Uksg 2013 breakout r kennedy mcrump

899 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
899
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Uksg 2013 breakout r kennedy mcrump

  1. 1. Simplifying the search experience –resisting the lure of shiny, newtechnologyRonán KennedyMonica CrumpNUI Galway Bournemouth, April 8th-10th 2013
  2. 2. School Institute Name to go here
  3. 3. School Institute Name to go here
  4. 4. • Why we did what we did• Some things we did, we shouldn’t have• Some things we didn’t do, we should have• How we found what we should have done and what we did about it, and what we did about undoing what we shouldn’t have done• The Epihany: we ticked all the boxes librarians like ticking. They were the wrong ones
  5. 5. Discovery Layers• A preharvested central index coupled with a richly featured discovery layer providing a single search across a library’s local, open access, and subscription collections (Hoeppner 2012, source)• One point of access to the Library’s entire set of bought, licensed and digital collections (Lorcan Dempsey, source)
  6. 6. www.librarytechnology.org
  7. 7. Primo• Sits Over: • Aleph • Primo Central • Metalib • Institutional Repository
  8. 8. 2009• Primo Implementation Group• Primo Implementation Group• Interface Group • subject librarians; research librarians; e-resource librarian, etc.
  9. 9. 2009• Web Group • Primo to have prime real-estate space on the Library homepage • ‘primo lite’
  10. 10. School Institute Name to go here
  11. 11. Initial Interface Work• Demos of out-of-the-box version• Examples of global sites – NYU, UAE, etc• Interface Group members liaison role
  12. 12. Concerns – Radical Departure• New interface could be radically different• Big departure from Aleph (function & cosmetics)• Academic opposition• Possible training problems
  13. 13. School Institute Name to go here
  14. 14. School Institute Name to go here
  15. 15. Conclusion #1 – too conservative• Concerns heavily shaped our vision - tried hard to integrate the past - fear of academics• We tried to mould our discovery platform into something it wasn’t
  16. 16. Concerns – Dumbing Down• One single simple interface = bad information literacy• “Primo should be a flagship model of good pedagogical practise”• Multiple tabs made sense to us
  17. 17. Lots of cooks in the kitchen• Subjective opinions are always difficult• “Is it exposing our resources appropriately?”• Font sizes! source
  18. 18. 2009• Interface group assembled the jigsaw pieces• Model followed closely with NYU, Iowa, British Library, UEA• Time to caress the divine details….
  19. 19. Error Checking• Librarians love detail!• A lot of librarians means lots of errors being found • Sub-conscious opinions being formed?
  20. 20. School Institute Name to go here
  21. 21. Perfection at all costs?• Did we get bogged down in making sure it was perfect?• Special Collections Special Collections Special Collections Reference Strong Room• Librarians want perfection – users want good enough• Risking not seeing the wood for the trees
  22. 22. Customisation – Tread Carefully• Discovery interfaces are*very* flexible – lots of options • Cosmetics and functionality very open
  23. 23. School Institute Name to go here
  24. 24. Customisation – Tread Carefully• Discovery interfaces are*very* flexible – lots of options • Cosmetics and functionality very open• Tempting to generate completely local feel - can be timelyJust because you can push a button, it doesn’t mean you have to
  25. 25. Customisation – Tread Carefully• Beware of skills sabotage
  26. 26. Primo launched Sept 2009New website officially launched Sept 2010
  27. 27. School Institute Name to go here
  28. 28. School Institute Name to go here
  29. 29. How was it used?• 80/20 Theory• 1.5 million Basic Searches• 50,000 Advanced Searches• 14 reviews written• Several hundred items tagged
  30. 30. LibQual Survey• November 2010• LibQUAL+® is a suite of services that libraries use to solicit, track, understand, and act upon users opinions of service quality.• Global; great for benchmarking
  31. 31. LibQual - Information Control RemitIC-1 Making electronic resources accessible from my home or officeIC-2 A library website enabling me to locate information on my ownIC-3 The printed library materials I need for my workIC-4 The electronic information resources I needIC-5 Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed informationIC-6 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my ownIC-7 Making information easily accessible for independent useIC-8 Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work
  32. 32. LibQual - Information Control Remit minimum desired perceived adequacy superiority IC-1 Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office Overall 6.42 7.84 6.49 0.07 -1.35 IC-2 A library website enabling me to locate information on my own Overall 6.53 8.00 6.49 -0.03 -1.51 Let’s form a committee!!!
  33. 33. School Institute Name to go here
  34. 34. LibQual - Information Control Remit Polarised Feedback There was clearly a problem – but what was it???
  35. 35. What LibQual told us:• We weren’t meeting our users’ minimum expectations of: “A Library website enabling me to locate information on my own”
  36. 36. Comments Analysis The website is Online difficult to use Navigation of services the website is are great! confusingAccess to e-resources needs The website is Off-campusto be more user- easy to use access worksfriendly since the re- very well design
  37. 37. More investigation was needed!
  38. 38. User Observation Study• Real Users• Real Tasks• One user – One observer
  39. 39. We wanted to find out:• where were users becoming confused• user interface features that users didn’t notice• whether and when users logged-in to enhance search results• additional features/on-screen guidance that might have benefitted users’ search experience• Any issues affecting the success of the users’ search
  40. 40. Structure of observation• Pre-observation interview• Set list of tasks• Think aloud: – Explain choices – Highlight anything that’s confusing – Express pleasure or frustration – Explain how you would carry out a similar task in real life
  41. 41. User Focus Groups• Focus groups - for a wider perspective and to confirm findings• Two groups – Undergrads; Postgrads & Staff• Caution – those willing to attend tend to be more library- focussed, library-aware and therefore library-positive!
  42. 42. Key Findings• Our in-depth knowledge and closeness to the website and discovery tools had blinkered us to the experience of a ‘normal’ user – user observation was like blinkers being removed• Overwhelming message from our users was: “make it simple – more like Google”
  43. 43. Too many options!• Most of the problems, frustration and confusion seemed to arise from the user being presented with too many options: – multiple links to our discovery tools – pages about resources confused with links to resources• Our knowledge of the fantastic range of choices we could offer the user had stopped us from choosing wisely what we should offer them
  44. 44. Too many options!Where doI look fora book?
  45. 45. Problems of terminology• Other sources of confusion arose once they navigated into the catalogue or discovery tool• Users found terminology confusing Why can’t you just call things what they are!
  46. 46. Users tended not to notice the ‘Get it’ and‘Online Access’ links and there was someconfusion about what the wording meant
  47. 47. FRBR - A little too clever?• FRBRisation is a powerful tool aimed at presenting the user with a single result representing several works that are very similar and are likely to be of similar value.• However, this posed great difficulties and caused confusion: – Primo chooses a preferred record to display in the results. – If this preferred record had only unavailable items – it looked like everything is unavailable – Users didn’t click into displayed record to find alternative editions that were hidden behind
  48. 48. Preference for Online?• Design premise of Primo is that online resource is users’ preferred resource• Users were unable to see the print holdings of journals that had print and electronic access
  49. 49. Other interesting findings• Heavy reliance on Google by all participants• Prior attendance at library training hugely improved the users’ success in completing the set tasks• Several undergraduates were confused about references: – unsure what was a journal and what was a book – searched by article title instead of journal title• Users with experience of other libraries were emphatic that our online services were significantly easier to use than elsewhere.
  50. 50. Call to Action: Simplify the Search Experience
  51. 51. Introduce a Single Search Box
  52. 52. Improve visibility of Login
  53. 53. What about the other functionality?
  54. 54. Find Databases
  55. 55. More Search Options
  56. 56. Journal Article Searching
  57. 57. Primo Central• Primo Central is a single massive index of metadata that has been harvested from primary and secondary publishers, from aggregators, and from open-access repositories• Primo Central indexes hundreds of millions of journal articles, e-books, reviews, legal documents etc.• Because the metadata has been harvested into a single index, it’s faster because it’s not cross-searching• Facets allow users to refine and narrow down their results
  58. 58. Browse functionality
  59. 59. Other Improvements• OPAC via Primo – Clearer account information – Clearer item/ holdings information
  60. 60. Making print holdings more visible
  61. 61. Have we succeeded?• Have we simplified the search experience?• Are we now meeting users’ expectations?• It’s not enough to make changes - essential to check back with the users whether we’ve got it right!
  62. 62. Libqual 2013• Still some comments that the website is confusing and hard to navigate• But a 50% increase in the number of positive comments about the website/catalogue!• 85% decrease in the number of negative comments about off-campus access!• LIBQUAL SCORE???
  63. 63. Feedback from Students • Significantly less difficulty completing the setMuch better tasksthis yearthan it was • Big demand for easier access to ‘My Account’ –before but all managed to check their account • Print content still not being seen – confusion over terminology ‘Print Locations’Awesome • Still reporting a heavy reliance on Google/Googlecolours! Scholar
  64. 64. Feedback from Academic Staff• Biggest complaint from academic staff is the It seems to additional steps to get to their favourite have more database! steps to get where you want• Some were very positive about ‘Including Articles’ search, but most hadn’t noticed or tried it. A fantastically convenient• Timing of launch an issue just ahead of start of new option term.
  65. 65. Feedback from Library StaffOver-whelmingly positive: The new catalogue is An enjoyable and amazing! fruitful search experience Intuitive and intelligent It mirrors the layout and layout in many design of our databases
  66. 66. Some Final Thoughts• Evolving user behaviour is very evident: – Students are using our discovery tool to search both for AND within resources – Expectation growing that everything will be online• Difficulty of meeting different expectations: – Academics expect library tools to point and link them to resources – They don’t think to simply search!
  67. 67. What next...• Very valuable to ask users what they think• Even more valuable to observe them using your discovery tools• We’ve had some clear signals about further adaptations we should make• This is an ongoing process, and we intend to make user observation a regular practice to ensure we keep up with evolving user needs and behaviour.
  68. 68. Thank You!• Ronán Kennedy ronan.kennedy@nuigalway.ie• Monica Crump monica.crump@nuigalway.ie

×