Abstract
According to Lew (2013a:79), successful dictionary use depends on two factors, namely the user-friendliness of dictionaries and good reference skills of the dictionary users. Both factors are investigated in this article by means of usability testing of a prototype online Afrikaans academic editing dictionary (see Blom 2020 for an outline of a dictionary model for an online Afrikaans academic editing dictionary, and Blom de Wet 2022 for an outline of a prototype academic editing dictionary). The online dictionary-using skills and user satisfaction of the prototype editing dictionary of a total of 31 second-year, third-year, short course and honours students from Stellenbosch University’s Department of Afrikaans and Dutch are determined after completion of editing tests in which these student editors must use the prototype dictionary during academic editing tasks. This usability testing serves, as in Heid and Zimmermann (2012), as a starting point for improved dictionary design, and is used to improve, as Atkins and Varantola (1997:1) suggest, the academic editing dictionary itself as well as the users of this dictionary. This article therefore attempts to give insight into my observations and experiences of how editing students use an online dictionary in practical editing assignments and, based on this study’s findings, provides suggestions for dictionary compilation and training in order to improve the quality of dictionaries for academic editors and promote dictionary use among editors.
In recent decades, several studies have been conducted on how language practitioners – mainly translators – use dictionaries and other translation aids (see Zheng 2014, Kodura 2016 and Svike 2022). Some of these studies have focused on translators’ online dictionary-using skills to discover, as Sycz-Opoń (2019:152) highlights, how translators behave in a modern information environment, what search strategies they perform and what problems they encounter (see Pastor and Alcina 2010, Sycz-Opoń 2019, Paradowska 2020 and Lu, Xiangling and Shuya 2022). In addition to the discourse on the promotion of online dictionary use among language practitioners, it is also necessary to investigate and improve editors’ online dictionary-using skills. According to Law and Kruger (2008:485), editors must have knowledge and skills in, among other things, advanced word processing and other computer applications, which may include online reference sources. According to Kruger (2007:11) attention must also be paid, as part of training courses for editors, to the development of their technological and knowledge acquisition skills where students learn how to use traditional and electronic reference sources. Dictionary skills are also listed as part of international editing societies’ professional editing standards. Editors Canada (2024:12) states, for example, that editors must be able to select and critically evaluate reference sources for editing, such as style guides, dictionaries and databases, in order to use the appropriate source in a specific editing situation. These prerequisites and standards therefore make it clear that editors are expected to have good online dictionary-using skills, as well as knowledge about different types of dictionaries, including their structure, functions and use during the editing process.
There is, however, a lack of studies on online dictionary use among editors, and before editing students can be trained to use online reference sources for editing effectively, as Klein (2008:1266) suggests, it must first be determined which dictionary-using skills are required by each user group. Klein (2008:1266) states that the two most important tasks for lexicographers in South Africa are to compile user-friendly dictionaries and to teach people how to use dictionaries effectively. To complete these tasks for the academic editing dictionary and editing students, this study is based on the assessment of the skills of editing students as dictionary users and the usability of the prototype editing dictionary. The research objective of this study is threefold: First, a user profile of these editing students is created. Secondly, the editing students’ dictionary-using skills are examined. Thirdly, a summary is given of the problems the students experience when they use the prototype editing dictionary. The research steps to achieve this objective are carried out according to three research questions, namely:
- What are the characteristics and user needs of the editing students?
- What online dictionary-using skills do editing students demonstrate when completing editing tasks using the prototype editing dictionary?
- What problems or shortcomings do editing students encounter regarding the data presentation and data description in the prototype editing dictionary?
The principles of a usability approach are used as a theoretical framework and method during the testing of the prototype editing dictionary, as this approach uses user experience, product effectiveness and product-human interaction to largely focus on the target user (e.g. the editing student), as well as how efficiently and satisfactorily this student interacts with the dictionary (e.g. the prototype editing dictionary) (Du Plessis 2017:4). The method that is followed to evaluate usability in this study is a usability test which was carried out in three phases according to the three research questions above.
In the first phase, the characteristics and user needs of the editing students were determined by means of a pre-test questionnaire, and the user profile of these students was drawn up. The editing students from Stellenbosch University who were used as participants in the current study are divided into two groups according to their academic year, namely second-year students and third-year and postgraduate students. The second-year students are, as Rubin and Chisnell (2008:146) mention, the least competent users or LCUs, because they have the least background knowledge of academic editing, they are mostly laymen in respect of subject fields such as the Sciences field and they have little to no experience consulting online dictionaries. The third-year and postgraduate students are exposed to academic editing guidelines and they edit academic texts as part of their respective modules. They are semi-experts or laymen in subject fields such as the Sciences field, and their consulting experience of online dictionaries are reasonable as they have consulted online dictionaries like Pharos Online, HAT Aanlyn and WAT Aanlyn before. The user expectations and needs regarding the prototype editing dictionary includes, among other things, that the content must pay enough attention to subject terms and include detailed sample material that applies to academic Afrikaans.
In the second phase, the results of the editing test showed that the students struggled to carry out the phase of dictionary consultation where the information must be located (Lew 2013b:18). The students’ errors during the editing tasks on text correction and text substitution showed that they struggled to find the information in the relevant dictionary sections, as they do not necessarily understand the structure and the cross-referencing system (including hyperlinks) in the prototype editing dictionary. The students also had problems in the phase of dictionary consultation in which the interpretation of the information about the entry must take place (Lew 2013b:21). During the task in which the definitions of subject terms had to be completed, the students could not distinguish the relevant information from the irrelevant information in the entries about the subject terms. They were also unable to extract the information from the sample material of these entries or verify the lookup information about the subject terms and apply it in the editing task.
In the third phase, the students completed the post-test questionnaire where they elaborated on the possible product-related causes for the user errors in the editing tests. The students’ obstacles regarding the prototype editing dictionary mainly indicate problems with the prototype’s navigation, search function and presentation, and the content of the respective sections in the prototype. The students have problems with navigation in the editing dictionary because some of them did not know exactly how the links in the dictionary work and where the links would take them. They also struggled to get direct access to specific subject terms in the editing dictionary using the search function as there is no advanced search option where the students can, for example, create a profile and choose according to their user profiles and advanced search and display options to adjust the difficulty level of the content. According to the students, the names of the sections in the prototype editing dictionary causes confusion and they are not always sure where to look for something specific in the prototype. The lack of subdivision of the sections “science”, “mathematics and computers” and “subject terminology” also creates confusion for the students.
Finally, improvement guidelines are given to further compile the prototype editing dictionary and, as Ball and Bothma (2017:99) suggest, recommendations are made on how editing students can be trained to use advanced search functions and innovative technologies in online dictionaries specifically.
Keywords: academic editing; academic editing dictionary; editing students; online dictionary-using skills; usability studies; user studies