Post on 01-Nov-2014
description
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 1
The Impact of 2.0
lipstick, cowbells and serendipity in the OPAC
Dave Pattern, Library Systems Manager
University of Huddersfieldd.c.pattern@hud.ac.uk
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 2
Contents
• “OPAC suckitude”• Some findings from the OPAC Survey• Our experiences at Huddersfield• More from the OPAC Survey
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 3
Does Your OPAC “Suck”?
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 4
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 5
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 6
Quick OPAC Survey (2007)• On a scale of 1 to 10 (where 1 is
extremely unhappy and 10 is extremely happy), how happy are you with your OPAC?
5.1
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 7
Quick OPAC Survey (2007)• One criticism of OPACs is that they rarely
have cutting edge features (or perhaps even basic features) that our users expect from a modern web site.
On a scale of 1 to 10, how well do you think your OPAC meets the needs and expectations of your users?
4.5
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 8
Quick OPAC Survey (2007)• On a scale of 1 to 10, how easy do you think
one of your average users finds your OPAC is to use?
4.6• On a scale of 1 to 10, how important do you
think it is that an OPAC is easy & intuitive to use?
9.2
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 9
The Huddersfield Experience
• Not really “OPAC 2.0” (?)• Enhancements to the vendor OPAC
– user suggestions from student/staff surveys– “2.0” inspired features– good ideas “borrowed” from other web sites – new features launched with no/low publicity– “perpetual beta”
• Required staff buy-in and a willingness to experiment and take risks
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 10
Spell Checker
• We monitored keyword searches over a six month period and discovered 23%* of searches gave zero results– most OPACs present the user with a dead
end page (“...where do I go now?”)– a good search engine should still give the
user options on a failed search (“did you mean?”)
(* 2 years on, it’s still around 20%)
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 11
Spell Checker
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 12
Spell Checker
• Spell checker based on a common word dictionary or your own holdings?– ...the latter might highlight your
cataloguing errors1!
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 13
Serendipity Keyword Suggestions
• failed keyword searches are cross referenced with www.answers.com to provide new search suggestions
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 14
Serendipity Keyword Suggestions
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 15
Borrowing Suggestions
• We had details of over 2,000,000 CKOs spanning 10 years stored in the library management system and gathering virtual dust
• Web 2.0 – “Data is the Next Intel Inside1”• Historic circulation data can be mined2 to
uncover the hidden trends and links between potentially disparate library items
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 16
Borrowing Suggestions
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 17
Other Editions
• Uses FRBR-y web services provided by OCLC and LibraryThing to locate other editions and related works within local holdings– OCLC’s xISBN1
– LibraryThing’s thingISBN2
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 18
Other Editions
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 19
Ratings and Comments
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 20
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 21
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 22
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 23
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 24
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 25
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 26
Problems ... Challenges!
• There was no formal process for discussing & agreeing new OPAC features– so we organised a web/library 2.0 afternoon for staff
• Some initial (healthy) scepticism from staff– would users think borrowing suggestions were formal
recommendations from the library?– aren’t borrowing suggestions just for selling books?– how relevant will the suggestions be?
• Would sudden changes confuse users?
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 27
Solutions?
• Encourage suggestions from staff• Include users in decision making
process• Encourage play and experimentation• Don’t be afraid to make mistakes!• Look widely for ideas• “Build crappy prototypes fast”1
• Monitor usage– if usage is poor then remove it
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 28
“If you build it, will they come?”
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 29
Increase in Usage"Did You Mean" - 2006/07 Compared
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
May June July
nu
mb
er o
f cl
icks
2006 2007
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 30
Increase in Usage"People Who Borrowed This..." - 2006/07 Compared
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
May June July
nu
mb
er o
f cl
icks
2006 2007
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 31
Lipstick on the Pig
“We need to focus more energy on important, systemic changes rather than cosmetic ones. If your system is more difficult to search and less effective than Amazon.com, then you have work to do.
After all, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still very much a pig.”
(Roy Tennant, Library Journal, 2005)
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 32
Quick OPAC Survey – Features
• Please rate how important you feel the following features are to your users in a modern OPAC.– embedding the OPAC in external sites (e.g. portals) 8.7– “did you mean” spelling suggestions 8.6– enriched content (book covers, ToCs, etc) 8.4– RSS feeds (e.g. new books, searches, etc) 7.8– facetted browsing (e.g. like NCSU Library) 7.4– “people who borrowed this” suggestions 6.5– user tagging of items (i.e. folksonomy) 6.1– user added comments and reviews 6.1– personalised suggestions (e.g. like Amazon) 6.0– user added ratings for items 5.7
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 33
Importance (getting soon)Feature I mportance
8.7 8.6 8.4
7.87.4
6.56.1 6.1 6.0
5.7
9.18.8 8.8
8.48.9
7.8 8.0
7.4
8.7
7.0
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
imp
ort
an
ce
(o
ut
of
10
)
importance (all) importance (already got) importance (getting soon)
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 34
Importance – UK respondents
8.6
8.17.8
7.2
6.5
5.95.7
5.45.8
5.3
8.7 8.88.6
7.97.7
6.7
6.2 6.26.0 5.9
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
stealt
h OPAC
did yo
u m
ean
enric
hed
RSS feed
s
face
ts
also
borro
wed
user
tagg
ing
user
com
men
ts
user
lear
ning
user
ratin
gs4
5
6
7
8
9
10
imp
ort
an
ce
(o
ut
of
10
)
UK respondents non-UK respondents
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 35
Technology Adoption - Now
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 36
Technology Adoption – Q4 07?
October 2007 Internet Librarian International 2007 37
Thank you! Any quick questions?
http://www.slideshare.net/daveypd.c.pattern@hud.ac.uk