Designing Integrated Online Finding Aids: Leveraging Content Analysis and Design Thinking for Effective Site Navigation and Wireframe Development

6.1.1 Evaluation of Selected Archival Institutional Website Features

A content analysis of 10 selected archival websites was conducted, evaluating them based on 16 key parameters to assess navigation and overall functionality. These 10 archive websites represent various cities, international organizations, institutions, and universities. Table 1 revealed that all sites (100 %) included critical elements such as a Homepage, About (History, Vision, Mission), Collections, Guidelines for Archives, Contact Us, and a Search Bar, indicating a strong commitment to user support.

However, additional features showed significant variation: 90 % of the sites included a “Services” section and “Website Terms and Use,” while 80 % offered an FAQ section. Despite this general commitment to user assistance, only 70 % of the sites featured “Exhibitions” and “Blogs,” and just 50 % included pages like “Archives Team,” “Archives: Citation & Success,” and “Contribute,” revealing gaps in areas like highlighting archival staff, encouraging user contributions, and providing citation guidance.

Specific issues were identified, such as in Alberta, where the catalogue search functionality is hidden within the content while the website search bar is prominently displayed, complicating the search process. Additionally, some sites offer forms as downloadable PDFs, while others provide online submission methods or email query options, each uniquely implementing these methods. The Collections pages varied, with some sites using a single page to list all collections, while others had separate pages for sub-collections, leading to inconsistencies in information presentation. Most archives did not provide instructions on how to cite their materials.

While the quantitative summary in Table 1 confirms fundamental feature inclusion, the qualitative observation reveals a deeper usability challenge: the inconsistency in design logic and navigational flow often leads to user confusion. These results highlight the need for a unified approach to archival interface design that balances standard information architecture with adaptive user support systems.

6.1.2 Integration of Archival Institutional Website and Online Finding Aids System

The analysis also revealed a significant gap in integrating Archival Institute Website content information and online finding aids, which are often hosted on different pages or entirely separate websites. This disjointed structure forces users to switch platforms, leading to confusion, inefficiency, and longer search times.

Table 2 shows that, despite using sophisticated systems like AtoM (Access to Memory), ArchivesSpace, and Omeka, prominent institutions such as the World Bank, UNESCO, NCBS, Glasgow School of Art, and the National Archives of India continue to face challenges with user navigation and content accessibility. The problem is exacerbated by frequent redirections between catalogue and content pages, disrupting the user experience and making the process less intuitive.

None of the analyzed archival websites have fully integrated their content information and online finding aids into a single, seamless platform. This indicates a significant opportunity for improvement. Adopting a more cohesive web presence, where content information and finding aids are integrated, would enhance usability, streamline user interactions, and make archival resources more accessible and discoverable, ultimately improving the overall user experience.

This disconnect between catalogues and content reflects a deeper design issue in archival systems: the lack of a user-focused approach that considers the fluidity of research practices. Addressing this gap is crucial for improving the overall functionality and scholarly utility of archival platforms.

6.2.1 Empathize

In the Empathy phase, user needs and challenges were explored through interviews, observations, and collaborative synthesis exercises during the workshop. Based on the feedback gathered, three primary user personas were developed: a faculty member, an archivist, and a researcher. These personas were selected to reflect the spectrum of user interactions with archival systems and to ensure that design efforts would be inclusive and relevant.

The personas’ background information, goals, challenges, and system needs are outlined in Appendix 2. The insights drawn from user behavior and expectations were visually mapped into an Empathy Map, as illustrated in Figure 1. Common pain points included difficulty retrieving materials, lack of remote access guidance, and challenges navigating content pages and catalogue interfaces. These insights guided the subsequent definition of user-centric problem statements and design opportunities.

Figure 1:

Empathy map.

6.2.2 Define

During the Define phase, the needs articulated in the Empathize phase were synthesized into Point-of-View (POV) statements for each persona. These statements helped to crystallize the essential design challenges. As presented in Table 3, each POV statement framed a distinct usability issue and positioned it from the user’s perspective, highlighting frustrations with existing archival systems.

Based on these POVs, a series of “How Might We” (HMW) questions were generated to transition from problem framing to solution ideation. These questions included: “How might we simplify navigation to improve the experience for first-time users?” and “How might we better connect narrative content with searchable archival records?” These problem statements and HMW questions informed the brainstorming sessions during the ideation phase.

6.2.3 Ideate

In the ideation phase, collaborative brainstorming generated a list of potential solutions addressing the core issues identified earlier. Through a process of open discussion and group consensus, 10 key user expectations for the new archival portal were identified, as shown in Table 4. These included streamlined navigation, advanced search functionality, multilingual accessibility, responsive design in compliance with WCAG 2.1 standards, and integration with external databases.

These design priorities were intended to resolve the fragmented user experiences described during content analysis and persona development. They served as direct input for creating wireframes during the Prototype phase.

6.2.4 Prototype: Navigation Structure and Wireframe Development

The navigation structure for the integrated online finding aids was developed during the design thinking workshop. Content analysis results were presented to participants, faculty members, archivists, and researchers who prioritized features based on user needs and usability principles. The final framework ensured intuitive access to content information and finding aids within a single unified platform, addressing earlier fragmentation and usability issues. The Collections section included categories such as Manuscripts, Correspondence, Annual Reports, Photographs and Paintings, Photographic Plates, Maps, Instruments, and CDs and Cassettes for targeted exploration. Guidelines covered Archives information, Finding Aids, Access Policy, and Terms of Use. Services outlined functions like Accession and Appraisal, Record Processing, Preservation, Digitisation, Research Support, Reprographic Services, and Exhibitions. Success Stories featured Publications Citing Us and Visitors’ Notes, while Contact Us enabled users to Ask a Librarian, connect with the Library Team, or Contribute/Donate. Additionally, a blog provided updates, archival stories, and a link to the IIA website for broader institutional content. The finalized navigation structure is illustrated in Figure 2. Overall, this navigation model, shaped by content analysis and participatory design, streamlines access, reduces cognitive load, and enhances usability for diverse users.

Figure 2:

Navigation structure finalized during the design thinking workshop.

In the Prototype phase, the selected design features were translated into visual representations. Initial low-fidelity wireframes were developed in paper format to explore layout and navigation concepts (Figure 3). These wireframes were refined into high-fidelity digital prototypes using Figma, a collaborative design tool. This phase involved the participation of web designers who supported the wireframe development by implementing user-driven features into an interactive layout.

Figure 3:

Paper prototype wireframe developed during the prototype phase.

The high-fidelity prototypes (Figure 4) demonstrated both desktop and mobile views, reflecting a responsive design that ensures accessibility across devices. These wireframes featured a clean and uncluttered interface, adhering to established usability principles to maintain visual clarity and support intuitive navigation. A central feature of the prototype was the integration of institutional content and online finding aids into a single, unified interface aimed at reducing user confusion and improving discovery efficiency.

Figure 4:

Digital wireframe prototype developed in figma.

In addition to streamlining the content catalogue relationship, the wireframe incorporated several key functionalities designed to enhance user engagement and accessibility. These included direct access to the OFA catalogue through a prominently placed search bar, intuitive navigation to archival stories that provide contextual background, a user login button, and a section dedicated to institutional archives updates. This section highlights newly added records and featured collections, ensuring users remain informed about recent developments. Collectively, these features contribute to a cohesive, user-centered platform that supports efficient information discovery and promotes an integrated and dynamic archival experience.

The prototyping process followed established design practices where wireframes function as structural blueprints (Charoenporn 2020). These diagrams enabled high-level visual planning (Garrett 2011) and incorporated a simplified, modular design structure to support usability. The merging of content and catalogue in the proposed wireframe was developed in alignment with integrated discovery principles, as Niu (2012) outlined. The wireframe is novel in its single-window integrated approach, which addresses a significant usability gap identified through content analysis. In contrast to most archival websites that rely on separate systems for their primary content management (e.g., institutional information) and Online Finding Aids (OFA) such as AtoM, ArchivesSpace, or Omeka, this design unifies both within a single, coherent platform. This consolidation eliminates the fragmented user experience typically caused by navigating across multiple interfaces. It enables seamless transitions between general archival content and detailed finding aid records, reducing user confusion and inefficiency. Moreover, the design incorporates user-centered features, including intuitive navigation, advanced search filters, multilingual support, and citation guidance. Together, these elements contribute to a cohesive, accessible, and user-friendly interface that enhances usability and improves the discoverability of archival resources (Jain et al 2019).

6.2.5 Test: Usability Testing Using System Usability Scale (SUS)

The System Usability Scale (SUS) was employed to evaluate the usability of the developed prototype. Ten participants completed the standard ten-item questionnaire (see Appendix 3), which included a mix of positively and negatively worded statements. Responses were scored according to established SUS methodology: positively framed items were scored as (x−1), while negatively framed items were scored as (5−x). The total score for each participant was then multiplied by 2.5 to derive an individual sub-score, producing a final usability score ranging from 0 to 100.

Participant responses were compiled, and total scores were used to calculate individual sub-scores. The aggregated results, presented in Table 5, yielded an average SUS score of 84, placing the prototype firmly within the “excellent” usability category (Lewis and Sauro 2018). While most participants provided scores in the excellent range (80–92.5), a few participants scored slightly lower, between 70 and 77.5. These minor variations may reflect differences in prior experience with similar digital systems, personal interaction preferences, or momentary task-related challenges. Nonetheless, all participants rated the system above the threshold for acceptable usability, confirming that the platform is consistently user-friendly and effective across diverse users.

The high SUS score demonstrates that the prototype is intuitive, easy to navigate, and consistent in interaction design. Participants reported confidence in retrieving information and satisfaction with the integrated search structure. These results validate the design decision to unify institutional content with online finding aids, effectively addressing the usability challenges identified during content analysis and persona development.

A SUS score above 80 also has broader implications, predicting not only strong user satisfaction but also a high likelihood of continued adoption and recommendation (Lewis and Sauro 2018). In the context of archival systems, where user trust, engagement, and accessibility are critical, this finding underscores the potential of the proposed platform to support sustainable scholarly interaction and efficient information retrieval.

As shown in Figure 5, this high usability rating validated the success of the user-centered design process. Participants reported ease of navigation, confidence in use, and satisfaction with the integrated search structure. These results demonstrate that the design addressed the most pressing usability challenges identified during the content analysis and persona development phases, resulting in a cohesive, reliable, and highly user-friendly system.

Figure 5:

SUS scorecard.