Coordinator/Presenter: Dao Rong Gong<gongd@msu.edu> , Systems Librarian, MIchigan State University;
Don Depoorter <depoort1@mail.lib.msu.edu> , Online Catalog Specialist, Michigan State University
LEGACY OPAC INTERFACE
Technical writing class evaluated the catalogs web presence. On the catalog front page there are all the search button options. Based on past usability studies they have a layered structure for some paths, e.g., to search the Music Library, as well as BI to teach use of the site. But current usability shows most users going to the right side to click first.
Keyword has the highest use,45%, followed by title, author, and subject. Keyword is the most popular but you need to click more then once to get to it.
Full text is what users are looking for, and they are often frustrated and leaving empty handed. This was somewhat softened by adding WebBridge links to catalog results.
WebBridge Linking
30% from search results, and 69% form bib rec page.
The usage: where they ended up. Only 24% ended up at text. Most ended up in an instructional page so we don’t know if they got what they really wanted.
Research Pro – Not integrated, it was implemented as a separate interface.
NEW ENCORE IMPLEMENTATION
Tour of Encore:
One box search on start page. Results are displayed in the center panel. Sort defaults to III’s Right Results. Left panel are all the limiting/facets features. Right panel is feedback form, instructional links, recently added items (controlled by cat date, this may be misleading), other sources, tags clouds, and finally research Pro Federated Search. This is all on one page.
Introduction to Staff and Users
Email to staff was sent out to introduce Encore and to announce that the library was going to be a beta partners. They demonstrated Encore to staff and let them know it was only 20% complete at that time. Staff were given access to test the live system and were given links to other websites using the faceted results approach. Staff were then asked for feedback.
Staff was asked 10 Questions at the demo
See URL from slides for all the 10 questions
Basically they were asked if they thought the library was moving in the Right direction?
Feedback received
Are you going to get user feedback before implementing this?
Encore is slow -– this has been fixed now but was slow in the beginning.
How would you find a journal? The serial results did not bubbled to the top very well. This was fixed in Right Results by III.
Would like an advanced search button to find specific titles. This was added later. Is the results page customizable? It is.
For the most part – staff were more interested in learning how Encore worked, then giving feedback on how well they like it.
There was mixed reviews on the cloud tags.
The implementation team had hoped for strong support from staff, but got more questions on whether it all worked as it was supposed to.
Users Feedback
Staff was ambivalent on tag cloud, but users really liked it. They liked the fact that all options were on one page. They would like larger fonts. Users want easier journal access, this was fixed by iii.
Facets were intuitive for students.
Encore Patron/Staff Survey
For the most part all found what they needed in a reasonable time frame
Most found facets usable
35% found it easy to use
Not able to save results (future enhancement)
Some found too many options on side bad
53% found no problems
Demographics
16% staff
20% staff fac
See slides for more demographic information and survey results.
Things we learned from beta testing
If you are an III beta partner you need a lot of patience!
You must commit to communicate diligently – you will get a lot of email in this process and you will need to keep up with it.
You are a gateway of information. Staff are depending on your for information as well as inspiration.
Be a player, not a bystander. One of the reasons to become a dev. Partner is to have influence on the outcome of the product. To do this you must participate. Don’t waste this opportunity.
Catalog Redesign is it necessary?
Encore is a supplement and not replacement, at least for a short wile.
Also, to keep the advanced search you will need the old catalog pages.
Encore is a discovery tool, more Google like, navigated browsing, effective in cherry picking search. This is good if you don’t know what you are looking for from the beginning.
The OPAC is a search tool, multiple entry points, you need to make choices up front. This is good for item searching or direct hits.” Patrons like to find, librarians like to search.”
Encore vs. WebPAC Pro
Options:
1. Make encore only search tool
2. Encore as alternative search tool beside regular catalog
3. Make Encore the default among other searches
MSU choose to make encore on front page as Keyword Encore Beta along side the legacy/classic catalog.
Among the two interfaces
-how should we instruct patrons when to use what? Would launching page be a good option? Undergrad-> one page Grad -> another page.
This is under discussion.
The redesign of the legacy catalog is now under way via a committee.
Other Library Implementations
Anarbor District Public Library using Druple
Plymouth State University – Scribblio
Danbury Library – Library Thing
Amazon book jackets
Google analytics
Google Book Search viewability API used at Kent State
Text Messaging sends bib records to cell phones
Book mark
Lewis and Clark College – using RSS feeds to show new books
Aurora Public Library – uses limit option from keyword to populate the subject browsing.
Some design principals
• The catalog should help patrons find what they need
• It should be easy to use
• It should have refine options
• It should take advantage of keywords
• It should provide information without overwhelming the user
Additional Questions
• Is the catalog another Encore? For now we need to keep the legacy catalog relevant for some time.
• Single entry vs. multiple entries.
• Catalog needs to take advantage of web 2.0, e.g., recall button moved to more visible spot and form is pre-populated, location map according to where the book is located in stacks
• Catalog needs to be sustainable and extendable.
• Local development vs. commercial software. These examples are dependent on III software
