Download to read offline
Uploaded byUKSG: connecting the knowledge community
Uksg 2013 breakout r kennedy mcrump
This document summarizes the process an academic library went through to implement and improve their discovery layer, Primo. They initially took a conservative approach that tried to integrate the old system too much. User studies later revealed the interface had too many options and confusing terminology. The library simplified the interface based on this feedback, focusing on a single search box and improving login visibility. They also improved journal article searching and made other refinements to provide a simpler search experience for users.
More Related Content
Similar to Uksg 2013 breakout r kennedy mcrump
More from UKSG: connecting the knowledge community
Uksg 2013 breakout r kennedy mcrump
- 1. Simplifying the searchexperience – resisting the lure of shiny, new technology Ronán Kennedy Monica Crump NUI Galway Bournemouth, April 8th-10th 2013
- 2. School Institute Nameto go here
- 3. School Institute Nameto go here
- 4. • Why wedid 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. Discovery Layers • Apreharvested 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.
- 7. Primo • Sits Over: • Aleph • Primo Central • Metalib • Institutional Repository
- 8. 2009 • Primo ImplementationGroup • Primo Implementation Group • Interface Group • subject librarians; research librarians; e-resource librarian, etc.
- 9. 2009 • Web Group • Primo to have prime real-estate space on the Library homepage • ‘primo lite’
- 10. School Institute Nameto go here
- 11. Initial Interface Work •Demos of out-of-the-box version • Examples of global sites – NYU, UAE, etc • Interface Group members liaison role
- 12. Concerns – RadicalDeparture • New interface could be radically different • Big departure from Aleph (function & cosmetics) • Academic opposition • Possible training problems
- 13. School Institute Nameto go here
- 14. School Institute Nameto go here
- 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. Concerns – DumbingDown • One single simple interface = bad information literacy • “Primo should be a flagship model of good pedagogical practise” • Multiple tabs made sense to us
- 17. Lots of cooksin the kitchen • Subjective opinions are always difficult • “Is it exposing our resources appropriately?” • Font sizes! source
- 18. 2009 • Interface groupassembled the jigsaw pieces • Model followed closely with NYU, Iowa, British Library, UEA • Time to caress the divine details….
- 19. Error Checking • Librarianslove detail! • A lot of librarians means lots of errors being found • Sub-conscious opinions being formed?
- 20. School Institute Nameto go here
- 21. Perfection at allcosts? • 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. Customisation – TreadCarefully • Discovery interfaces are*very* flexible – lots of options • Cosmetics and functionality very open
- 23. School Institute Nameto go here
- 24. Customisation – TreadCarefully • Discovery interfaces are*very* flexible – lots of options • Cosmetics and functionality very open • Tempting to generate completely local feel - can be timely Just because you can push a button, it doesn’t mean you have to
- 25. Customisation – TreadCarefully • Beware of skills sabotage
- 26. Primo launched Sept2009 New website officially launched Sept 2010
- 27. School Institute Nameto go here
- 28. School Institute Nameto go here
- 29. How was itused? • 80/20 Theory • 1.5 million Basic Searches • 50,000 Advanced Searches • 14 reviews written • Several hundred items tagged
- 30. LibQual Survey • November2010 • 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. LibQual - InformationControl Remit IC-1 Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office IC-2 A library website enabling me to locate information on my own IC-3 The printed library materials I need for my work IC-4 The electronic information resources I need IC-5 Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information IC-6 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own IC-7 Making information easily accessible for independent use IC-8 Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work
- 32. LibQual - InformationControl 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. School Institute Nameto go here
- 34. LibQual - InformationControl Remit Polarised Feedback There was clearly a problem – but what was it???
- 35. What LibQual toldus: • We weren’t meeting our users’ minimum expectations of: “A Library website enabling me to locate information on my own”
- 36. Comments Analysis The website is Online difficult to use Navigation of services the website is are great! confusing Access to e- resources needs The website is Off-campus to be more user- easy to use access works friendly since the re- very well design
- 37. More investigation wasneeded!
- 38. User Observation Study •Real Users • Real Tasks • One user – One observer
- 39. We wanted tofind 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. 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. 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. Key Findings • Ourin-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. 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. Too many options! Wheredo I look for a book?
- 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. Users tended notto notice the ‘Get it’ and ‘Online Access’ links and there was some confusion about what the wording meant
- 47. FRBR - Alittle 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. 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
- 51. 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.
- 52. Call to Action: Simplify the Search Experience
- 53. Introduce a SingleSearch Box
- 54.
- 55. What about theother functionality?
- 56.
- 57.
- 58.
- 59. Primo Central • PrimoCentral 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
- 61.
- 62. Other Improvements • OPACvia Primo – Clearer account information – Clearer item/ holdings information
- 63. Making print holdingsmore visible
- 64. 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!
- 65. Libqual 2013 • Stillsome 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???
- 66. Feedback from Students • Significantly less difficulty completing the set Much better tasks this year than 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/Google colours! Scholar
- 67. Feedback from AcademicStaff • 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.
- 68. Feedback from LibraryStaff Over-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
- 69. 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!
- 70. What next... • Veryvaluable 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.
- 71. Thank You! • RonánKennedy ronan.kennedy@nuigalway.ie • Monica Crump monica.crump@nuigalway.ie