Twenty participants at NYNU were randomly selected to complete the ques-tionnaire of findability testing for the four structures. The results were shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Foundability Analysis
Structure Number ofparticipants Mean Standard
deviation Ranking of mean
Structure A 20 20.15 2.52 3
Structure B 20 18.00 3.60 4
Structure C 20 20.85 2.11 2
Structure D&E 20 22.20 3.21 1
Next, the researchers conducted analysis of variance for correlated samples by SPSS. The results of Greenhouse-Geisser and Huynh-Fdldt (Table 2) showed that there was significant divergence between the four structure (F=11.197, P=.000<0.5).
Table 2 Tests of Within-Subjects Effects
Source Type III sum
of squares df Mean
square F Sig.
Structure Sphericity 31.546 3 10.515 11.197 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 31.546 2.588 12.188 11.197 .000 Huynh-Feldt 31.546 2.652 11.897 11.197 .000 lower bound 31.546 1.000 31.546 11.197 .001 Error(Structure) Sphericity 332.454 354 .939
Greenhouse-Geisser 332.454 305.429 1.088 Huynh-Feldt 332.454 312.881 1.063 lower bound 332.454 118.000 2.817
Table 3 is the Pairwise Comparisons between the structures. The results showed that the second and the third round of the Refined-Delphi card sorting (Structure D) had the most significant effects.
Table 3 Pairwise Comparisons
Measure: MEASURE_1 Structure
(I) Structure
(J) Mean diff.
(I-J) Std.
error Sig. 95% confidence interval for diff.
L. bound u. bound
A B .387* .125 .002 .140 .633
C –.092 .132 .486 –.355 .170 D –.328* .117 .006 –.559 –.096
B A –.387* .125 .002 –.633 –.140
C –.479* .144 .001 –.763 –.195
http://joemls.tku.edu.tw
* The significance level of Mean difference is .05
Conclusion
Card sorting method is a user-centered research method that can be used to build effective website structure based on different conditions. This study used Modified-Delphi card sorting to conduct experiments and improved the card sorting method by proposing a refined version. The results of the findability tests showed that the structures from the 2nd and 3rd rounds of experiments of the Refined Modified-Delphi method indeed contributed better results than the origi-nal Modified-Delphi card sorting. The researchers conclude that users’ opinions or comments should be highly considered in the design process of the library web-site so that a user-friendly web structure can be created to enhance the efficiency of information retrieval.
ROMANIZED & TRANSLATED REFERENCES FOR ORIGINAL TEXT
丁依玲[Ding, Yi-Ling]（2007）。以卡片分類法分析大學圖書館網站架構：以國立台灣
師範大學圖書館網站為例[Using card Ssorting to analyze the information architecture of university library websites: A case study of national Taiwan normal university library website]。未出版之碩士論文[Unpublished master’s thesis]，國立台灣師範大學圖書 資訊學研究所[Graduate Institute of Library and Information Studies, National Taiwan Normal University]，台北市[Taipei]。
宋文娟[Sung, Wen-Chuan]（2001）。一種質量並重的研究法：德菲法在醫務管理學研究
領域之應用[Application of delphi method: A qualitative and quantitative analysis, to the healthcare management]。醫務管理期刊[Journal of Healthcare Management]，2（2），
11-20。
許嫚婷[Hsu, Man-Ting]（2000）。一個新課題：圖書館網站之設計[Ike hsin keti: Tushukuan wangchan chih shechi]。國立台灣師範大學圖書館通訊[National Taiwan Normal University Library Tongxun]，53，2-7。
黃俊英[Huang, Chun-Ying]（1994）。企業研究方法[Business Research Methods]。台北市：
東華[Taipei: Tunghua]。
Ahlstrom, V., & Allendoerfer, K. (2004). Information organization for a portal using a card-sorting technique. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http://hf.tc.faa.gov/technotes/dot-faa-ct-tn04-31.pdf
Boulton, M. (2007). Card sorting. Retrieved November 22, 2008, from http://v3.markboulton.
co.uk/articles/detail/card_sorting_part_1/
http://joemls.tku.edu.tw Brophy, P., & Craven, J. (2007). Web accessibility. Library Trends, 55(4), 950-973.
Capra, M. G. (2005). Factor analysis of card sort data: An alternative to hierarchical cluster analysis. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Soci-ety 49th Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, USA.
Courage, C., & Baxter, K. (2004). Understanding your users: A practical guide to user require-ments methods, tools, and techniques. San Fransisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Coxon, A. P. M. (1999). Sorting data: Collection and analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Deaton, M. (2002). Sorting techniques for user-centered information design. Retrieved Novem-ber 21, 2008, from http://www.mmdeaton.com/SortingTechniquesforInformationDesign.
Dick, D. (2007). Innovations in card sorting. Retrieved November 22, 2008, from http://www.pdf stcsig.org/usability/newsletter/0710-CardSorting.htm
Dickstein, R., & Mills, V. (2000). Usability testing at the university of arizona library: How to let users in on the design. Information Technology and Libraries, 19(3), 144-150.
Falks, A., & Hyland, N. (2000). Gaining user insight: A case study illustrating the card sort technique. College & Research Libraries, 61(4), 349-357.
Fincher, S., & Tenenberg, J. (2005). Making sense of card sorting data. Expert Systems, 22(3), 89-93.
Fox, R. (2008). Weaving the digital library web. OCLC Systems & Services, 24(1), 8-17.
Fuccella, J. (1997). Using user centered design methods to create and design usable web sites.
In ACM 15th International Conference on Systems Documentation, 69-77. Utah: Salt Lake City.
Fuccella, J., & Pizzolato, J. (1998). Creating web site designs based on user expectations and feedback. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http://internettg.org/newsletter/june98/
web_design.html
Hawley, M. (2008). Extending card-sorting techniques to inform the design of web site hi-erarchies. Retrieved November 21, 2008, from http://www.uxmatters.com/MT/ar-chives/000332.php
Hinkle, V. (2008). Card-sorting: What you need to know about analyzing and interpreting card sorting results. Retrieved November 22, 2008, from http://www.surl.org/usabili-tynews/102/cardsort.asp
Hudson, W. (2005). Playing your cards right: Getting the most from card sorting for navigation design. Interactions, 12, 56-58.
Liang, S. F. M., & Yang, C. T. (2008). Applying card sorting method to cluster products on shopping websites: A case study. In The 2nd. International Conference on Applied Hu-man Factors and Ergonomics (8 pages). The meeting was held in Las Vegas, Nevada USA. (CD-ROM).
Maiden, N. A. M., & Hare, M. (1998). Problem domain categories in requirements engineering.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 49(3), 281-304.
Martin, S., & Kidwell, D. K. (2001). A case study in cluster analysis for intranet organization.
In 2nd International Workshop on Engineering Management for Applied Technology (pp.57-64). Austin, Texas. doi: http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/
EMAT.2001.991312
Maurer, D., & Warfel, T. (2004). Card sorting: A definitive guide. Retrieved November 21, 2008, from http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/card_sorting_a_definitive_guide Morville, P. (2005). Ambient findability: Libraries at the crossroads of ubiquitous computing
http://joemls.tku.edu.tw and the internet. Online, 29(6), 16-21.
Morville, P., & Rosenfeld, L. (2006). Information Architecture for the World Wide Web (3th ed.). Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media.
Nielsen, J., & Sano, D. (1994). 1994 design of SunWeb - Sun Microsystems’ intranet. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http://www.useit.com/papers/sunweb/
Paul, C. L. (2007). A modified delphi approach to a new card sorting methodology. Journal of Usability Studies, 4(1), 7-30.
Simoens, S. (2006). Using the delphi technique in economic evaluation: Time to revisit the oracle? Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics, 31, 519-522.
Upchurch, L., Rugg, G., & Kitchenham, B. (2001). Using card sorts to elicit web page quality attributes. IEEE Software, 18(4), 84-89.
Walker, A., & Selfe, J. (1996). The delphi method: A useful tool for the allied health researcher.
International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 3(12), 677-681.