Presentation on theme: "WEB OPAC 2.0 Discovering a better search tool Kevin Collins & Darren Chase, Stony Brook University."— Presentation transcript:
WEB OPAC 2.0 Discovering a better search tool Kevin Collins & Darren Chase, Stony Brook University
the one-two punch 1 university. Stony Brook University – SUNY University Center, 24,600 students 2 campuses. academic and medical 2 library systems. 2 OPACS.
One OPAC to rule them all. Users complained about having to switch between 2 catalogs. OPAC committees from both libraries came together to find a single- search solution. – The joint OPAC committee’s makeup is important: a blend of technical staff and public services librarians.
What do we need & want? NEEDS: Identify our users’ needs, our needs Combined search results Categories Easy to use Multi-base searching, all-in-one “like Google” WANTS: Identify what we want: what do we value? what are the characteristics of a 21 st Century library discovery tool? Features for sharing records Supports multiple platforms and devices Modular & mashable
Usability & Knowing What Is Good Invite users to test the new OPAC Use an assessment tool to measure user experience, functionality, result relevance Everyone has an opinion. Opinions and suggestions are great, but it is vital to look for strategies to measure the efficacy of the OPAC. This slide sucks.
Mandatory FeaturesDesirable (Optional) Features Ability to load/link to vendor generated enriched content such as table of contents, summaries, etc. Ability to load cover art. Faceted navigation with ability to narrow a set of search results by attribute. Faceted navigation with “breadcrumbs” to easily add or delete facets. Ability to link back to “classic” catalog and library databases, from discovery tool screen Ability to work with federated searching tools for accessing licensed databases. Keyword searching with ability to place/code search box on our own web page. Advanced or Boolean searching capabilities Spelling alternatives or “Do you mean…?” (Alternatives can be automatic or given as an option to widen range of search) ILL integration. Relevancy ranking of results. Library has ability to control relevancy ranking of results or turn off relevancy ranking altogether. Ability to save and export results to bibliographic software management tools such as Endnote. Ability to save results in bookshelf (e.g. issue requests) Ability to search with Mobile devices FRBRized (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) display of results
Key: Does not currently meet the requirement Somewhat meets the requirement Completely meets or exceeds the requirement Mandatory Features Product 1 Product 2 Product 3 Product 4 Ability to load/link to vendor generated enriched content such as table of contents, summaries, etc. 2222 Faceted navigation with ability to narrow a set of search results by attribute. 2222 Ability to link back to “classic” catalog and library databases, from discovery screen 2222 Keyword searching with ability to place search box on our own web page. 2222 Spelling alternatives or “Do you mean…?” (Alternatives can be automatic or given as an option to widen range of search) 2021 Relevancy ranking of results. 2221 Patron has ability to control results ranking (eg. by Relevancy, title, author, year) 2221
Product 1Product 2Product 3Product 4Product 5Product 6Product 7 Mandatory Features Score 1426 221925 Desirable (Optional) Features Score 09211721151220 Overall Total Score 23454347373145
3 rd Party Vendor: Ebsco Discovery Service (Ebsco) Encore (Innovative Interfaces Inc) Endeca Primo (ExLibris) Summon (Serial Solutions) Worldcat (OCLC ) Open Source: Blacklight IDS Project VuFIND XC Project (eXtensible Catalog) Xerxes Project (calstate)
Actively ManagedPassively Managed Implementation times range from 3 to 6 weeks. FalseTrue Longer implementation times because a library must customize software (eg several months) TrueFalse Required ongoing (day to day) management can be more automated. (automated data loads) True Staff have little customization for look and feel of the screen. FalseTrue We must wait for the vendor to 'innovate'. True, for vendor software False, for custom changes True Library must wait for vendors to correct software problems True, for vendor software False, for custom changes True Upgrades / maintenance will be handled by the vendor, with little required for a library FalseTrue Upgrades mean libraries must make implementation changes to gain new software changes TrueFalse Upgrades can be scheduled for a more convenient time for us. TrueFalse Ongoing cost of opportunity for staff time (IT and non-IT staff) TrueFalse Active and growing community of users to keep supporting it True for VuFind and Primo Uncertain for Blacklight Yes, according to vendor sales staff
Images Amazing Circle: Blockhead 3 Lucha_libre_0158 I’m Going To Have Nightmares References Feldman, Susan. "The Key to Online Catalogs That Work? Testing: One, Two, Three." Computers in Libraries 19.5 (1999): 16. Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text. EBSCO. Web. 19 Oct. 2010. Letnikova, Galina. "Developing a Standardized List of Questions for the Usability Testing of an Academic Library Web Site." Journal of Web Librarianship 2.2/3 (2008): 381-415. Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text. EBSCO. Web. 19 Oct. 2010. Thank You! Any Questions? Contact Kevin J. Collins, Health Sciences Library ALEPH Administrator. 631.444.9740 Darren Chase, Web Services Librarian, Melville Library. 631.632.9830