Studi Komparasi Arsitektur Informasi, Desain Antarmuka, dan Logika Klasifikasi Google Books dengan Repositori Akademik UI, UGM, dan UNAIR
Kata Kunci:
Desain Informasi, Akses Pengetahuan, Platform Digital , Antarmuka Pengguna , Repositori InstitusionalAbstrak
Platform pengetahuan yang dikembangkan oleh korporasi memiliki perbedaan yang mendasar secara epistemologis dan infrastruktur dengan repositori institusi akademik. Dengan menggunakan kerangka kapitalisme platform, keadilan epistemik, dan perilaku informasi, penelitian ini dilakukan untuk menjelaskan perbedaan epistemologis dan infrastruktur dengan memperbandingkan tampilan antarmuka (interface) dari platform korporat Google Books dengan tiga repositori institusi akademik yang berada di Indonesia, yaitu Universitas Indonesia, Universitas Gadjah dan Universitas Airlangga. Studi ini bersifat interdisipliner dengan mengintegrasikan perspektif ilmu perpustakaan, humaniora digital, dan kajian kritis data untuk menelaah relasi kuasa yang melekat dalam infrastruktur platform. Penelitian dilakukan melalui perbandingan arsitektur informasi, desain antarmuka (interface) serta logika klasifikasi antara Google Books dengan repositori institusional akademik UI, UGM dan UNAIR. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Google Books memprioritaskan personalisasi algoritmik, pencarian prediktif dan kesederhanaan visual yang berlandaskan pada tujuan serta klasifikasi BISAC. Sebaliknya, repositori institusi akademik berfokus pada standar ilmiah secara ketat, termasuk prinsip akses terbuka dan pelestarian karya ilmiah lokal. Desain antarmuka repositori institusi akademik terlihat usang serta tingkat ketercapaian yang terbatas sehingga menyebabkan keterlibatan pengguna rendah dan berkurangnya visibilitas repositori akademik dalam ranah digital global. Repositori akademik perlu menjalani transformasi digital yang berfokus pada desain berbasis pengguna, kerangka metadata yang inklusif, serta pembaruan antarmuka, agar mampu berfungsi sebagai penyeimbang epistemik terhadap platform komersial. Artikel ini berkontribusi pada perkembangan humaniora digital dengan mengusulkan perlunya rekonseptualisasi repositori sebagai teknologi sipil (civic technologies), yang tidak semata berorientasi pada manfaat finansial, tetapi juga pada penguatan kesetaraan digital, keadilan pengetahuan, dan pluralisme budaya, khususnya dalam ekosistem pengetahuan digital yang semakin terkomodifikasi.
Abstract
The knowledge platform developed by corporations has fundamental epistemological and infrastructural differences from academic institutional repositories. Using the frameworks of platform capitalism, epistemic justice, and information behavior, this research aims to explain these epistemological and infrastructural differences by comparing the interface displays of the corporate platform Google Books with three academic institutional repositories in Indonesia: the University of Indonesia, Gadjah Mada University, and Airlangga University. This study is interdisciplinary, integrating perspectives from library science, digital humanities, and critical data studies to examine the power relations embedded within platform infrastructure. The research was conducted by comparing the information architecture, interface design, and classification logic between Google Books and the academic institutional repositories of UI, UGM, and UNAIR. The findings indicate that Google Books prioritizes algorithmic personalization, predictive search, and visual simplicity, all of which are based on BISAC objectives and classifications. In contrast, academic institutional repositories emphasize strict scholarly standards, including open access principles and the preservation of local scholarly works. The interface design of academic repositories appears outdated, with limited accessibility, resulting in low user engagement and reduced visibility of academic repositories in the global digital landscape. Academic repositories need to undergo digital transformation focused on user-centered design, inclusive metadata frameworks, and interface updates to function as an epistemic counterbalance to commercial platforms. This article contributes to the development of digital humanities by proposing the need to reconceptualize repositories as civic technologies—not solely oriented toward financial gain, but also toward strengthening digital equity, knowledge justice, and cultural pluralism, especially within an increasingly commodified digital knowledge ecosystem.
Referensi
Ajibade, P. (2022). Needs for mobile-responsive institutional open access digital repositories. Library Hi Tech News, 39(8), 12–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-04-2022-0054
Alvite-Díez, M.-L. (2025). User interfaces of digital scholarly editions: a proposal for an evaluative framework. International Journal of Digital Humanities. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42803-025-00102-y
Andree, M. (2025). Digital Monopolies—The Extent of Monopolization in Germany and the Implications for Media Freedom and Democracy. Social Sciences, 14(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14050303
Baeza-Yates, R., & Murgai, L. (2024). Bias and the Web. In H. Werthner, C. Ghezzi, J. Kramer, J. Nida-Rümelin, B. Nuseibeh, E. Prem, & A. Stanger (Eds.), Introduction to Digital Humanism: A Textbook (pp. 435–462). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45304-5_28
Beaton, T. (2025). Google Books:Mass Digitization and the Implications for Public Libraries. Pathfinder: A Canadian Journal for Information Science Students and Early Career Professionals, 5(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.29173/pathfinder106
Casas-Cortés, M., Cañedo-Rodríguez, M., & Diz, C. (2023). Platform Capitalism. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Anthropology. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190854584.013.597
Case, D. O., & Given, L. M. (2016). Looking for Information a Survey of Research on Information Seeking Needs and Behavior (J.-E. Mai, Ed.; 4th ed.). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Choi, G. W., & Seo, J. Y. (2024). Accessibility, Usability, and Universal Design for Learning: Discussion of Three Key LX/UX Elements for Inclusive Learning Design. TechTrends, 68(5), 936–945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-024-00987-6
da Silva Neto, V. J., & Chiarini, T. (2023). The Platformization of Science: Towards a Scientific Digital Platform Taxonomy. Minerva, 61(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-022-09477-6
Darfler, M. (2021). Digital Surveillance, Risk-Taking, And Creativity: An Investigation Into The Role Of Intrinsic Motivation. Cornell University.
Decuypere, M., Grimaldi, E., & Landri, P. (2021). Introduction: Critical studies of digital education platforms. In Critical Studies in Education (Vol. 62, Issue 1, pp. 1–16). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2020.1866050
Drewel, M., Özcan, L., Gausemeier, J., & Dumitrescu, R. (2021). Platform Patterns—Using Proven Principles to Develop Digital Platforms. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 12(2), 519–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00772-3
Fitzpatrick, C. (2023). The Crooked Platform. Social Media and Society, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231192034
Fuchs, C., & Unterberger, K. (Eds.). (2021). The Public Service Media and Public Service Internet Manifesto. London.
Gillespie, Tarleton. (2024). Generative AI and the politics of visibility. Big Data & Society, 11(2), 20539517241252132. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517241252131
González-Pérez, L. I., Ramírez-Montoya, M. S., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2021a). Improving institutional repositories through user-centered design: Indicators from a focus group. Future Internet, 13(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/fi13110282
González-Pérez, L. I., Ramírez-Montoya, M. S., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2021b). Improving institutional repositories through user-centered design: Indicators from a focus group. Future Internet, 13(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/fi13110282
Helm, P., Bella, G., Koch, G., & Giunchiglia, F. (2024). Diversity and language technology: how language modeling bias causes epistemic injustice. Ethics and Information Technology, 26(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-023-09742-6
J. Luca, E., & Ulyannikova, Y. (2020). Towards a User-Centred Systematic Review Service: The Transformative Power of Service Design Thinking. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, 69(3), 357–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2020.1760506
Jacobs, M., Kurtz, C., Simon, J., & Böhmann, T. (2021). Value sensitive design and power in sociotechnical ecosystems. Internet Policy Review, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.14763/2021.3.1580
Jylhä, V., Hirvonen, N., & Haider, J. (2023). Algorithmic recommendations enabling and constraining information practices among young people. Journal of Documentation, 80(7), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-05-2023-0102
Kavila, P. M., Gichohi, P. M., & Mwiti, F. M. (2024). Effect of Institutional Digital Repository Information Services on Utilisation of Library Resources by Postgraduate Students at Selected University Libraries in Kenya. In Journal of Information and Technology (Vol. 4, Issue 3).
Khoo, C. S. G., Wang, Z., & Chaudhry, A. S. (2012). Task-based navigation of a taxonomy interface to a digital repository (Vol. 17, Issue 4).
Kitchin, R. (2021). Data Lives: How Data Are Made and Shape Our World. Bristol University Press. https://doi.org/10.51952/9781529215649
Koshiyama, D., de Pinho, A. L. S., & Rosa, J. G. S. (2015). Analysis of usability and information architecture of the UFRN institutional repository. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 9188, 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20889-3_19
Listiyah, A., Mahfud, F. K. R., & Bahtiar, F. S. (2022). Uji Usability pada Institutional Repository Perpustakaan UIN Maulana Malik Ibrahim Malang dengan Metode System Usability Scale (SUS) dan Discovery Prototyping. LibTech: Library and Information Science Journal, 3(1), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.18860/libtech.v3i1.17001
Lund, B. D. (2024). Classification Schemes: Universal, Special, National. In Encyclopedia of Libraries, Librarianship, and Information Science, First Edition, Four Volume Set (Vol. 2, p. V2:501-V2:513). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-95689-5.00010-9
Marzuki, M., Fatimah, S., Azero, Z., Awaliss, N., Zamzuri, A. M., Razilan, M., & Kadir, A. (2025). A Systematic Literature Review of User Behavior and Personalization in Digital Libraries. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJJRISS), 1(9). https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS
Meghanandha, null, & Naik, U. (2025). A Comparative Review of Metadata, Communication, Content, and Digital Preservation Standards in Modern Libraries. American Journal of Information Science and Technology, 9(1), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajist.20250901.13
Nielsen, Jakob., & Budiu, Raluca. (2013). Mobile usability. New Riders.
Nurislaminingsih, R. (2025). Dari Kode ke Tema: Teknik Pengodean bagi Peneliti Kualitatif. ANUVA, 9(2), 295–303.
Pomerantz, J. (2015). Metadata. MIT Press. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316940169
Stranisci, M., Spillo, G., Musto, C., Patti, V., & Damiano, R. (2022). The URW-KG: a Resource for Tackling the Underrepresentation of non-Western Writers. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212.13104
Subiyakto, A., Rahmi, Y., Kumaladewi, N., Huda, M. Q., Hasanati, N., & Haryanto, T. (2021). Investigating quality of institutional repository website design using usability testing framework. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2331. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0041677
Times Higher Education. (2025). Asia University Rankings 2025. Www.Timeshighereducation.Com. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2025/regional-ranking#!/length/25/locations/IDN/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/scores
Trocchianesi, R., & Bollini, L. (2023). Design, Digital Humanities, and Information Visualization for Cultural Heritage. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 7(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/mti7110102
van de Poel, I. (2020). Embedding Values in Artificial Intelligence (AI) Systems. Minds and Machines, 30(3), 385–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09537-4
Viljoen, S., Goldenfein, J., & McGuigan, L. (2021). Design choices: Mechanism design and platform capitalism. Big Data and Society, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211034312
Voinea, D. V. (2025). Reconceptualizing Gatekeeping in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: A Theoretical Exploration of Artificial Intelligence-Driven News Curation and Automated Journalism. In Journalism and Media (Vol. 6, Issue 2). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI). https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia6020068
##submission.downloads##
Diterbitkan
Terbitan
Bagian
Lisensi
Artikel ini berlisensi Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Pemberitahuan Hak Cipta
- Hak publikasi atas semua materi informasi yang tercantum dalam situs jurnal ini dipegang oleh dewan redaksi/editor dengan sepengetahuan penulis. Pengelola Jurnal akan menjunjung tinggi hak moral penulis.
- Aspek legal formal terhadap akses setiap informasi dan artikel yang tercantum dalam situs jurnal ini mengacu pada ketentuan lisensi Creative Commons Atribusi-NonCommercial-No Derivative (CC BY-NC-ND), yang berarti bahwa hanya dengan izin penulis, informasi dan artikel Jurnal BACA dapat didistribusikan ke pihak lain dengan tanpa merubah bentuk aslinya untuk tujuan non-komersial.
- Setiap terbitan Populis Jurnal Sosial dan Humaniora, baik cetak maupun elektronik, bersifat open access untuk tujuan pendidikan, penelitian, dan perpustakaan. Di luar tujuan tersebut, penerbit atau pengelola jurnal tidak bertanggung jawab atas terjadinya pelanggaran hak cipta yang dilakukan oleh pembaca atau pengakses.
