A Mismatched Group of Items That I Would Not Find Particularly Interesting: Challenges and Opportunities with Digital Exhibits and Collections Labels


  • Mikala Narlock University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2730-7542
  • Anna Michelle Martinez-Montavon Indiana University South Bend, South Bend, Indiana, United States of America
  • Melissa Harden University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, Indiana, United States of America https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0546-4819




Objective – The authors sought to identify link language that is user-friendly and sufficiently disambiguates between a digital collection and digital exhibit platform for users from a R1 institution, or a university with high research activity and doctoral programs as classified in the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education.

Methods – The authors distributed two online surveys using a modified open card sort and reverse-category test via university electronic mailing lists to undergraduate and graduate students to learn what language they would use to identify groups of items and to test their understanding of link labels that point to digitized cultural heritage items.

Results – Our study uncovered that the link terms utilized by cultural heritage institutions are not uniformly understood by our users. Terms that are frequently used interchangeably (i.e., Digital Collections, Digital Project, and Digital Exhibit) can be too generic to be meaningful for different user groups.

Conclusion – Because the link terms utilized by cultural heritage institutions were not uniformly understood by our users, the most user-friendly way to link to these resources is to use the term we—librarians, curators, and archivists—think is most accurate as the link text based on our professional knowledge and provide a brief description of what each site contains in order to provide necessary context.


Download data is not yet available.


Brucker, J. (2010). Playing with a bad deck: The caveats of card sorting as a web site redesign tool. Journal of Hospital Librarianship, 10(1), 41-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/15323260903458741

Burns, D., Sundt, A., Pumphrey, D., & Thoms, B. (2019). What we talk about when we talk about digital libraries: UX approaches to labeling online special collections. Weave: Journal of Library User Experience, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.3998/weave.12535642.0002.102

Budiu, R. (2020, February 2). Information scent: How users decide where to go next. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/information-scent/

Chowdhury, S., Landoni, M., & Gibb, F. (2006). Usability and impact of digital libraries: A review. Online Information Review, 30(6), 656-680. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520610716153

Denzer, J. (2015). Digital collections and exhibits. Rowman & Littlefield.

Dickstein, R., & Mills, V. (2000). Usability testing at the University of Arizona Library: How to let the users in on the design. Information Technology and Libraries, 19(3), 144–151.

Diller, K. R., & Campbell, N. (1999). Effective library web sites: How to ask your users what will work for them. Proceedings of the Integrated Online Library Systems Meeting, 14, 41–54.

Duncan, J., & Holliday, W. (2008). The role of information architecture in designing a third-generation library web site. College & Research Libraries, 69(4), 301-318. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.69.4.301

Faiks, A., & Hyland, N. (2000). Gaining user insight: A case study illustrating the card sort technique. College & Research Libraries, 61, 349–357. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.61.4.349

Ford, E. (2013). Is digital better than analog? Considerations for online card sort studies. College & Research Libraries News, 74(5), 258–261.

Francoeur, S. (2021a, March 5). More thoughts on language usage and design. Beating the Bounds: Library Stuff I’m Thinking About. https://www.stephenfrancoeur.com/beatingthebounds/2021/03/05/more-thoughts-on-language-usage-and-design/

Francoeur, S. (2021b, March 4). Watching the language parade of our users. Beating the Bounds: Library Stuff I’m Thinking About. https://www.stephenfrancoeur.com/beatingthebounds/2021/03/04/watching-the-language-parade-of-our-users/

Gillis, R. (2017). “Watch your language!”: Word choice in library website usability. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 12(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v12i1.3918

Guay, S., Rudin, L., & Reynolds, S. (2019). Testing, testing: A usability case study at University of Toronto Scarborough Library. Library Management, 40(1/2), 88–97. https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-10-2017-0107

Hennig, N. (2001). Card sorting usability tests of the MIT Libraries’ web site: Categories from the user’s point of view. In N. Campbell (Ed.), Usability assessment of library related web sites: Methods and case studies (pp. 88–99). LITA, American Library Association.

Hepburn, P., & Lewis, K. M. (2008). What’s in a name? Using card sorting to evaluate branding in an academic library’s web site. College & Research Libraries, 69(3), 242-251. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.69.3.242

Kelly, E. J. (2014). Assessment of digitized library and archives materials: A literature review. Journal of Web Librarianship, 8(4), 384–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/19322909.2014.954740

Kupersmith, J. (2012). Library terms that users understand. UC Berkeley Library.


Lewis, K. M., & Hepburn, P. (2010). Open card sorting and factor analysis: A usability case study. The Electronic Library, 28(3), 401–416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02640471011051981

Mendoza College of Business. (2022). About Mendoza. Retrieved September 11, 2022, from https://mendoza.nd.edu/about/

Nielsen, J. (2009, August 23). Card sorting: Pushing users beyond terminology matches. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/card-sorting-terminology-matches/

Office of Strategic Planning & Institutional Research. (2022). Common Data Set 2021-2022 [Data set]. University of Notre Dame. https://www3.nd.edu/~instres/CDS/2021-2022/CDS_2021-2022.pdf

Paladino, E. B., Klentzin, J. C., & Mills, C. P. (2017). Card sorting in an online environment: Key to involving online-only student population in usability testing of an academic library web site? Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 11(1–2), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290X.2016.1223967

Polger, M. (2011). Student preferences in library website vocabulary. Library Philosophy and Practice, 1-16. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/618

Robbins, L. P., Esposito, L., Kretz, C., & Aloi, M. (2007). What a user wants: Redesigning a library's web site based on a card-sort analysis. Journal of Web Librarianship, 1(4), 3-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/19322900802111346

Rowley, P., & Scardellato, K. (2005). Card sorting: A practical guide. Access, 2, 26–28

Spencer, D. (2009). Card sorting: Designing usable categories. Rosenfeld Media.

Sundt, A., & Eastman, T. (2019). Informing website navigation design with team-based card sorting. Journal of Web Librarianship, 13(1), 37–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/19322909.2018.1544873

University of Notre Dame. (2022). About: Notre Dame at a glance. Retrieved September 11, 2022, from https://www.nd.edu/about/

Whang, M. (2008). Card-sorting usability tests of the WMU Libraries’ web site. Journal of Web Librarianship, 2(2–3), 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/19322900802205940




How to Cite

Narlock, M., Martinez-Montavon, A. M., & Harden, M. (2022). A Mismatched Group of Items That I Would Not Find Particularly Interesting: Challenges and Opportunities with Digital Exhibits and Collections Labels. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 17(4), 71–121. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip30194



Research Articles