International Information & Library Review

ISSN: 1057-2317 (Print) 1095-9297 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulbr20

A Comprehensive Analysis of Academic Library

Websites: Design, Navigation, Content, Services,
and Web 2.0 Tools

Charlene L. Al-Qallaf & Alaa Ridha

To cite this article: Charlene L. Al-Qallaf & Alaa Ridha (2018): A Comprehensive Analysis
of Academic Library Websites: Design, Navigation, Content, Services, and Web 2.0 Tools,
International Information & Library Review, DOI: 10.1080/10572317.2018.1467166

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10572317.2018.1467166

Published online: 14 May 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ulbr20
INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION & LIBRARY REVIEW
, VOL. , NO. , –
https://doi.org/./..

A Comprehensive Analysis of Academic Library Websites: Design, Navigation,

Content, Services, and Web . Tools
Charlene L. Al-Qallafa and Alaa Ridhab
a
Department of Information Studies, College of Social Sciences, Kuwait University, Shuwaikh, Kuwait; b Higher Institute of Telecommunications
and Navigation, Public Authority for Applied Education and Training, Shuwaikh, Kuwait

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This article’s purpose is to analyze the current state of library websites in academic institutions in Gulf Academic libraries; GCC
Cooperative Council (GCC) countries, aiming to determine their compliance with standard website countries; library websites;
practices. Based on the Library Website Evaluation Checklist (L-WEC) developed for this study, a con- Middle East; virtual reference
services; website evaluation;
tent analysis is performed of 110 academic library websites. This research, being one of the first studies
Web .; website design
of its kind, should interest information professionals and educators responsible for developing and
improving the quality of their websites. With the majority of academic users growing up in the Google
generation, it is important to create more millennial-friendly websites that provide quick and easy
access to Web-based services and content-rich information.

Introduction
An essential element of college and university libraries
is the use of converging technologies to strengthen the
teaching, learning, and research environments of the
academic community. The academic library website, as
a supporter of these technologies, becomes the hub for
the dissemination of digital information; the portal to a
multitude of e-resources and e-services; the main gate-
way for virtual users; and a marketing tool allowing
libraries to project their image. Furthermore, Liu (2008,
p. 14) has emphasized that academic library websites
should function as a one-stop information environ-
ment, providing users with “opportunities to express,
share, and learn.”
While initial creation of a website may be rela-
tively uncomplicated, it can be difficult to create a
higher-quality website that engages end-users, deliver-
ing satisfying online information retrieval. Kumar and
Bansal (2014) state that quality library websites should
not only be informative but also function as learn-
ing tools. They add that the content should be rele-
vant, easily understood, updated regularly, and orga-
nized in a logical sequence, allowing for quick and easy
access to the desired information. This presents a chal-
lenge to library Web developers that need to attract the
academic community to their websites. College stu-
dents, especially, exhibit frequent disinterest and unfa-
miliarity with library Web content and, through frus-
tration, turn to popular search engines (Islam &
Murno, 2006). Miles and Bergstrom (2009) state that
academic librarians face a daunting task drawing users
to their libraries’ Web presence. Nearly 73% of the col-
lege students they studied used the Internet more than
the library when completing an academic task. Chua
and Goh (2010) reported that the use of library websites
had decreased from 30% in 2005 to 20% in 2007; how-
ever, over the same time period, there were significant
increases in the use of search engines, email, and blogs.
Connaway and Dickey (2010) analyzed 12 Amer-
ican and British studies pertaining to user search
behavior, whose target populations were mostly aca-
demic users. One significant finding was that students
strongly desired digital content but preferred to use
Google and other search engines over library websites.
Other common themes identified were: (1) an increas-
ing demand to download e-journal articles; (2) a prefer-
ence for discovery services; and (3) the desired ability
to search and retrieve information in the fewest pos-
sible steps. Similarly, other studies have found that, to
conduct research and complete assignments, students

CONTACT Charlene L. Al-Qallaf, Associate Professor c_alqallaf@yahoo.com Department of Information Studies, College of Social Sciences, Kuwait
University, PO Box , Safat, Kuwait City , Kuwait.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ulbr.
Published with license by Taylor & Francis ©  Charlene L. Al-Qallaf and Alaa Ridha
2 C. L. AL-QALLAF AND A. RIDHA
favor open source journals, Google Scholar, or popular
search engines over online library resources and ser-
vices (Detlor & Lewis, 2006; Emde, Currie, Devlin, &
Graves, 2008; University College London, 2008).
Such findings characterize current academic users as
preferring quick, convenient, anytime, and anywhere
access to digital content to satisfy their information
needs. In view of this profile, two questions arise: Are
library websites delivering? If not, what must they
change? This study evaluates academic library websites
in Arab Gulf countries. The Cooperation Council for
the Arab States of the Gulf, known as the Gulf Coop-
eration Council (GCC), is a political and economic
alliance of six countries: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar,
Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. The
homogeneous nature of their religious, cultural, and
social beliefs provides an environment for all six mem-
bers to share a similar higher education philosophy
and pedagogy. This study’s focus is to evaluate aca-
demic library websites in GCC countries to determine
if they adhere to recommended guidelines. The results
should provide valuable data to information profes-
sionals, educators, and administrators in developing
dynamic, interactive, and user-oriented library web-
sites, equipped to support the educational and research
requirements of the academic community, especially
university students.
Literature review
This literature review summarizes research that pri-
marily uses content analysis to evaluate academic
library websites. Also included are studies focusing on
the development of library website assessment tools.
The review of relevant research provides the theoretical
background for this study and helps in identifying the
major components and elements necessary for evaluat-
ing academic library websites. The review covers four
topics: website design and navigation; website content
and services; Web 2.0 tools; and website assessment
tools.
Website design and navigation
The design and navigability of a library website are
considered major elements affecting the website’s
popularity and usage. Raward (2001) identifies user
acceptance and usability as the major issues in library
website design, suggesting that, for academic library
websites, the website is more visible and accessible
when a user-centered model is adopted during devel-
opment and implementation. Furthermore, the design
of library websites should encompass the diversity
of users and their information needs within the uni-
versity environment. Similarly, according to Garrett
(2011), websites should maintain uniformity in their
design to communicate effectively without confusing
or overwhelming users.
Brower (2004) examined the websites of 41 aca-
demic health sciences libraries to identify trends in the
structure, supported technologies, and navigational
links to Web content, with a view to recommending
best practices for designing website navigational sys-
tems. Regarding links on the library homepage, the
most common directed users to: the parent institu-
tion (92.7%); feedback forms or email (87.9%); and
online public access catalogs (OPACs) (95.2%). The
study also reported links to Web-based resources,
such as e-journals (85.4%) and bibliographic databases
(70.8%). As regards Web technologies, all examined
websites had some form of a navigational toolbar;
75.7% provided a library website search engine; 34%
used rollover or image swap effects with their graphics;
and 26% employed drop-down menus.
Detlor and Lewis (2006) focused on assessing the
design and navigation paths of 107 Association of
Research Libraries (ARL) websites. They found that
while some sites were sophisticated and had innovative
features, most were lacking in technical infrastructure,
and were characterized by weak search engine func-
tionality, limited help tools, poor positioning or lack of
information seeking activities, and rudimentary navi-
gation abilities. The authors urge the need for libraries
to invest in robust user-centered designs, greater inte-
gration with other information portals and systems,
and greater technical support for information use.
More recently, there have been encouraging signs
of tremendous improvement in website design and
navigability. Wilson (2015) evaluated 18 design and
accessibility elements of 24 academic library websites
in Alabama. He found that all these websites were
accessible through standard Web browsers and the
usage of hyperlinks identified or described their tar-
geted destinations. Almost all websites used descrip-
tive headings, titles, and tabs (95.8%); most links
were active (83.3%); most websites were linked to
the parent institution’s homepage, which users could
access from all other library webpages (79.2%); and

slightly more than half (54.2%) used a memorable URL.
Somewhat surprisingly, however, fewer than half of the
websites were consistent in Web layout and organiza-
tion. Moreover, only a quarter of the websites provided
text equivalent for nontext elements. Wilson (2015)
suggested the need for further studies to provide more
data about Web development, so as to guide informa-
tion professionals lacking an “understanding of web
design practices” (p. 33).
Website content and services
This section covers research evaluating website con-
tent, such as general information about the library,
library resources, instructional tools, and library ser-
vices. Smith (2001) notes that although more libraries
are providing access to digital content, the cost, effort,
and expertise needed to create and maintain success-
ful electronic reference services require determina-
tion and dedication. She recommends that libraries
should develop guidelines to identify the goals of elec-
tronic reference services, based on the library’s mis-
sion, intended user groups, and the responsibilities of
reference librarians in answering users’ questions. Still
(2001) reported findings from a content analysis of 150
university library websites in four English-speaking
countries: the United States (U.S.), Canada, Australia,
and the United Kingdom. The study identified core
resources and services common to university library
websites, namely, access to: online catalogs, reference
sources, databases, search engines, and instructional
materials. Reference services were rudimentary, pro-
viding only a description of services or departments.
Recognizing changes in the library landscape
and the continuous emergence of new technologies,
Aharony (2012) compared the content of 31 Amer-
ican academic library websites in 2000 and 2010.
Among the more notable findings were substantial
increases in e-resources, OPACs, library services (such
as chat-with-a-librarian), access to social media tools,
and a link to frequently asked questions (FAQs).
Furthermore, whereas content in 2000 was primarily
text-based, in 2010 graphics were heavily used.
Several studies narrowed their focus by target-
ing specific user groups. Kim and DeCoster (2011)
examined information resources found on U.S. aca-
demic business library websites. Gottfried (2011) also
evaluated library websites serving top-rated U.S. busi-
ness schools, aiming to discover the accessibility of
INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION & LIBRARY REVIEW 3
business research resources such as e-journals, e-
books, business subject guides and tutorials, and
databases. Stachokas (2016) reviewed ARL academic
library sites to determine what types of electronic
resources are provided for alumni. Gardner, Juricek,
and Xu (2008) selected the largest university libraries
in the U.S. and examined 48 content-items designed
for faculty. A similar study by Suiter and Mousailson
(2015) analyzed 62 U.S. academic library websites to
determine the availability of scholarly assessment tools
and impact metrics for academics. Jurkowski (2005)
analyzed the content of 17 U.S. academic library web-
sites serving distance education students. In total, 38
features covering general information, services, and
resources were evaluated. Only two library websites
supported 31 of the 38 features; Jurkowski observed
that larger institutions supported by larger budgets and
staff tended to have stronger websites. He concluded
that services on the evaluated websites were only
adequate and especially needed improvement; that
feedback from students and faculty was essential; and
that access to online instructional activities was crucial.
With librarians responding to the academic com-
munity’s future needs and user preferences, some uni-
versity libraries are moving their online presence to a
mobile environment. Rodriquez (2016) evaluated aca-
demic, public, cooperative, and special library websites
in Florida, as well as museum websites, to detect if they
were mobile-ready. Of the 77 academic library web-
sites, 29 were static, 42 followed a responsive design,
while the remaining six provided a separate mobile
site, forcing users to learn two websites. Rodriquez
(2016) recommended that libraries should use a hosted
proprietary site for initial development, remove irrel-
evant content from their webpages, improve website
design, and minimize the number of links to various
Web pages. Al-Khalifa (2014) developed a framework
for evaluating university websites’ suitability for infor-
mation seekers using mobile devices. By examining
35 mobile websites of universities around the world,
the author identified 70 features distributed over four
major components: user interface, navigation, content
and services offered, and technical aspects.
Web 2.0 tools
Web 2.0 tools are 21st-century social networking appli-
cations used by information professionals to commu-
nicate, to provide services, and to make libraries more
4 C. L. AL-QALLAF AND A. RIDHA
visible to their patrons through emerging technologies
(Rod-Welch, 2010). Librarians ought to incorporate
such features within their websites to enable users to
connect anywhere and at any time. Rod-Welch (2010)
examined 125 ARL websites to determine which
incorporated and promoted referencing and social
networking tools. While almost all the examined web-
sites had an option to email/ask-a-librarian and access
research consultation/subject specialist services, the
least common features were Flickr, YouTube, and a 24/7
reference service. Harinarayana and Raju (2010) and
Tripathi and Kumar (2010) conducted similar studies
but expanded their data set to also include Asian,
Australian, and European academic library websites.
All three studies concurred that instant messaging
(IM), blogs, and real simple syndication (RSS) were
the most common tools supported by library websites,
while wikis, podcasts, and vodcasts were rarely used.
Besides identifying the types and uses of Web 2.0
applications, Chua and Goh (2010) also sought to find
any relationships between Web 2.0 applications and
website quality, focusing also on three constituent ele-
ments of the latter: system, information, and service
quality. They found an association between Web 2.0
and the overall quality of library websites. Web 2.0
was most strongly associated with service quality, while
its weakest association was with information quality.
Chua and Goh concluded that users could become
more responsive when given interactive opportuni-
ties, thereby creating cognitive and social connections
between patrons and librarians.
Website assessment tools
Several earlier works formed the theoretical founda-
tions of evaluative criteria for academic library websites
(Abels, White, & Hahn, 1997; Clausen, 1999; Raward,
2001; Wilkinson, Bennett, & Oliver, 1997). By exam-
ining authoritative sources, Chao (2002) developed
and tested criteria useful for evaluating, construct-
ing, and maintaining quality academic library web-
sites. Consequently, Chao suggested two instrument
forms: the longer version comprised 16 factors and
their attributes, while the shorter version comprised
eight essential factors and their attributes. For exam-
ple, a content factor included attributes such as cata-
logs, resources, and research tools; a presentation fac-
tor included attributes such as organizational structure,
reliable links, and aesthetics; and an integration factor
included attributes such as a library email address and
online forms for requests and feedback.
Similarly, Chow, Bridges, and Commander (2014)
created the Library Website Usability Checklist, which
they used to evaluate the Web design, information
architecture, and navigation features of 102 academic
and 101 public library websites in the U.S. The check-
list contained 67 questions divided into five sections:
(1) general information, such as library name, URL,
and webmaster email; (2) design elements, such as
search tools and the use of graphics; (3) Web content,
such as OPACs, library news, and policies; (4) loca-
tion and placement of Web features; and (5) informa-
tion architecture and usability factors. Commenting
on their findings, the authors suggest “that much of
the basic content and features typically called for by
patrons and as identified by previous research” were
available on both academic and public library websites
(Chow et al., 2014, p. 264).
Wijayaratne and Singh (2015) created a library
website model comprising two dimensions: Web con-
tent and design. Each dimension had four distinct
subdimensions containing in total 140 features. The
authors grouped the features into three priority lev-
els: 99 first-level features, categorized as very useful;
30 second-level features, categorized as fairly useful;
and 11 third-level features, categorized as somewhat
useful. From this model, two instruments were cre-
ated: a checklist for website designers containing all
140 features, and an evaluative instrument comprising
only 117 content and design elements. Wijayaratne
and Singh (2015) report that their instruments could
be, respectively, used in designing or redesigning
library websites and in evaluating library websites for
institutional or research purposes.
Rocha (2012) proposed a global framework for web-
site evaluation. His model contained three dimensions
of website quality: content, services, and technical qual-
ity. Within each dimension, specific evaluative criteria
are listed. Finally, several studies have provided models
for evaluating the websites of other types of libraries
(Haneefa & Venugopal, 2010; Hernandez, Jimenez, &
Martin, 2009; Perez & Caballero, 2014). These studies
also followed similar guidelines for developing website
assessment tools, and included some of the essential
elements, such as content, services, navigation, or
design practices.
This literature review demonstrates how researchers
have applied content analysis to evaluate website fea-
tures, by targeting specific groups of academic users

Figure . Framework for library website evaluation.
and by using different types of assessment instruments.
Many of the studies, however, have concentrated on
only one or two evaluative categories of a library web-
site. This study is more comprehensive and exhaustive
in nature, examining the major evaluative dimensions
of websites as defined in the literature. Furthermore,
no prior studies have assessed the current landscape of
academic library websites in GCC countries.
Drawing on the literature review, a conceptual
framework was developed to guide this study. This
framework comprises five categories constituting the
main qualities of dynamic academic library websites
(see Figure 1): website design; website navigation tools;
web content; Web-based library services; and Web 2.0
tools supported by the library.
Purpose of the study
The research purpose is to analyze the current state of
academic library websites in GCC countries to deter-
mine their compliance with standard website practices.
Specifically, the study examines various website char-
acteristics, focusing on design, navigation, library con-
tent, library services, and use of Web 2.0 technologies.
It addresses the following research questions:
RQ1. Which Web design practices are applied in devel-
oping the academic library websites?
RQ2. Which navigation tools are available on the library
websites?
RQ3. What Web content is provided on the libraries’
websites, including general information, resources, and
instructional materials?
INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION & LIBRARY REVIEW 5
RQ4. What Web-based services do the libraries offer on
their websites?
RQ5. What Web 2.0 tools are used by the academic
libraries to interact with their users?
Methodology
For this research, the websites of the educational
authority in each GCC country were consulted to iden-
tify all accredited colleges and universities. In total, 149
academic institutions were listed. To be included in this
study, each institution had to at least offer undergrad-
uate degree programs and have a dedicated English-
language library website. These criteria yielded a final
data set of 110 academic library websites.
To investigate the Web practices of academic library
websites in GCC countries, a content analysis was
performed to identify and evaluate a specific set of
Web features. Content analysis is a common research
methodology for investigating the design and func-
tions of websites (Babbie, 2003; McMillan, 2000), and
has been extensively used in library and information
science research (Julien, McKechnie, & Hart, 2005;
Jurkowski, 2005; Koufogiannakis, Slater, & Crumley,
2004).
Based on the framework shown in Figure 1 and
several studies (Chow et al., 2014; Rod-Welch, 2012;
Wilkinson et al., 1998; Wilson, 2015), a checklist
was constructed. During the development phase, a
three-step approach was used to increase the validity
of the instrument’s content and construction (Heale
& Twycross, 2015) and to ensure data consistency
throughout the analysis. First, the initial draft of the
instrument was distributed to library and information
science educators and academic information pro-
fessionals for review and comments. Based on their
feedback, modifications were made before redistribut-
ing the instrument for further examination. Once
completed, a pilot test of the instrument was con-
ducted by one of the authors, who evaluated a sample
of seven academic library websites. Finally, two web-
sites were chosen, on which the authors independently
tested the checklist to enable comparison of results,
so as to confirm common understanding of the termi-
nology used and the conceptual ideas underlying the
various website features being evaluated (Chow et al.,
2014). The final instrument comprises 83 questions
distributed among the five categories; each question
6 C. L. AL-QALLAF AND A. RIDHA

represents a Web feature. This instrument is named Design

the L-WEC, and is summarized as follows:
In recent years, libraries have become increasingly
1. Design: These criteria assess website design,
dependent on their websites as a main gateway to
including aesthetics, structure, and user-
their resources and services. Web designers, both inside
friendliness (10 questions).
and outside the library, have recognized the impor-
2. Navigation tools: These criteria examine website
tance of designing websites that are more appealing
functionality and accessibility (12 questions).
and attractive to users. According to Becker and Yan-
3. Web content: These criteria assess whether
notta (2013), the main principles in designing library
the website displays basic information about
websites are solid information architecture, clear nav-
the library, offers access to essential library
igation systems, strong visual appeal, understandable
resources, and provides instructional tools
terminology, and user-centered design. Furthermore,
to assist teaching, learning, and research (36
Hasan (2014) indicates that website design relates to the
questions).
visual attractiveness of the website. She further explains
4. Web-based library services: These criteria ana-
that website design comprises six subcategories, which
lyze what types of virtual reference services
includes aesthetic design; consistency; appropriate use
(VRS), as well as traditional services offered
of images and of fonts, appropriate choice of colors; and
remotely, are available on the websites (17 ques-
appropriate page design.
tions).
This section addresses the first research question
5. Web 2.0 applications: These criteria examine
regarding Web design features found on academic
what types of Web 2.0 tools are supported by the
library websites. The ten website features evaluated are
library (eight questions).
shown in Table 1.
The websites were analyzed over a 6-month period
Many academic library websites were found to
from July through December 2016 using the L-WEC.
have a logical and hierarchal structure, with similar
As the study progressed, the researchers met on a regu-
sections grouped together (65.5%). The majority of
lar basis to discuss any discrepancies arising in the data
these sites also presented information using clear
set or concerning the evaluated Web features. Coding
language (77.3%). In addition, the websites’ sections
of each question was based on a “Yes” or “No” response
were labeled using correct terminology (74.5%). These
to denote the presence or absence of the respective Web
results are comparable with those of several other
feature. A column for “Comments” provided space to
studies, emphasizing the importance of using under-
record additional information, if applicable. There was
standable terminology to create a user-centered design
also a column for “Not Applicable” (NA), used for any
(Becker & Yannotta, 2013; Hasan, 2014).
website feature that was password protected and so
Regarding aesthetic design features, 52.7% of the
could not be evaluated. The data were entered into
websites used one or more types of multimedia to cre-
IBM SPSS version 24 for quantitative analysis.
ate a visually attractive design. The majority of the
sites used suitable colors and font size (74.5% and
59.1%, respectively). However, some library websites
Findings and discussion used graphics excessively on their homepages, while
This study evaluated 110 academic libraries’ websites
in the six GCC countries. Of the 83 Web features con- Table . Library website design.
sidered, no academic library website contained every Design features Number of libraries (%)
one. Only three websites contained most of the features,
Information presented in proper/clear language  (.)
at 84.3%, 78.3%, and 76%, respectively. Forty websites Easily identifiable titles/headings  (.)
contained between 51% and 75% of the features, while Colors are suitable  (.)
Intuitive URL  (.)
45 websites contained between 26% and 50% of the fea- Library name/logo appears on homepage  (.)
Website has logical structure  (.)
tures. The remaining 22 websites had 25% or less of the Font size is suitable  (.)
Web features. The following sections present and dis- Use of multimedia  (.)
Balance between text and graphics  (.)
cuss the findings for the research questions, using the Support for users with special needs  (.)
five categories defined in the L-WEC.

in other cases the graphics were not specifically rele-
vant to the libraries’ activities, facilities, or users. There-
fore, only 40.9% of academic library websites had an
appropriate balance between text and graphics. By con-
trast, in Chow et al.’s study (2014, pp. 261–262), “public
and academic library websites were found mostly to be
uncluttered with clean graphics and no splash pages or
unnecessary graphs.” This study also found that 68.2%
of the library websites had the library name and logo
in a conspicuous location on the homepage. In addi-
tion, the majority of sites had an intuitive URL (69.1%).
In a similar study, Wilson (2015) found that 54.2% of
academic library websites had simple and memorable
URLs. Only 4.5% of the websites evaluated in this study
provided support to users with disabilities, reinforcing
the finding on this issue by Wilson (2015). This indi-
cates that many academic libraries’ websites have lim-
ited or no requirements for meeting the accessibility
needs of disabled users.
Navigation tools
Navigation is considered one of the main criteria for
a site’s usability; users should be able to quickly access
the information they need. According to Hasan (2014),
navigation is one of the design elements that consid-
erably influences website usability. She also indicates
that the navigation of websites generally comprises sev-
eral subcategories such as navigation support, an inter-
nal search tool, working links, and no orphan pages.
Brower (2004, p. 413) explains that “[n]avigation pro-
vides cues and assistance in guiding the users to the
information they require.”
This section addresses the second research question
regarding which navigation tools are available on the
academic library websites. The 12 website features eval-
uated are shown in Table 2.
Table . Library website navigation tools.
Navigation features Number of libraries (%)
Library accessible from institutional homepage
Library resources link appears on homepage
Catalog link on homepage
Links are active
Navigation tool appears on each page
Library services
Search site feature
Library link clearly visible on the institutional homepage
Other academic links
Quick links
Help feature
Site map
INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION & LIBRARY REVIEW 7
The majority of parent institutions’ homepages con-
tained a link to the library website (85.5%). Similarly,
Wilson (2015) reported that 85.7% of public institu-
tions and 79.1% of private institutions provided links
to the library website on their institutional homepages.
However, in this study, the link was clearly visible on
only 55.5% of parent institution homepages. In the
remaining cases (44.5%), the library link was at least
two clicks away, appeared in the footer of the institution
homepage, or did not provide any link to the library.
These findings suggest the need for library officials
to work with university administrators to highlight
the library’s online presence on their institutional
homepages.
Navigation tools or menus are considered an essen-
tial part of library websites. Of the evaluated academic
library websites, 63.6% provided users with a naviga-
tion tool or menu to facilitate browsing. This figure
is lower compared with the findings of earlier stud-
ies: for example, Chow et al. (2014) found clear nav-
igation tools on 88% of the academic library websites
they evaluated. In this study, the two links most com-
monly found on academic library homepages were to
library resources (82.7%) and OPACs (74.5%), followed
by links to library services (57.3%), other academic
links (51.8%), and quick links (48.2%). Surprisingly,
only 56.4% of the academic library websites provided a
search site tool, which was found to be more common
in other studies (Gardner et al., 2008; Wilson, 2015).
One feature that appears to be lacking on the web-
sites is a site map: only 21.8% of academic library
websites had such a feature, reinforcing earlier studies’
findings, ranging between 16% and 38% (Chow et al.,
2014; Gardner et al., 2008; Jurkowski, 2005; Wilson,
2015). The libraries are divided on help menus, despite
these being recommended as a key focus in an online
environment by Detlor and Lewis (2006). Just 26.4% of
the websites provided a help feature, which is similar
to the 20.3% that did so in Gardner et al.’s (2008) study,
but significantly below the 80% reported by Chow
 (.) et al. (2014) for academic library websites. Another
 (.) weakness was that almost one-third (31.8%) of aca-
 (.)
 (.) demic library websites had two or more broken links.
 (.) For example, in some cases, links to library Web 2.0
 (.)
 (.) applications resulted in error messages. In other cases,
 (.) some links led to empty or orphan pages. This can be
 (.)
 (.) problematic for patrons who become unable to access
 (.)
 (.)
the desired information. These patrons can become
frustrated forcing them to search for resources and
8 C. L. AL-QALLAF AND A. RIDHA

information elsewhere. Care should be taken to ensure
that routine maintenance tasks such as updating con-
tent, organizing the site’s structure, and correcting
website problems are conducted, especially with aca-
demic websites having significantly higher numbers of
links overall.
Web content
Cohen and Still (1999) suggest that Web content should
serve four purposes, namely, as an information, ref-
erencing, research, and instructional tool. Web con-
tent is commonly evaluated, and is explored in almost
all library website evaluation studies (Aharony, 2012;
Jurkowski, 2005; Sapa, 2005; Wilson, 2015). This sec-
tion reports the findings for the third research question
by identifying the content found on the libraries’ web-
sites. Content features are divided into three areas: gen-
eral information, library resources, and instructional
tools. In total, this study evaluated 36 content features.
General information
this feature was found on only one-third of the sites.
The findings of earlier studies on this feature are mixed:
while Detlor and Lewis (2006) found that almost all
ARL websites offered the functionality of FAQs, other
studies found limited provision of this feature (Chow
et al., 2014; Jurkowski, 2005). FAQs are essential for
academic users as they improve site navigation, making
it easier and quicker to locate information, resources,
and services.
Library resources
As shown in Table 3, Web content covering library
resources included 16 features. Unsurprisingly, almost
all the library websites provided an OPAC (86.4%),
while 72.7% provided access to both bibliographic and
full-text databases, e-journals, and e-book collections.
Nearly half of the websites (44.5%) provided access
to reference sources. Other collections less readily
Table . Categories and features of Web content.
Content features Number of libraries (%)

Basic information about the library includes 12 fea- General Information

Copyright statement  (.)
tures, as summarized in Table 3. Overview library resources and services  (.)
Slightly more than half (54.5%) of the websites Library policies  (.)
Mission statement/goals/objectives  (.)
provided a mission statement. Kuchi’s (2006) finding Library hours in conspicuous position  (.)
Contact information  (.)
was similar in an analysis of the practices of ARL Library news/events  (.)
websites, 48% of which provided a mission statement. Frequently asked questions  (.)
Last updated date  (.)
It may be assumed, however, that some libraries have a Campus map/directions to the library  (.)
mission statement but do not post it on their websites. Library calendar  (.)
Virtual library tour  (.)
According to Ebenezer (2003), the main purpose of a Library resources and collections
library website’s content is to serve the library’s mis- OPAC  (.)
Bibliographic databases  (.)
sion. Highlighting the mission statement through the Full-text databases  (.)
library website serves to address the needs of the aca- e-Journals  (.)
e-Books  (.)
demic community and increase understanding among Online reference sources  (.)
Databases organized alphabetically  (.)
stakeholders. Therefore, the mission statement should Research repository  (.)
be a primary piece of information on library websites. OPACs of other libraries  (.)
e-Journals organized alphabetically  (.)
Most websites provided an overview and description Multimedia collections  (.)
of the libraries’ services (74.5%) and presented library Databases organized by subjects  (.)
e-Journals organized by subject  (.)
policies (67.3%). Despite being considered basic web- Other e-resources  (.)
site requirements, only 52.7% of library websites placed Special collections  (.)
Open source systems  (.)
library hours in a conspicuous location (52.7%), while Instructional tools
just 45.5% provided contact information; both figures Research guides  (.)
OPAC search tips  (.)
were lower than expected. Although, most websites Information literacy program  (.)
Citation guides  (.)
(75.5%) had a copyright statement, including the copy- Course guides  (.)
right holder, on each webpage, only 30% posted the last Online tutorials  (.)
Different groups of users  (.)
updated date. Another form of information normally Plagiarism guides  (.)
found on academic library websites is FAQs; however,

available were research repositories and other catalogs
(both 37.3%), multimedia collections (35.5%), other
e-resources (22.7%), special collections (18.2%), and
open source systems (14.5%). It should be noted that
the e-resource collections of 21 library websites could
not be evaluated due to password protection. However,
the presence of a link could imply that access to one or
more of these e-resources is provided.
It appears that more consideration should be given
to the organization of databases and e-journals. It is
important not only to provide these collections in an
online environment but also to organize them to max-
imize their use and increase user performance. User
access to databases (29.1%) and e-journal collections
(28.2%) was found to be extremely low, while alphabet-
ical access to databases (38.2%) and e-journals (36.4%)
was only slightly better. Such basic Web functional-
ity was expected to have been supported by more
library websites. According to a study by Miles and
Bergstrom (2009), using subject headings to organize
library resources decreases the users’ response time. In
addition, providing multiple access points for services
and facilities helps to create content-rich websites and
maximizes usability (Wijayaratne & Singh, 2015).
Instructional tools
The final Web content area evaluated was the pres-
ence of instructional features; the eight considered are
summarized in Table 3. Regarding information liter-
acy (IL), 39.1% of the websites provided online IL ses-
sions, 45.5% gave search tips for OPACs, and 29.1%
offered Web-based tutorials. Overall, 33.2% of the web-
sites offered various types of instructional guides, rang-
ing from 50% providing research guides to 16.4% pro-
viding plagiarism guides.
Some of the library websites offered one or more
forms of library instruction, whether a full IL program,
tutorials, or instruction guides. It should be noted,
however, that it was sometimes difficult to determine
if a website provided any of these instructional activ-
ities due to nonuniformity in terminology or content
location. Instead of spreading instructional activities
over multiple Web locations, it could be more pro-
ductive to have integrated online tutorials, covering all
areas of academic research and IL skills. Several studies
concur that IL and library instruction activities, when
fragmented and embedded within other areas of Web
content, can create confusion for students, who thus
INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION & LIBRARY REVIEW 9
become reluctant to use them (Bottorff & Todd, 2012;
Rothera, 2015). Based on this assumption, Thornes
(2012) developed and tested a set of online tutorials,
designed to improve and develop students’ IL and aca-
demic skills. She addressed all major IL content areas,
making the tutorials available through a virtual learn-
ing environment (VLE). Feedback from faculty was
encouraging, as combining existing resources and tools
to teach academic skills and IL concepts within one
resource was found to reduce student enquiries. Stu-
dents also praised the tutorials’ usefulness. Since our
study found that less than half (40%) of the library web-
sites provided any form of instructional activities, the
studied academic libraries should aim to follow a simi-
lar strategy by developing an integrated online program
covering all IL competencies.
Web-based library services
Technological advancement is instrumental in inte-
grating library services into a Web-based environment.
This environment provides a channel for librarians to
asynchronously or synchronously engage with the aca-
demic community, whose information needs it must
aim to fulfill. Additionally, Web-based services can
include library exhibits and newsletters made available
in a remote environment. This virtual environment is
important for libraries to appeal to and maintain the
interest of users who “are growing more sophisticated,
technologically equipped, and mobile” (Yang & Dalal,
2015, p. 68).
This section addresses the fourth research ques-
tion regarding the type of Web-based library services
provided by academic library websites to their users.
Table 4 summarizes the 17 evaluated features including
five OPAC search options.
Table . Web-based library services.
Type of service Number of libraries (%)
OPAC search options:
Author, title, subject, keyword, and advanced  (.)
Discovery services  (.)
Feedback/email  (.)
Ask-a-librarian  (.)
Circulation services  (.)
Interlibrary loan services  (.)
Current awareness  (.)
Document delivery services  (.)
Online newsletter  (.)
SMS reference service  (.)
Ready reference questions  (.)
Live chat  (.)
Library exhibits  (.)
10 C. L. AL-QALLAF AND A. RIDHA

The top two mediums for contacting the library Web 2.0 tools
remotely were suggestion or feedback forms (48.2%)
According to Dickson and Holley (2010), academic
and an “ask-a-librarian” facility (46.4%). In this study,
library websites that utilize social networking tools
“ask-a-librarian” refers to synchronous communica-
allows users to access the library’s services and
tion whereby a user would click on the feature and
resources through the applications they use most.
submit their question in a content box, with their
Table 5 shows the eight Web 2.0 tools evaluated, accom-
request being answered within a specified time frame.
panied by the findings for each. Of the 110 websites
Another virtual service gaining popularity is “live
evaluated, relatively few provided access to Web 2.0
chat with an information professional”; however, very
applications. Unsurprisingly, Facebook was used most
few library websites (12.7%) provided this service.
by libraries (20%), followed by Twitter and YouTube
This contrasts sharply with the findings of several
(both 17.3%). A few library sites provided an RSS feed
prior studies, with between 42% and 98% of sur-
(10.9%), social bookmarking (8.2%), and online photo-
veyed academic library websites providing real-time
sharing accounts (6.4%), such as Instagram. Only two
chat communication (Aharony, 2012; Mu, Dimitroff,
websites (1.8%) supported blogging activities, and no
Jordan, & Burclaff, 2011; Wilson, 2015; Yang & Dalal,
libraries had wikis. These findings are similar to those
2015).
in prior studies (Mahmood & Richardson, 2011; Rod-
Mobile technology to provide a reference service
Welch, 2012; Tripathi & Kumar, 2010; Wilson, 2015),
via SMS was supported by a relatively small number
with photo-sharing, social bookmarking, and wikis
of libraries (18.2%). Similarly, in a study conducted
previously found to be the least-provided technologies,
by Yang and Dalal (2015), only 23.8% of American
and social networking applications the most commonly
college and university libraries offer texting as a ref-
used.
erence service. They also discovered that only when
The overall results indicate low usage of Web 2.0
libraries offered at least four types of VRS was the use of
tools by most of the academic libraries. Furthermore,
mobile technology included. With mobile device users
62.7% of the websites did not provide access to any Web
constituting 55% of the global population (Schofield,
2.0 tool. These findings contrast sharply with those of
2015) and, on average, 67.5% of the population in GCC
other studies (Boateng & Liu, 2014; Rod-Welch, 2012),
countries (including two countries as high as 83%)
suggesting that the libraries evaluated in this study do
(EVOLITA, 2015), libraries need to utilize this tech-
not commonly adopt Web 2.0 tools. Chua and Goh
nology. There are several possibilities for optimizing
(2010) report that academic and public libraries in
mobile technology. The libraries evaluated in this study
North America, Europe, and Asia embrace Web 2.0
could begin by providing an SMS service, while simul-
tools differently: while North American libraries lead
taneously developing mobile versions of their websites.
in usage of all the tested tools, usage in Asian libraries
A mobile website provides patrons continuous access
was much less extensive. The authors attributed this
to content and services while enhancing their informa-
phenomenon to several factors, including many of
tion experience.
these countries being non-English-speaking, meaning
Most websites provided both basic and advanced
there is no incentive to offer English versions of Web 2.0
OPAC search capabilities (66.4%). Moreover, nearly
applications; there is also a lack of Internet accessibility,
half (49.1%) of the evaluated websites provided an
and Web 2.0 tools are viewed as a luxury rather than
enhanced search function, such as discovery ser-
a necessity by some institutions. To some degree any
vices. While many library websites provided access
to a discovery tool, this feature is extremely impor- Table . Web . tools on library websites.
tant for every library. Discovery technologies pro-
Type of Web . tool Number of libraries (%)
vide a one-stop search experience for the Google
generation, and several studies have found a pos- Facebook  (.)
Twitter  (.)
itive association between discovery services and YouTube  (.)
increased content usage in academic libraries (Lam & RSS feeds  (.)
Social bookmarking  (.)
Sum, 2013; O’Hara, 2012; Spezi, Creaser, & Conyers, Instagram  (.)
Blogs  (.)
2015). Wikis 

of these factors are possible, but a bigger issue in GCC
countries is increasing academic communities’ use of
libraries. Based on global statistics, apart from Saudi
Arabia (484,000 visitors), at most, there were between
6,000 and 12,000 academic library users across all GCC
countries in 2016 (OCLC, 2017). Low library usage
demonstrates a laissez-faire attitude by the academic
community, promoting a culture of indifference and
disinterest toward the library. Information profession-
als, in tandem with faculty, have a timely opportunity
to support Web 2.0 technologies as a method for inte-
grating libraries into the educational process.
Conclusions and recommendations
This study investigated the extent to which academic
library websites in GCC countries follow current Web
practices. Through the 83 evaluated Web features, a
profile of these websites has been formed as regards
design; navigation tools; Web content, including gen-
eral library information, library resources, and instruc-
tional tools; Web-based library services; and the appli-
cation of Web 2.0 tools. Overall, this study offers an
opportunity for active discourse among information
professionals, educators, and major stakeholders.
The majority of college and university libraries’ web-
sites in GCC countries employ basic navigational sys-
tems with adequate Web design and organizational
structure but have yet to exploit the full potential of
Web-based forms. This group of websites is more static,
providing a basic place to view information about
their libraries, rather than virtual versions thereof. Vir-
tual reference services are rudimentary, with very few
websites providing text messaging, live chat, and Web
2.0 applications. The study showed that most libraries
offer some of the Web content most commonly found
on academic library websites, but improvements are
needed. Few websites have given high priority to other
types of digital collections, and access to instructional
tools is also low. Ultimately, the websites should employ
user-centric design principles, use a strong naviga-
tion system, facilitate search engine optimization, and
deliver content-rich and value-added services. In addi-
tion, the design should incorporate specific objectives
drawn from the mother institution, as well as accom-
modating the different academic disciplines and varied
capabilities of the community served.
It is essential for libraries to capture the end-user’s
attention; the most explicit way to do this is through the
INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION & LIBRARY REVIEW 11
digital environment. Academic library websites need
to be both millennial-friendly and mobile-friendly. By
applying a mobile content management system, creates
a mobile accessible version of a library website. This
will enhance the user’s responsiveness, while academic
library websites would better serve their communities
and increase the usage of library content and services.
Another recommendation is to invest in VRS, such
as live chat and ask-a-librarian. Academic reference
services are a core function of the library, with VRS
contributing to quality assurance in education, e-
learning programs, and teaching-related activities. In
addition, such services are necessary to accommodate
the changing learning styles of college and university
students. The application of Web 2.0 tools for com-
munication, promotional activities, and creation of an
online identity should also be explored. Websites that
incorporate new tools and emerging technologies can
position libraries as technology leaders.
Academic library websites should also be a por-
tal to a variety of content. It is recommended that,
in conjunction with the mother institution, libraries
should establish repositories of all available types of
institutional resources, including but not limited to
institutional research and documents, multimedia
collections, and special collections. To provide optimal
information retrieval, it is strongly recommended
to create “digital commons,” whereby the end-users’
searching activities are covered in one-step. Informa-
tion literacy, a key element in supporting academic dis-
ciplines and developing research skills, should be incor-
porated into the websites as an essential instructional
program. Furthermore, to ensure that end-users have
successful website encounters, it is also important to
provide Web-based tutorials on what is available, along
with how to navigate and use the content and services.
Based on the study’s findings, several recommen-
dations for further research can be made. One avenue
would be to conduct usability tests to determine
these websites’ effectiveness and ease of use. Such
a user-centered study, coupled with the findings of
this research, would provide foundations for Web
developers to create interactive and user-friendly
websites, which also facilitate effective information
retrieval. Another route is to conduct a comparative
study between public and private academic libraries;
this could also be extended to analyze how selected
background data about each institution’s enrollment,
programs offered, budget, and number of full-time
12 C. L. AL-QALLAF AND A. RIDHA
professionals affect website design and content. Since
it is important to provide equitable access to all users
within a community, this study should be expanded to
determine how academic library websites can accom-
modate the needs of users with disabilities. Future
research could also seek to identify the challenges
facing information professionals in implementing Web
2.0 applications.
Finally, the L-WEC constructed for this study is
generic and not specific to a region or type of library.
Therefore, the study’s methodology and findings can
be applied to libraries worldwide that are endeavoring
to develop new websites or to improve the quality of
existing websites, in terms of design, navigation, con-
tent, and services.
References
Abels, E. G., White, M. D., & Hahn, K. (1997). Identifying user-
based criteria for Web pages. Internet Research, 7(4), 252–
262. doi:10.1108/10662249710187141
Aharony, N. (2012). An analysis of academic library web-
sites: 2000–2010. The Electronic Library, 30(6), 764–776.
doi:10.1108/02640471211282091
Al-Khalifa, H. (2014). A framework for evaluating univer-
sity mobile websites. Online Information Review, 38(2),
166–185. doi:10.1108/OIR-12-2012-0231
Babbie, E. R. (2003). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA:
Thomson/Wadsworth.
Becker, D., & Yannotta, L. (2013). Modeling a library web-
site redesign process: Developing a user-centered web-
site through usability testing. Information Technology and
Libraries, 32(1), 6–22. doi:10.6017/ital.v32i1.2311
Boateng, F., & Liu, Y. Q. (2014). Web 2.0 applications’ usage and
trends in top US academic libraries. Library Hi Tech, 32(1),
120–138. doi:10.1108/LHT-07-2013-0093
Bottorff, T., & Todd, A. (2012). Making online instruction
count: Statistical reporting of Web-based library instruc-
tion activities. College & Research Libraries, 73(1), 33–46.
doi:10.5860/crl-197
Brower, S. (2004). Academic health sciences library website nav-
igation: An analysis of forty-one websites and their naviga-
tion tools. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92(4),
412–420.
Chao, H. (2002). Assessing the quality of academic libraries
on the Web: The development and testing of criteria.
Library & Information Science Research, 24(2), 169–194.
doi:10.1016/S0740-8188(02)00111-1
Chow, A. S., Bridges, M., & Commander, P. (2014). The web-
site design and usability of US academic and public libraries:
Findings from a nationwide study. Reference & User Services
Quarterly, 53(3), 253–265. doi:10.5860/rusq.53n3.253
Chua, A. Y. K., & Goh, D. H. (2010). A study of Web 2.0 appli-
cations in library websites. Library & Information Science
Research, 32(3), 203–211. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2010.01.002
Clausen, H. (1999). Evaluation of library websites: The
Danish case. The Electronic Library, 17(2), 83–87.
doi:10.1108/02640479910329527
Cohen, L. B., & Still, J. M. (1999). A comparison of research uni-
versity and two-year college Web sites: Content, functional-
ity, and form. College & Research Libraries, 60(3), 275–289.
doi:10.5860/crl.60.3.275
Connaway, L. S., & Dickey, T. J. (2010). The Digital Infor-
mation Seeker: Report of the Findings from Selected
OCLC, RIN, and JISC User Behaviour Projects. Retrieved
from http://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/2014
0615023510/http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publi
cations/reports/2010/digitalinformationseekerreport.pdf
Detlor, B., & Lewis, V. (2006). Academic library web
sites: Current practice and future directions. The
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(3), 251–258.
doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2006.02.007
Dickson, A., & Holley, R. (2010). Social networking in
academic libraries: The possibilities and the con-
cerns. New Library World, 111(11/12), 468–479.
doi:10.1108/03074801011094840
Ebenezer, C. (2003). Usability evaluation of an NHS library
website. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 20(3),
134–142. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2532.2003.00450.x
Emde, J., Currie, L., Devlin, A., & Graves, K. (2008).
Is Good Enough OK? Undergraduate Search Behavior
in Google and in a Library Database. Retrieved from
https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/handle/1808/3869
EVOLITA. (2015). Arab Countries Smartphone Penetration Rate
2015. Retrieved from http://beta.evolita.com/explore/arab-
countries-smartphone-penetration-rate-2015/jmypq/
Gardner, S. J., Juricek, J. E., & Xu, F. G. (2008). An anal-
ysis of academic library web pages for faculty. The
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(1), 16–24.
doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2007.11.006
Garrett, J. J. (2011). The elements of user experience: User-
centered design for the web and beyond. Berkeley, CA:
New Riders.
Gottfried, J. C. (2011). Access to business research resources
through academic library websites: A survey. Jour-
nal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 16(1), 1–31.
doi:10.1080/08963568.2011.530852
Haneefa, M., & Venugopal, A. (2010). Contents of
national library websites in Asia: An analysis.
Annals of Library & Information Studies, 57(2),
98–108.
Harinarayana, N. S., & Raju, N. V. (2010). Web 2.0 features in
university library web sites. The Electronic Library, 28(1),
69–88. doi:10.1108/02640471011023388
Hasan, L. (2014). Evaluating the usability of educational web-
sites based on students’ preferences of design character-
istics. International Arab Journal of e-Technology, 3(3),
179–193.
Heale, R., & Twycross, A. (2015). Validity and reliability in
quantitative studies. Evidence Based Nursing, 18(3), 66–67.
doi:10.1136/eb-2015-102129
Hernandez, B., Jimenez, J., & Martin, M. J. (2009). Key
website factors in e-business strategy. International

Journal of Information Management, 29, 362–371.
doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2008.12.006
Islam, R. L., & Murno, L. A. (2006). From perceptions to con-
nections: Informing information literacy program planning
in academic libraries through examination of high school
library media center curricula. College & Research Libraries,
67(6), 492–514. doi:10.5860/crl.67.6.491
Julien, H., McKechnie, L., & Hart, S. (2005). Affective issues
in library and information science systems work: A con-
tent analysis. Library Information Science Research, 27(4),
453–466. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2005.08.004
Jurkowski, O. L. (2005). An analysis of library web sites at
colleges and universities serving distance education stu-
dents. In E. D. Garten, D. E. Williams, & J. M. Nyce (Eds.),
Advances in library administration and organization (pp. 23–
77). New York: Elsevier.
Kim, S., & DeCoster, E. (2011). Organizational schemes of
information resources in top 50 academic business library
websites. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 37(2),
137–144. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2011.02.005
Koufogiannakis, D., Slater, L., & Crumley, E. (2004). A content
analysis of librarianship research. Journal of Information Sci-
ence, 30(3), 227–239. doi:10.1177/0165551504044668
Kuchi, T. (2006). Communicating mission: An analysis of aca-
demic library web sites. The Journal of Academic Librarian-
ship, 32(2), 148–154. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2005.12.006
Kumar, V., & Bansal, J. (2014). Qualities of a library web-
site: Evaluating library websites of new IITs. International
Journal of Information Dissemination and Technology, 4(4),
282–288.
Lam, M. S., & Sum, M. (2013). Enhancing access and usage:
The OUHK’s experience in resource discovery service. In
Proceedings of the 79th IFLA World Library and Information
Congress (pp. 1–10). Singapore, August 17–23. Retrieved
from http://library.ifla.org/76/1/106-lam-en.pdf
Liu, S. (2008). Engaging users: The future of academic
Web sites. College & Research Libraries, 69(1), 6–27.
doi:10.5860/crl.69.1.6
Mahmood, K., & Richardson, J. V. (2011). Adoption of Web 2.0
in US academic libraries: A survey of ARL library websites.
Electronic Library & Information Systems, 45(4), 365–375.
doi:10.1108/00330331111182085
McMillan, S. J. (2000). The microscope and the moving tar-
get: The challenge of applying content analysis to the World
Wide Web. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,
77(1), 80–98. doi:10.1177/107769900007700107
Miles, M., & Bergstrom, S. (2009). Classification of
library resources by subject on the library web-
site: Is there an optimal number of subject labels?
Information Technology & Libraries, 28(1), 16–20.
doi:10.6017/ital.v28i1.3167
Mu, X., Dimitroff, A., Jordan, J., & Burclaff, N. (2011). A sur-
vey and empirical study of virtual reference service in aca-
demic libraries. The Journal Academic Librarianship, 37(2),
120–129. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2011.02.003
O’Hara, L. (2012). Collection usage pre-and post-Summon
implementation at the University of Manitoba libraries.
INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION & LIBRARY REVIEW 13
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 7(4),
25–34. doi:10.18438/B8DK70
OCLC. (2017). OCLC global library statistics. Retrieved from
https://www.oclc.org/en/global-library-statistics.html
Perez, C. F., & Caballero, I. M. S. (2014). Design and imple-
mentation of a weighted features model for the evaluation
of archival websites. The Electronic Library, 32(2), 203–220.
doi:10.1108/EL-07-2012-0094
Raward, R. (2001). Academic library website design
principles: Development of a checklist. Australian
Academic & Research Libraries, 32(2), 123–136.
doi:10.1080/00048623.2001.10755151
Rocha, A. (2012). Framework for a global quality evaluation
of a website. Online Information Review, 36(3), 374–382.
doi:10.1108/14684521211241404
Rodriquez, M. (2016). Developing responsive library web sites.
Florida Libraries, Fall, 15–18.
Rod-Welch, L. (2012). Incorporation and visibility of ref-
erence and social networking tools on ARL member
libraries’ websites. Reference Services Review, 40(1),
138–171. doi:10.1108/00907321211203694
Rothera, H. (2015). Picking up the tools: Working with strategic
students to get bite-sized information literacy tutorials cre-
ated, promoted, embedded, remembered and used. Journal
of Information Literacy, 9(2), 37–61. doi:10.11645/9.2.2033
Sapa, R. (2005). The roles of American and Polish academic
library web sites: A comparative study. Libri, 55(1), 1–20.
doi:10.1515/LIBR.2005.1
Schofield, M. (2015). 3 numbers about mobile usage that
impact libraries. Public Libraries Online. Retrieved from
http://publiclibrariesonline.org/2015/10/3-numbers-
about-mobile-usage-that-impact-libraries/
Smith, B. (2001). Enhancing reference services through technol-
ogy. Legal Reference Services Quarterly, 19(1-2), 133–146.
doi:10.1300/J113v19n01_09
Spezi, V., Creaser, C., & Conyers, A. (2015). The impact
of Resource Discovery Services (RDS) on usage of elec-
tronic content in UK academic libraries: Selected results
from a UKSG-funded project. Serials Review, 41(2), 85–99.
doi:10.1080/00987913.2015.1035991
Stachokas, G. (2016). Electronic resources for alumni: A review
of ARL academic library websites. The Serials Librarian,
71(1), 14–19. doi:10.1080/0361526X.2016.1154925
Still, J. M. (2001). A content analysis of university Web sites
in English speaking countries. Online Information Review,
25(3), 160–165. doi:10.1108/14684520110395281
Suiter, A. M., & Moulaison, H. L. (2015). Support-
ing scholars: An analysis of academic library web-
sites’ documentation on metrics and impact. The
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(6), 814–820.
doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2015.09.004
Thornes, S. L. (2012). Creating an online tutorial to sup-
port information literacy and academic skills devel-
opment. Journal of Information Literacy, 6(1), 82–95.
doi:10.11645/6.1.1654
Tripathi, M., & Kumar, S. (2010). Use of Web 2.0 tools in
academic libraries: A reconnaissance of the international
14 C. L. AL-QALLAF AND A. RIDHA
landscape. The International Information & Library Review,
42(3), 195–207. doi:10.1080/10572317.2010.10762864
University College London. (2008). Information Behaviour of
the Researcher of the Future. Retrieved from http://www.
webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20140614113419/http:
//www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/reppres/
gg_final_keynote_11012008.pdf
Wijayaratne, A. L., & Singh, D. (2015). Developing an aca-
demic library website model: A designer’s checklist and an
evaluative instrument. The Electronic Library, 33(1), 35–51.
doi:10.1108/EL-11-2012-0115
Wilkinson, G. L., Bennett, L. T., & Oliver, K. M. (1997). Evalua-
tion criteria and indicators of quality for Internet resources.
Educational Technology, 37(3), 522–558.
Wilson, D. (2015). Web content and design trends of Alabama
academic libraries. The Electronic Library, 33(1), 88–102.
doi:10.1108/EL-05-2013-0100
Yang, S. Q., & Dalal, H. A. (2015). Delivering virtual ref-
erence services on the Web: An investigation into
the current practice by academic librarians. The
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(1), 68–86.
doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2014.10.003