Responses inline...
On 6/15/06, Houghton,Andrew <houghtoa_at_oclc.org> wrote:
>
> I understand that many ILS don't allow much customizations. That's why I
> qualified my statement with "especially when..." they do, then
> it's difficult, patron hat on, to blame "the vendor" for something that the
> library's technical staff has control over and it doesn't excuse a poor user
> interface to the catalog.
>
I don't necessarily blame the vendor, but I fear that the ILS choices are
fairly narrow here.
For libraries using ILS's that cannot be customized, then vote with your
> feet. Find an ILS vendor that does allows customizations or move to
> something like Open ILS, etc. I do realize that its not that easy to move
> to a new ILS and certainly there are costs involved, but libraries
> periodically weed their collections, why not their ILS when it's not meeting
> their needs.
>
This, sadly, isn't even a legitimate option. Even if there weren't
/tremendous/ costs in migrating ILSes and the possibility that the ILS with
the customizable interface serves the other needs of the library (universal
borrowing or you name it...), the reality is that institutional purchases
are not as simple as "ah, this ILS fits our needs, let's buy it!".
Libraries generally have to have RFPs and be able to coherently justify (to
bean counters) why the lowest bidder isn't the top choice.
In our case, the decision /isn't even at the institutional level/. The
Board of Regents selected our system.
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as you are making this out to be.
-Ross.
I also started out with the criticism: "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.",
> with the understanding that this is two sided problem rather than the
> assumption that it's all or not "the vendors" fault.
>
> Clearly, to me, there are issues and things that can be done on both side
> of the debate. Lets keep the discussion moving forward on the issues and
> possible solutions for the "Next Generation" rather than pointing fingers.
>
>
> Andy.
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Next generation catalogs for libraries [mailto:
> NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Ross Singer
> *Sent:* 15 June, 2006 09:33
>
> *To:* NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: [NGC4LIB] Preaching to the choir
>
> On 6/15/06, Houghton,Andrew <houghtoa_at_oclc.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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...
>
>
> Andy, I fear you're showing a bit too much of your "vendor hat" here
> (although, admittedly, not a vendor that makes an ILS).
>
> I am unaware of any mainstream ILS that allows very much customization by
> the library. That's why almost all OPACs look roughly the same. It's also
> very hard to get at the data inside our catalogs and forget about trying to
> do patron services outside the native interfaces. Even the ILSes that give
> RDBMS access to the data don't allow write permission.
>
> This paragraph is unfortunate, because otherwise I wholeheartedly agree
> with every other thing you write about.
>
> -Ross.
>
>
Received on Thu Jun 15 2006 - 11:35:39 EDT