Post on 20-Dec-2015
transcript
Revitalizing the Library OPAC
Challenges Faced by Academic Librarians
Jia Mi
Cathy WengThe College of New Jersey
ALDP Conference, April 11, 2007
2
Cathy Weng
Head of Cataloging
The College of New Jersey
U.S.A.
Presenter
3
Information Seeking Landscape
Changes in technology Emergency of the Internet, WWW applications
Academic library users Information-seeking behavior
Academic libraries Losing ground to online search engines Rich resources not utilized
4
Changes in User Behavior
Trends of information consumers’ needsSelf-service (moving to self-sufficiency)SatisfactionSeamlessness (*)
Caused by the emergence of search engines
* De Rosa, Dempsey and Wilson, OCLC environmental scan, 2003
5
Librarian’s perceptions
Users are forgetful Users are ignorant Users are impatient
Prevented from recognizing changes in user behavior and ineffective OPAC design.
6
The OPAC Re-examined
Good to find known items (successful only when structured metadata is retrieved)
Data-centered and card-catalog retrieval mechanism
Lack of features provided by search engines Bibliographic display converted from card
catalog Designed for and used fluently by librarians Not user-friendly
7
The OPAC Study
Two aspects:
Public interface Bibliographic display
8
Public Interface Study
123 ARL libraries’ OPACs were examined Five Major Integrated Library Systems (ILS):
ALEPH, Horizon, Millennium, Unicorn and Voyager.
Study focused on: Default search options Search ability --Keyword search functionality Relevance ranking Search results display
9
Default Search Options
Eighty-one libraries (66%) have “keyword” as the default.
Thirty-six libraries (29%) have “title” as the default
Six libraries (5%) provide options for library users to choose
Keywrod66%
Title29%
List of Choices
5%
Keywrod
Title
List of Choices
10
Keyword Search as the Default
11
Default Search Option set to “Title”
12
List of Search Keys for Users to Select
13
Search Ability – True keyword Search
The power of implicit “AND” feature Not all libraries implemented the
“automatic AND” keyword search option Various phrase-search features
Explicit or implicitAffects the number of search results and
relevancyConfusing search keys and help screens
14 U. Of Washington, 3/31/07
Keyword “Phrase Only” Search
15 Michigan State U., 3/31/07
Modular Algorithms for Keyword Retrieval
16
U. Of Washington, 3/31/07
Michigan State U., 3/31/07
Difference of Using Keyword Search Algorithms
17
Temple Univ., 3/31/07
Syracuse Univ.; 3/31/07
18
Keyword (Relevance) Keyword (Boolean)
Keyword with relevance ranking
Keyword (enclose phrases “in quotes”)
Keyword Anywhere (user “” for phrase)
Keyword Combined (use and/or/not “ “ for phrase)
Keyword Anywhere (Relevance ranked)
Keyword (and or not)
Keyword Anywhere Advanced Boolean
Words Anywhere Keyword Boolean
Basic Keyword Keyword(s) (use AND, OR, NOT , or “a phrase”)
Any word anywhere Boolean search (use and or not)
Relevance Keyword (User + for key terms)
Command Keyword
Keyword Phrase Keyword (use “And” “Or” “Not”)
Key
wo
rd S
earc
h K
eys
Use
d b
y V
oya
ger
Lib
rari
es
19
Relevance Ranking in Search Results
Most useful when keyword search is performed
Three ILS vendors offer relevance ranking search results functionality Some libraries either provide sorting
options or do not use it.Some libraries sort search results by date,
title or authorSome libraries set “system sort” as the
default sorting option
20
OPAC Sorting OptionsOPAC Sorting Options
Relevance
Year (Publication Date)
Author
TitleCall #
(Subject)
Format Default
ALEPH21 0 21 21 21 8 4
Year/Author: 17Title/Year Ascending: 1Title: 1System sort: 2
HORIZON7 0 7 7 7 0 0
Publication Date: 2Title: 2Author(ascending): 1System sort: 2
Millennium38 36 38 0 38 0 0
Date: 20Title: 5Relevance: 12System sort: 1
Unicorn18 5
Descending
18Ascending
18 18 18 18 0New to Old 5Relevance: 1(NCSU)System sort: 12
Voyager35
Kw (R)
27
Kw (B)
4
Descending
34Ascending
3435 35 0 0
Relevance: 5KW with Relevance: 27System sort: 8
21
Search Results Display
Great disparities in OPAC quality Some issues
Search terms and search boxes were not retained on the results page
Post-search limit functions were not always readily available
Item statuses were not available on the search results page
Searched keywords not highlighted
22
Bibliographic Display Study
Fifteen libraries’ OPACs were examined Eight records were used Findings are based on three criteria:
The accuracy and clarity of display labels The order of bibliographic elements displayThe utilization of bibliographic data
23
Display Labels
IssuesMARC mapping not intuitive Only suitable for certain types of materialsUnclear labels Inaccurate labelsLevel of effort devoted to the labels’ clarity
and accuracy
24
Some Examples Use one label to represent various types of
names Use library jargons (e.g., LC, MESH subject
headings, uniform title) Unclear labels to describe information about
publication span Series statements
25
Use “Author” to represent personal names, corporate names, and meeting names
* SUNY Buffalo, access 3/25/07
26
Use “Conference” to represent conference name
* University of Ill, access 3/25/07
27
Use library jargons (e.g., LC, MESH subject headings, uniform title)
* Univ. of Ill., accessed 3/25/07
28
Unclear Labels (label for publication span)
Princeton Univ. & Univ. of Minnesota, accessed 3/25/07
29
Unclear Labels (label for publication span)
Northwestern Univ. & Vanderbilt Univ., accessed 3/25/07
30
Series Statement
Northwestern Univ. & Vanderbilt Univ., accessed 3/25/07
31
Series Statement
Univ. of Minnesota & Univ. of Ill., accessed, 3/25/07
32
Utilization of bibliographic data
Completeness and suitability in display Data should not be displayed but displayed Data should be displayed but not displayed Etc….
Repurposing bibliographic data to create added-value features
33
Data should not be displayed
Univ. of Washington, & Suny Buffalo, accessed 3/25/07
34
Repurposing Bibliographic Data
Making use of data creatively (outside- the-box thinking)
Amazon’s successful story (*)
* Lorcan Demsey’s blog “Making data work - Web 2.0 and catalogs”, Oct. 4, 2005
35
NCSU’s Endeca Catalog
Using facets to facilitate retrieval process
Eight facets are extracted from existing MARC records
36
NCSU’s Endeca
Facets extracted from MARC records
37
NCSU’s EndecaFacets extracted from MARC records
38
Thoughts from the Study Findings
System limitations Libraries are not fully exploiting the
functionality already made available by ILSs
The unsuitability of MARC standards to online bibliographic display
39
“To create a system that didn’t need to be taught.” (*)
“Trusting users as co-developers .” (**)
Vision
Maximize and creatively utilize system’s functionality and metadata.
Restructure metadata to support modular display.
* Tennant, Roy, “Lipstick on a pig,” Library Journal, 2005.
** O’Reilly, Tim, “Wat is Web 2.0?”, 2005.
40
Thank You!
Jmi@tcnj.edu
weng@tcnj.edu