> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of JOHN MARQUETTE
> Sent: 14 June, 2006 20:21
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: [NGC4LIB] Preaching to the choir
>
> My observation of today's posts is that we're all pretty much
> of one mind about our patrons, their interface experiences,
> and our library automation systems. It seems to me that we
> have not verbalized our needs clearly enough to our vendors
Current user interfaces to library automation systems just don't
work for patrons. I think most would agree based on feedback
from their patrons. I'm reluctant to place the entire issue on
the shoulders of "the vendor". Clearly, vendors can and should
provide better access to the underlying data in the ILS, e.g.,
web services or other mechanisms so mashups can be created by
their customers.
However, I'm also a library patron. So when I put on my
library patron hat, I prefer a single text box search
facility since I don't want to be confronted with a whole
bunch of options where I must make choices first *before*
I have a chance to *understand* the landscape.
Many times when I visit library catalogs, patron hat on,
I have to make choices, like choose which index to search,
e.g., title, author, subject, etc., possible choose a
location, e.g., database, branch, etc., before I can get
any results. I might not know which indexes or locations
are relevant to my inquiry. Current interfaces to library
catalogs "garden path" the information seeker which IMHO
is the wrong approach to take.
Why should I have to choose, for example, that I only want to
search for information in the downtown branch vs. the suburban
branch? If I live downtown and the item is available at two
different suburban branches, then I might choose to drive to
the branch when the information I want is needed ASAP or
request it via ILL when it isn't.
It seems to me that these types choices are just additional
facets to my inquiry and a single line text box is all that
I need. When I do my benign search for "dog", the system
should present a list of facets so I can make choices after
viewing the landscape of possibilities. Lets take the NCSU
catalog [1] as an example [2].
When I go to the search page I see a text box for "Search for
words:" and "Search begins with...". I also see drop downs
next to these text boxes. Before I can search I need to
pull down the drop downs and *evaluate* what each of the
choices mean. Did the Web designer or librarian use
terminology that is familiar to me "the patron" where I
*recognize* and *fully understand* the implications of
selecting the item in that drop down?
The drop down for the NCSU catalog allows me to search for
words "Anywhere", "in Title", "in Author", "in Subject
Heading", "ISBN/ISSN", but what if I wanted to search in
the title *and* subject heading? I cannot do that. So
my next decision is to look at the "Advanced Search" tab
where I'm presented with even more options that I will have
to *evaluate* first before I can get any information out of
the system, sigh...
So why can't I just have a single text box search where I
can enter my benign search for "dog" and the system will
present me with the results broken down by these facets?
For example:
Your search resulted in X hits for "dog"
Did you mean M
Did you mean N
X hits occurred in the title of the resource*
X hits occurred in the author's name associated with the resource*
X hits occurred in the topic related to the resource*
X hits occurred in the downtown library*
X hits occurred in the Y suburban branch*
X hits occurred in the Z suburban branch*
X hits occurred in database A
X hits occurred in database B
X hits are available for checkout
X hits are only available for viewing on-site
X hits were reference based materials
X hits were fiction based materials
X hits were non-fiction based materials
X hits were in language P
X hits were in language Q
X hits were in format R
X hits were in format S
etc.
The patron now has a better understanding of the *landscape*
and can combine the facets to narrow their inquiry down based
upon what's *important* or *relevant* to them.
The * items above were choices the current NCSU interface
forced the patron to make by "garden pathing" them. The
patron didn't really need to make those choices. The system
could have determined that information by expanding its
definition of what constitutes a facet to an information
request.
The patron can also determine that there is nothing of interest
at the W suburban branch since its not listed as having any
hits. Where as with the current user interfaces to library
information systems, they might have pre-chosen the W suburban
branch, because it was the closest, only to find out that the
branch didn't have anything.
Hence a typical patron response: "my library never has anything
I'm looking for". The library has lost an opportunity to market
itself to the patron and show them the wealth of information
that they *can provide*.
So lets look at a "real" world example [3]. This was an MSN
Shopping search for HD televisions. It tell me there were 11
items found and I can narrow my search down by the facets
along the left side. In the content area I can see what items
meet my already selected facets.
>From my, patron hat on, perspective that's an interface to
a collection of resources, where the facets on the left are
specific to libraries and the content area contains the
resources that the library holds, constrained to the already
selected facets. For example the facet "Sellers" in
library terms might be "Branches", "Brand" might be
"Databases", etc.
So if MSN Shopping can do this sort of thing, why can't my
local technical library staff build me the same interface
*when* their ILS vendor allows them to customize the user
interface to the ILS system?
As I indicated above I'm reluctant to place the entire issue
on the shoulders of "the vendor" especially when the interface
to the ILS is customizable by the library. It's all about
marketing, so maybe those library directors should be hiring
geeks who develop shopping sites, now that's an idea...
Also, having a single line text box facilitates ease of use
when combined with an *expanded* notion of what constitutes
a "facet" for an information request.
Andy.
[1] <http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/catalog/index.html>
[2] FYI, I'm not holding up NCSU as a poster child for what
I dislike about library automation systems. I had to
pick someone and that URL [1] happen to be handy :(
[3] <http://shopping.msn.com/results/shp/?bCatId=9871,av=1482-4274075,av=1484-4211065,av=288-4552791,av=2-121714>
Received on Thu Jun 15 2006 - 09:21:30 EDT