presented with a fictional individual's first name, last name, place of birth, and date of birth, and asked to find information about their history. The goal of this task was to help the user become comfortable with the system, and see whether they chose to browse or search for the information. The task is conducive to an Advanced Search, as all of the vital information is provided, therefore it would be helpful to understand why users may decide to browse. For example, post-test questions might indicate that use of the word "Advanced" turns-off new users or that some users found the search form difficult to use. The second task provided users with less concise information including the first name, last name, and year of birth. The goal behind this task was to see how users dealt with an incomplete profile, and whether or not users noticed the search options and selected Soundex. Although less crucial, we were also interested in seeing if users were comfortable entering incomplete information in the date field. In addition to learning more about users' search strategies, the tasks exposed users to different layouts and tools not yet available.

3.3. Procedure
After signing the informed consent document, participants were asked a few questions to determine their approximate level of computer, Internet, and search expertise. The benefits of lo-fi prototyping were briefly explained, as some users interpreted the use of paper as a sign of design inexperience. Users were informed about the general type and number of tasks included in the test. In addition, it was important to clarify that all of the content was fictional and some system features were not fully functioning (see Lo-fi Script). After explaining how to use the paper tools, such as hyperlinks and pull-down menus, a demo was provided and the user was given an opportunity to ask questions.

For the first task, the user was told the following, "You are looking for additional information about Dora Kahane, born in Maciejow, Poland, June 11, 1932. The spelling and facts are correct." An index card with the same information was given to the user. Once the user completed the task, they were given a short break and asked if they were comfortable continuing with the test. As mentioned above, the second task provided the user with less concise information. The last name was spoken out loud with some uncertainty, "The first name is Aron, and the last name sounds like Veissman or Weitzman, I'm not sure. He was born in France in 1922." The first name, birthplace, and birth year was provided on an index card. After completing each task, if the user selected one tool and not the other, the selected tool was "deactivated" and they were asked to perform the task again using the other tool. For example, most of the participants selected Browse Surnames for the first task. Once they completed the task, they were asked to try the task again using the Advanced Search tool. After the tasks were complete, users were asked a few questions about the system tools and layouts (see Post-task Questions).

4. Test measures

• How did they initiate their searches? Knowing whether users felt the need to visit the help page before beginning their search might indicate that the features seem overwhelming at first sight, and perhaps some tools need to be simplified.
• When did the user choose the browse and search options? The first task could be completed within a short period of time using "Advanced Search". If users took a different approach, maybe the introduction should suggest when to use the different search tools.
• When did they try to use Quick instead of the Advanced search? Observing whether or not users tried the Quick search at first might provide some insight into their search strategies, and indicate if the Advanced search option should be made more obvious.
• Did they use the available tools and options to refine their search? In the second task, users were expected to take advantage of the Soundex tool. If the functionality was not clear, perhaps the explanatory text or tool location should be changed.
• What was their general comfort level while working with the different UIs? Based on users' facial expressions and comments, their comfort level with the system could be assessed.

5. Results
When presented with the first task, all of the participants were immediately drawn to the Search Surname field. After explaining that this feature was not currently available, participants were asked to make another selection. Instead of selecting Advanced Search, all of the participants went to Browse Surnames. None of the participants seemed to have trouble navigating the hierarchy, however, all of them were confused when they reached the desired record and clicked on "Auschwitz records". One of the participants expected more Auschwitz records and another thought it might lead to a different Auschwitz collection. The link was actually meant to provide users with sample documents and background information on the Auschwitz resource, the database from which the current record was retrieved. Similarly, one of the participants clicked on the inactive feature labeled "About Project Resources", which will contain background information and sample documents for all of the databases in the system. When asked to speculate about the contents, she thought it contained information about financial resources.

Since all of the participants used Advanced Search for part two of the first task, they realized almost immediately that Advanced Search would be most effective for the second task. All of the participants found some aspect of the Advanced Search form confusing. One participant said she didn't understand what "Sort" and "Number of records" meant in "Additional options". Another participant was not clear about the "Resources" option. What all of the participants had in common was not knowing exactly when to use the different "Search options." Instructions were provided at the top of the page, but most participants skipped over them and went straight to the entry fields. Even after a brief explanation was provided to supplement the existing instructions, most of the participants were still not sure which option was appropriate. The "Search across range of dates" feature also created some confusion. The first option, "Search one date", was meant for a single year, while the range option was meant for more than one year. Instead, all of the participants used the range option to search from the beginning to the end of the same year.

After participants completed both of the tasks, we asked them about their experience with the system, and gave them an opportunity to offer general feedback (see Post-task Q&A Results). In terms of the different browse tools, one of the participants preferred the two-column format because it seemed more straightforward, whereas the other participants preferred the frames layout since they didn't have to jump back and forth to work their way through the hierarchy. When asked about the search outputs, two participants preferred the tabular format but for different reasons. One participant thought it was more straightforward and the other thought the type of information would be helpful in narrowing down her search. The tabular layout included the name, birthplace, birth date, and source, while the frames layout only included name and birthplace. The other participants liked the frames layout since it allowed them to see the contents of the record and still maintain a view of the search results. One participant suggested that we change the index to the results to include the birth date, as many people from the same town could have the same name. This participant also strongly suggested that we include the ability to contact survivors found in the database, either through the Museum Survivor Registry or perhaps posting contact information with the survivor's permission.

6. Discussion
The apparent cause of many of the problems identified in the tests was insufficient explanatory text, such as when and how to use different search options, and poor descriptive names, for example, "Project Resources". Although we tried to anticipate which areas might confuse users, a number of features were overlooked that seemed relatively straightforward from our perspective. At the same time, had we prepared more detailed explanations, it is not clear that participants would have read them from start to finish. In the next iteration, we hope to spend additional time trying to achieve this delicate balance of providing instructive cues through the interface and including enough explanatory text to satisfy both casual and advanced users. Based on the lo-fi test results, several aspects of the interface will be explored for the next iteration including:

Start Page

• Balance the emphasis on "Search by Surname" and Advanced Search.
• Provide more intuitive tool names or icons and/or provide descriptive text.
• Include ability to contact survivors while maintaining privacy.
• Consider including a space to post requests for search help.

• Improve the layout and content of the introductory text.
• Restructure the date search fields and clarify the corresponding text.
• Find a more appropriate method to "Select Resources".
• Separate the Enter button from the Soundex instructions.

• Decide whether to provide two alternative browse and search layouts.
• Explain what type of information is contained in individual records.
• Improve the display of source information.
• Include birth date in index to search results (frame layout).

7. Appendices
See Lo-fi Script, Post-task Questions and Results, and Log of critical incidents.