عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]چکیده [English]
The aim of this research was to study the extent to which university students at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad (FUM) and Shiraz University (SU) were able to understand the vocabulary in the user interface of two Iranian OPACs namely Simorgh (SIM) and Pars Azarakhsh (PAZ). For the first phase, data were gathered through a questionnaire distributed among 380 students. In the second phase, and to acquire some qualitative information, an interview was administered with 30 Masters students in a real searching situation. Findings showed that the understandability rate of interface vocabulary in the subjective method was %35.1 for the SIM OPAC and %33.9 for the PAZ one. No significant difference was observed in the understandability of interface vocabulary among students of different grads. The understandability rate of vocabulary used in the SIM OPAC interface (in the objective way) did not show any significant difference with the same rate in the PAZ OPAC interface. However, there was a significant difference between SIM and PAZ with respect to the vocabulary understandability in the subjective method. Students believed that short phrases in the interface were easier to understand. The influence of users’ experience with SIM and PAZ OPACs on their understanding of the interface vocabulary in the two methods (objective and subjective) did not show any significant difference among students of different grads. The influence of students’ area of study on vocabulary understandability showed a significant difference among the three areas in Ferdowsi University (SIM OPAC), but in the subjective method, the difference was not significant. In Shiraz University, the results acquired through the two methods were vice versa. Findings, from the interview session, showed that the accuracy rate of anticipation about the function of various pages of the SIM OPAC was different from one page to another. %57 of students were satisfied, %25 were somewhat satisfied, and %18 were not satisfied with the interface vocabulary. %25 of the respondents preferred the use of general vocabulary, %20.8 the use of simple, comprehensible vocabulary, and %12.5 the use of explanation about the vocabulary.
Keywords: User interface, Interface vocabulary, OPACs, Simorgh software, Pars Azarkhsh software, Library softwares