Michael: " However, doing so will require that we resist the temptation
to create the ideal OPAC for *librarians*, but instead focus on creating
on OPAC that meets our *users'* search needs."
Insofar as librarians ought to do everything possible to help users do a
lot themselves, *I agree with all of this*. But at the same time, in
the midst of it all, I bemoan the reference librarian's potential loss
of specialized tools devised to treat the increasingly "rare condition"
of the truly questioning, curious, "leather-foot journalist" researcher,
scholar in this process.
Years in the future, perhaps when people are even less curious about the
past and the history of ideas then they are now, some thoughtful
examiner of the world will read Thomas Mann and say, "Oh, the days when
there were experts who actually could listen to one another - and work
together (to some extent) to cooperatively build amazingly devised
systems to help people who suspected they needed expert human help...
it's a shame people did not realize their value... realize what they
had" I think this is likely.
In my mind, Karen Schneider's questions are still interesting... (and
worth doing some major soul-searching about and taking action), but
perhaps also reveal a certain shortsightedness.
Regards,
Nathan Rinne
Media Cataloging Technician
ISD 279 - Educational Service Center (ESC)
11200 93rd Ave. North
Maple Grove, MN. 55369
Work phone: 763-391-7183
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Doran, Michael D
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:32 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: [NGC4LIB] The problem with OPACs [was: New subject keyword
search]
> Selden Deemer wrote:
>
> Whatever the considerable benefits of browse displays (I
> read, and took to heart Thomas Mann's comments), the fact
> remains that, when I look at our search log stats, users (as
> opposed to librarians) simply do NOT browse (and it's not for
> lack of instruction).
I'm convinced that the underlying "problem" with our OPACs (from a
usability perspective) is that they are sold once to librarians, rather
than many times to end users. If each user was making an individual
purchase decision, OPACs would have quickly evolved to meet their needs.
I believe ILS vendors (who we often unfairly blame) are quite capable of
producing an awesome OPAC. But the vendors are building OPACs to meet
our (i.e. librarians) perceived needs, because vendors are smart and are
in business to make money and they understand that *we* are the ones
writing that big check every 10-15 years or so. As Selden points out,
OPAC features that are important/essential to us, are often ones that
our users could care less about, despite all our well-meaning
instruction.
And that is assuming that OPAC functionality/usability is even a prime
consideration in the purchase decision of an ILS. Very often that's not
the case, as acquisitions, cataloging, or circulation module features
drive the decision and the OPAC is an afterthought. If we want to find
out who's responsible for sucky OPACs, the first place we need to look
is in the mirror [1].
On the bright side, products like VUFind, Primo, AquaBrowser, and Endeca
unbundle the OPAC from the ILS, giving us a chance to atone for past ILS
purchase decisions (which can't easily be undone). One of the problems
inherent in an ILS-bundled OPAC is that the 10-15 year (give or take)
ILS replacement cycle does not allow for significant changes to what
quickly becomes a calcified code base. I'm particularly excited about
Andrew Nagy's recently released open-source OPAC; with VUFind, the
library-land development community has a golden opportunity to craft an
OPAC that genuinely meets our users needs. However, doing so will
require that we resist the temptation to create the ideal OPAC for
*librarians*, but instead focus on creating on OPAC that meets our
*users'* search needs. I think that would be an OPAC that doesn't
require instruction (however well-meaning) or require an initial search
page that is 80% search tips.
Just my opinion...
-- Michael
[1] Karen Schneider asks: "But the interesting questions are: Why don't
online catalog vendors offer true search in the first place? and Why
[don't we] demand it? Save the time of the reader!" I would answer that
vendors don't offer it, and we don't demand it, because the ILS (OPAC)
check-writers have other priorities.
See: Karen Schneider, How OPACs Suck, Part 1
http://www.techsource.ala.org/blog/2006/03/how-opacs-suck-part-1-relevan
ce-rank-or-the-lack-of-it.html
# Michael Doran, Systems Librarian
# University of Texas at Arlington
# 817-272-5326 office
# 817-688-1926 mobile
# doran_at_uta.edu
# http://rocky.uta.edu/doran/
Received on Thu Jul 26 2007 - 08:46:47 EDT