近年來圖書館之電子資源館藏快速成長，面對龐大多元的電子資源，使用者在搜尋時，常不知如何選擇合適的資料庫，且對每種資料庫的內容與使用不夠熟悉，因此搜尋時常感無所適從。近來不少圖書館引進異質資源整合檢索系統（簡稱Metasearch），即是希望便利使用者透過單一檢索介面，達到一次查全的目的。

這類系統發展至今，相關研究多偏重於技術應用探討，對於系統之使用性與使用者實際使用情形欠缺瞭解。因此希望以使用者角度，瞭解使用者對Metasearch的認知情況與系統使用性。本研究以目前臺灣地區最多大學圖書館採用的MuseSearch為研究平台。邀請學界與產業界熟悉Metasearch的介面設計專家、學者與不同學科背景之研究生為對象。研究設計分兩階段。首先收集介面設計原則之相關文獻，歸納重要的設計元素。再由專家學者評估各項介面設計原則應用於Metasearch 之適用性與重要性，以產生適當的Metasearch介面評估準則。第二階段藉由一般受試者根據個人研究需求自訂檢索任務，共進行兩次測試，避免受試者因不熟悉系統介面影響評估結果。本研究使用電腦螢幕錄製軟體記錄受試者之檢索歷程與放聲思考內容，輔以觀察法，蒐集使用情況。最後綜合檢索歷程分析結果、介面評估問卷與訪談內容，分析Metasearch之使用性。

研究結果發現，受試者普遍認同Metasearch一次查全的便利性。但對於介面設計與檢索功能，滿意度較低，整體而言使用效率與效益尚未彰顯。根據專家受試者與一般受試者對於Metasearch之評估結果，介面評估專家、資訊檢索專家與一般受試者之認知較為一致。僅對系統資訊之表達方式是否簡單明確，彼此認知差異較大。系統管理者與一般受試者對於介面之簡單明確、功能彈性、操作自由度、資訊易視性、系統整體使用性之認知差異較大。主要原因來自一般受試者重視檢索結果的排序與組織，希望系統自動集中重複的結果，呈現相關排序並給予適當的群集分類，以便利篩選與判斷。而系統管理者考量系統需要足夠的時間，檢索數量龐大的異質資源。為縮短使用者等待時間，檢索結果依照資料取回順序呈現。兩者考量的層面不同，造成受試者滿意度不佳。這方面，雖有某些系統進行改善，但使用者等待檢索結果出現的時間相對加長，檢索範圍亦有限制。整體而言，Metasearch之使用性仍有改善空間，技術瓶頸有待突破，若能即時整合檢索結果，並提供適當的呈現方式，將有助於Metasearch之接受度。

In recent years, the electric resource in the library has increased rapidly, when encounter with the abundant and diverse electric resource, the uses often have difficulties to choose proper databases, and are unfamiliar with the contents and utilizations of each database, therefore feel indecisive. Recently many libraries introduced Metasearch system, expect to make the users feel more convenient to make a single search across heterogeneous multiple resources and get what they need.

The developments of the kind of system are mostly relevant with the discussion of technological applications, however lacking of understanding of the usability and the actual using circumstances of the system. Therefore, expect to identify the cognizance of the users toward the system and the usability of it from the angle of the users. This study applied the most popular Metasearch system in the academic library in Taiwan as the study platform. Invite the interface designers, scholars, and graduate students from with different background from the academic circle and industries as the research object. The design of this study can be divided into two phases. First, collect the references of user interface design principles, generalize important design elements, and then evaluated by the professionals of the suitability and importance of each interface design principle applies on Metasearch, in order to generate the proper evaluation criterion of Metasearch interface. The second phases proceed with two examinations on the participants who set up for search tasks according to their personal research demands, in order to avoid the influence from the unfamiliarity of the system. The study monitored the participants searching experiences and oral expressed thoughts with computer recording software, and assist with observations to collect the using condition. Finally, generalize the search log analysis, interface evaluation questionnaires, and interviews to analyze the usability of Metasearch.

The results showed that the participants commonly recognized the convenience of single search across heterogeneous multiple resources of Metasearch. However they showed less satisfaction on the interface design and the search function. Overall speaking, the using efficiency and effectiveness were not shown forth. According to the evaluation from professional participants and general participants of Metasearch, the interface evaluating specialist, information retrieval professionals and general participants have more agreements, they only showed diverse opinions on whether there are simplicity and clarity of system expression or not. The system managers have different cognitions on the simplicity, flexibility, freedom, visibility, and usability of the system. The main reason is because that general participants emphasize the sorting and organizing of the search results, expect the system to automatic deduping, present relevance ranking, and provide proper clustering in order to benefit the selection and determination. However, the system managers consider that the system requires sufficient time to retrieve the great amount of heterogeneous resources. Therefore, in order to shorten the waiting time, the search results should show in the order of the retrieved time. The different considerations cause the low satisfaction of the participants. As for this aspect, although some systems have proceeded with improvements, however the waiting time is relatively increased. There are still technologic difficulties that required to be overcome, if enable to integrate the search results at once, and provide proper display methods will assist the acceptability of Metasearch.

Augustine, S., Courtney, G. (2002). Discovering how students search a library Web site: a usability case study. College & Research Libraries. 63(4), 354-365.
Belliston,C.J,Howland J.L,Brain C. (2007). Undergraduate use of federated searching: a survey of preferences and perceptions of value-added functionality. College & Research Libraries, 68(6), 472-486.
Breeding, M. (2005). Plotting a new course for Metasearch. Computers in Libraries, 25(2), 27-29.
Campbell N.（2001）.Usabillity Assessment of Library-Related Web Sites: methods and case studies. Chicago : American Library Association.
Digital Library Federation , (2004). Electronic Resource Management: Final Report of the DLF Initiative. Retrieved Jun. 1, 2008, from : http://www.library.cornell.edu/elicensestudy/dlfdeliverables/home.htm
Dorward, J. Derek R. & Mimi R. (2002). An evaluation model for a digital library services tool. Proceeding of the second ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. New York: ACM, 322-323.
Elliott S. (2004). Metasearch and usability: toward a seamless interface to library resources. Retrieved Jun. 1, 2008, from : http://consortiumlibrary.org/staff/tundra/msuse1.pdf
EPIC. (2004). Electronic Publishing Initiative at Columbia online survey of college students: executive summary. Retrieved Jun. 1, 2008, from : http://www.epic.columbia.edu/eval/eval04frame.html
Fu, L. P. (1999). Usability evaluation of Web page design. PhD diss., Purdue Univ.
Genuis, S.K. (2004). Web Site usability testing: a critical tool for Libraries. Feliciter, 50(4), 161-164.
Gerrity, B., Lyman, T. & Tallent Ed. (2002). Boston College's implementation of MetaLib and SFX. Reference Services Review, 30(3), 229-241.
Haya, G., Nygren E. & Widmark W. (2007). MetaLib and Google Scholar: a user study. Online Information Review, 31(3), 365-375.
Henneman, Richard L.（1999）. Design for Usability : Process, Skills, and Tools. Information, Knowledge, & Systems Management, 1(2), p133.
Horbak K. (2006). Current practice in measuring usability: challenges to usability studies and research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 64, 79-102.
IITA. Retrieved Jan. 1, 2008, from : http://dbpubs.stanford.edu:8091/diglib/pub/reports/iita-dlw/main.html
International Standards for HCI and Usability. Retrieved Jan. 1, 2008, from : http://www.userfocus.co.uk/resources/iso9241/part11.html
Jean, J. (2005b). Usability assessment of academic digital libraries: effectiveness, efficiency, satisfaction, and learnability. Libri. 55, 96-121.
Jean, J.（2005a）.What is usability in the context of the digital library and how can it be measured .Information technology. 24(2), 47-56.
Kengeri, R. (1999). Usability study of digital libraries: ACM, IEEE-CS, NCSTRL, NDLTD. International Journal on Digital Libraries. 2, 157-169.
Lynch, P.J., & Horton, S. (2002). Interface design. Web style guide: basic design principle for creating web sites. Retrieved Jan. 1, 2008, from : http://www.webstyleguide.com/interface/user-centered.html
Masaaki, K. & Kashimura, K. (1995). Apparent usability vs. inherent usability: experimental analysis on the determinants of the apparent usability. Conference on human factors and computing systems. New York: ACM Press.
McCaskie, L. (2004). What are the implications for information literacy training in higher education with the introduction of federated search tools? Master’s thesis, University of Sheffield.
Mok, C. (1996). Design business: multiple media, multiple disciplines. Mountain View, CA.: Adobe Press, Adobe Systems Incorporated.
Myhill M. (2007). Canute rules the waves: hope for e-library tools facing the challenge of the “Google generation. Program: electronic library and information systems, 41(1), 5-19.
Nielsen, J. & Mark, R. L. (1994). Usability inspection methods. New York : Wiley.
Nielsen, J., (1993). Usability Engineering. Boston: Academic Press.
Norman D.A. (2003). Emotional design: why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books.

OCLC. (2005). Perceptions of libraries and information resources. Retrieved Jan. 1, 2008, from: www.oclc.org/reports/2005perceptions.htm
Oulanov, A., Edmund F. Y. (2002). CUNY Web: usability study of the Web-based GUI version of the bibliographic database of the City University of New York. The Electronic Library. 20(6), 481-487.
Park S. (2000). Usability, user preference, effectiveness, and user behavior when searching individual and integrated full-text database, implications for digital library. Journal of American Society for Information science, 51(5), 456-468.
Payette, S.D., Rieger, O.Y. (1997). Z39.50: the user’s perspective. D-Lib Magazine. Retrieved Jan. 1, 2008, from : http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april97/cornell/04payette.html
Preece, J. & Roger, Y. (1994). Human-computer interaction: concepts and design. Mass : Addison-Wesley.
Rubin, J.(1994). Handbook of usability: how to plan, design, and conduct effective tests. New York: Wily & Sons, Inc.
Sadeh, T. 2006. Google Scholar Versus Metasearch Systems .Retrieved Jan. 1, 2008, from: www.oclc.org/reports/2005perceptions.htm
Shneiderman, B., Plaisant, C. (2004). Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. Mass, Addison Wesley.
Tallent Ed. (2004). Metasearching in Boston College libraries: a case study of user reaction. New Library World, 105(1196/1197), 69-75.
Tang R., Hsieh-Yee, I. & Zhang S.（2007）. User Perception of MetaLib Combined Search: an investigation of how users make sense of federated Searching. Internet Reference Services Quarterly. 12(1/2), 211-236.
Tomas, R. L. (1998). Elements of performance and satisfaction as indicators of the usability of digital spatial interfaces for information-seeking. PhD diss., Univ. of Southern California.
Waugh, N. C. & Norman, D. A. (1965). Primary memory. Psychological Review. (72), 89-104.
Wrubel L., Schmidt K. (2007). Usability testing of Metasearch interface: a case study. College & Research Libraries, 68(4), 292-311.
卜小蝶（民96）。使用者導向之網路資源組織與檢索。台北市：文華。
何嘉欣、陳昭珍（民94）。從異質系統的資訊組織模式探討數位圖書館整合檢索之效能：以華文知識入口網為例。中華民國圖書館協會會報，75，75-93。
余顯強（民92）。淺談數位圖書館典藏資料互通之存取協定。書藝，39，15-25。
吳同頂（民94）。『全球華文網路教育中心教學資源管理系統』之使用性評估。未出版之碩士論文，臺北教育大學教育傳播與科技研究所，台北市。
李青蓉、施郁芬、邱昭彰、魏丕信（民87）。人機介面設計。台北縣，國立空中大學。
周玉華（民92）。探討資料庫檢索介面對系統持續使用之影響：以ABI/INFORM與SDOS電子期刊資料庫為例。未出版之碩士論文，高雄第一科技大學資訊管理所，高雄市。
林巧敏（民95）。由2005年OCLC的趨勢調查報告省思數位時代的圖書資訊服務。臺灣圖書館管理季刊，2（4），38-56。
林妙樺（民95）。數位典藏系統入口網站介面可用性評估模式之探討。大學圖書館，10（2），160-182。
林雯瑤（民94）。從使用者觀點談電子資源服務的發展趨勢。國立成功大學圖書館館刊，14，18-36。
柯皓仁、黃夙賢、楊維邦（民90）。詮釋資料與數位圖書館系統互通性之探討。大學圖書館，5，49-78。
張嘉彬（民88）。系統評估研究文獻探討：從電子圖書館角度考量。大學圖書館，3（2），69-94。
許銀雄、何袓鳳、詹榮昌（民92）。網站人機界面可用性評估方法之比較。銘傳學刊，30，25-42。
陳昭珍（民89）。電子圖書館整合檢索之理論與實作。台北市：文華圖書館管理。
陳昭珍、何佳欣（民92）。數位化圖書館互通檢索機制之探討。中國圖書館學學會會報，70，53-68。
黃百立（民93）。資訊服務系統使用效益與成功模式之研究。未出版之碩士論文，東吳大學資訊科學研究所，台北市。
楊欣哲、王超弘（民88）。WWW網頁設計之準則與應用。工業工程學刊，16（2），265-276。
趙文心（民91）。多要素資訊檢索系統評估模式初探。美國資訊科學與技術學會台北學生分會會訊，15，1-14。
趙美慧、黃朝盟（民90）。.com的策略規劃與設計。台北市：商鼎文化。
劉淑德、邱柑震（民93）。全功能異質性電子資源整合檢索系統－SmartWeaver。中華圖書資訊學教育學會會訊，22，51-53。
蔡維君（民94）。大學圖書館網站好用性評估：以臺灣大學圖書館網站為例。未出版之碩士論文，臺灣大學圖書資訊學研究所，台北市。
藍素華（民89）。大學圖書館網站資訊架構可用性之研究－以國立臺灣大學圖書館網站為例。未出版之碩士論文，臺灣大學圖書資訊學研究所，台北市。
魏澤群（民94）。使用者最大：從優使性(Usability)出發的網站設計原則。台北市：網奕資訊。
魏澤群（民96）。優使性2.0：網站經驗設計與使用者研究。台北市：網奕資訊。
羅思嘉（民94）。從圖書館觀點談電子資源服務的發展。國立成功大學圖書館館刊，14，37-46。
羅思嘉（民95）。資訊搜尋與異質資料庫整合查詢系統建置之初探。國立成功大學圖書館館刊，15，33-42。
羅嵐（民94）。數位圖書館異質整合檢索系統評析。未出版之碩士論文，臺灣師範大學圖書資訊學研究所，台北市。