Supporting your library users: OPAC 2.0 lipstick, cowbells and serendipity Dave Pattern, Library Systems Manager Universit...
Contents <ul><li>does your OPAC suck? </li></ul><ul><li>OPAC survey findings </li></ul><ul><li>experiences at Huddersfield...
Does Your OPAC “Suck”?
“More Cowbell” …huh? “ Used to express that something is deeply lacking oomph... to express that something is far from per...
 
 
OPAC Survey (2007) <ul><li>On a scale of 1 to 10 (where 1 is extremely unhappy and 10 is extremely happy), how happy are y...
OPAC Survey (2007) <ul><li>One criticism of OPACs is that they rarely have cutting edge features that our users expect fro...
OPAC Survey (2007) <ul><li>On a scale of 1 to 10, how easy do you think one of your average users finds your OPAC is to us...
Experiences at Huddersfield <ul><li>definitely not OPAC 2.0 </li></ul><ul><li>enhancements to the existing OPAC </li></ul>...
Spell Checker <ul><li>we monitored keyword searches over a six month period and discovered approx  23%  of searches gave z...
Spell Checker
Keyword Suggestions <ul><li>failed keyword searches are cross referenced with www.answers.com to provide new search sugges...
Keyword Suggestions
Borrowing Suggestions <ul><li>we had details of over 2,000,000 CKOs spanning 10 years stored in the library management sys...
Borrowing Suggestions
Ratings and Comments
Other Editions <ul><li>uses FRBR-y web services provided by OCLC and LibraryThing to locate other editions and related wor...
Other Editions
Email Alerts
RSS feeds
 
 
 
 
 
“If you build it, will they come?”
Increase in Usage
Increase in Usage
Lipstick on the Pig <ul><li>“ We need to focus more energy on important, systemic changes rather than cosmetic ones. If yo...
Problems ...Challenges! <ul><li>there was no formal process for discussing and agreeing new OPAC features </li></ul><ul><u...
Solutions <ul><li>encourage suggestions from staff </li></ul><ul><li>include users in decision making process </li></ul><u...
Searching for books by colour
Search visualisations
Search visualisations
CKO visualisations
Other Libraries <ul><li>Ann Arbor District Library </li></ul><ul><li>North Carolina State University (Endeca) </li></ul><u...
Ann Arbor District Library <ul><li>early adopter of “2.0” (John Blyberg) </li></ul><ul><li>OPAC deeply embedded in Library...
 
 
North Carolina State University <ul><li>facetted browsing </li></ul><ul><li>http:// www.lib.ncsu.edu /catalog/ </li></ul><...
 
LibraryThing for Libraries <ul><li>integrates LibraryThing data into the OPAC </li></ul><ul><ul><li>tags </li></ul></ul><u...
 
 
Open Source OPACs <ul><li>Scriblio  (formerly WPOpac) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>uses WordPress (blogging software) </li></ul><...
 
OPAC 2.0 <ul><li>“The best way to predict the future is to invent it.” </li></ul><ul><li>(Alan Kay, computer scientist and...
OPAC 2.0 <ul><li>shopping list of features: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>spell checking (“did you mean?”) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul>...
OPAC 2.0 <ul><li>shopping list of features: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>improve serendipity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>expose hi...
Quick OPAC Survey – Features <ul><li>Please rate how important you feel the following features are to your users in a mode...
Implementation of Features
Features – Future Trends?
Importance (getting soon)
Technology Adoption Lifecycle
Technology Adoption - Now
Technology Adoption – Q1 08?
Importance – UK respondents
Thank you!
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Online

3,084

Published on

Presentation for Online Information 2007, London

Published in: Technology, Education
1 Comment
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
3,084
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
45
Comments
1
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Online

    1. 1. Supporting your library users: OPAC 2.0 lipstick, cowbells and serendipity Dave Pattern, Library Systems Manager University of Huddersfield [email_address] http://slideshare.net/daveyp
    2. 2. Contents <ul><li>does your OPAC suck? </li></ul><ul><li>OPAC survey findings </li></ul><ul><li>experiences at Huddersfield </li></ul><ul><li>other libraries </li></ul><ul><li>OPAC 2.0 </li></ul><ul><li>further OPAC survey findings </li></ul><ul><li>Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License </li></ul><ul><li>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ </li></ul>
    3. 3. Does Your OPAC “Suck”?
    4. 4. “More Cowbell” …huh? “ Used to express that something is deeply lacking oomph... to express that something is far from perfect, needs repair, fixing, rectifying.” ( everything2.com )
    5. 7. OPAC Survey (2007) <ul><li>On a scale of 1 to 10 (where 1 is extremely unhappy and 10 is extremely happy), how happy are you with your OPAC? </li></ul><ul><li>5.1 </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>
    6. 8. OPAC Survey (2007) <ul><li>One criticism of OPACs is that they rarely have cutting edge features that our users expect from a modern web site. </li></ul><ul><li>On a scale of 1 to 10, how well do you think your OPAC meets the needs and expectations of your users? </li></ul><ul><li>4.5 </li></ul>
    7. 9. OPAC Survey (2007) <ul><li>On a scale of 1 to 10, how easy do you think one of your average users finds your OPAC is to use? </li></ul><ul><li>4.6 </li></ul><ul><li>On a scale of 1 to 10, how important do you think it is that an OPAC is easy & intuitive to use? </li></ul><ul><li>9.2 </li></ul>
    8. 10. Experiences at Huddersfield <ul><li>definitely not OPAC 2.0 </li></ul><ul><li>enhancements to the existing OPAC </li></ul><ul><ul><li>user suggestions from surveys </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ 2.0” inspired features </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>borrowing good ideas from other web sites </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>new features launched with no/low publicity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ perpetual beta” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>required staff buy-in and a willingness to experiment and take risks </li></ul>
    9. 11. Spell Checker <ul><li>we monitored keyword searches over a six month period and discovered approx 23% of searches gave zero results </li></ul><ul><ul><li>most OPACs present the user with a “dead end” page </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>a good search engine should still give the user options on a failed search (“did you mean?”) </li></ul></ul>
    10. 12. Spell Checker
    11. 13. Keyword Suggestions <ul><li>failed keyword searches are cross referenced with www.answers.com to provide new search suggestions </li></ul>
    12. 14. Keyword Suggestions
    13. 15. Borrowing Suggestions <ul><li>we had details of over 2,000,000 CKOs spanning 10 years stored in the library management system and gathering virtual dust </li></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 – “ Data is the Next Intel Inside 1 ” </li></ul><ul><li>historic circulation data can be mined 2 to uncover the hidden trends and links between potentially disparate library items </li></ul>
    14. 16. Borrowing Suggestions
    15. 17. Ratings and Comments
    16. 18. Other Editions <ul><li>uses FRBR-y web services provided by OCLC and LibraryThing to locate other editions and related works within local holdings </li></ul><ul><ul><li>OCLC’s xISBN 1 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>LibraryThing’s thingISBN 2 </li></ul></ul>
    17. 19. Other Editions
    18. 20. Email Alerts
    19. 21. RSS feeds
    20. 27. “If you build it, will they come?”
    21. 28. Increase in Usage
    22. 29. Increase in Usage
    23. 30. Lipstick on the Pig <ul><li>“ We need to focus more energy on important, systemic changes rather than cosmetic ones. If your system is more difficult to search and less effective than Amazon.com, then you have work to do. </li></ul><ul><li>After all, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still very much a pig.” (Roy Tennant, Library Journal , 2005) </li></ul>
    24. 31. Problems ...Challenges! <ul><li>there was no formal process for discussing and agreeing new OPAC features </li></ul><ul><ul><li>so we organised a web/library 2.0 afternoon for staff </li></ul></ul><ul><li>some initial scepticism from staff </li></ul><ul><ul><li>would users think borrowing suggestions were formal recommendations from the library? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>aren’t borrowing suggestions just for selling books? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>how relevant will the suggestions be? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>would sudden changes confuse users? </li></ul>
    25. 32. Solutions <ul><li>encourage suggestions from staff </li></ul><ul><li>include users in decision making process </li></ul><ul><li>encourage play and experimentation </li></ul><ul><li>don’t be afraid to make mistakes! </li></ul><ul><li>look widely for ideas </li></ul><ul><li>“build crappy prototypes fast” </li></ul><ul><li>monitor usage </li></ul><ul><ul><li>if usage is poor then remove it </li></ul></ul>
    26. 33. Searching for books by colour
    27. 34. Search visualisations
    28. 35. Search visualisations
    29. 36. CKO visualisations
    30. 37. Other Libraries <ul><li>Ann Arbor District Library </li></ul><ul><li>North Carolina State University (Endeca) </li></ul><ul><li>LibraryThing for Libraries </li></ul><ul><li>Open Source OPACs </li></ul>
    31. 38. Ann Arbor District Library <ul><li>early adopter of “2.0” (John Blyberg) </li></ul><ul><li>OPAC deeply embedded in Library portal </li></ul><ul><li>virtual catalogue cards (with graffiti!) </li></ul><ul><li>user tagging, ratings, and reviews </li></ul><ul><li>borrowing suggestions </li></ul><ul><li>RSS feeds </li></ul><ul><li>http:// www.aadl.org /catalog/ </li></ul>
    32. 41. North Carolina State University <ul><li>facetted browsing </li></ul><ul><li>http:// www.lib.ncsu.edu /catalog/ </li></ul><ul><li>http:// endeca.com </li></ul>
    33. 43. LibraryThing for Libraries <ul><li>integrates LibraryThing data into the OPAC </li></ul><ul><ul><li>tags </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>borrowing suggestions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>other editions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>www.librarything.com/forlibraries / </li></ul>
    34. 46. Open Source OPACs <ul><li>Scriblio (formerly WPOpac) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>uses WordPress (blogging software) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>VuFind </li></ul><ul><ul><li>uses PHP & MySQL </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Lucene & Solr </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Project Backlight (Univ. of Virginia) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>FacBackOPAC </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Huddersfield ( blog post ) </li></ul></ul>
    35. 48. OPAC 2.0 <ul><li>“The best way to predict the future is to invent it.” </li></ul><ul><li>(Alan Kay, computer scientist and former Xerox PARC researcher) </li></ul><ul><li>“The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet.” </li></ul><ul><li>(William Gibson, science fiction author and creator of the word “cyberspace”) </li></ul>
    36. 49. OPAC 2.0 <ul><li>shopping list of features: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>spell checking (“did you mean?”) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>relevancy ranking, search refining, and facets </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>manual recommendations (“best bets”) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>automated suggestions (based on both global and user-specific data) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>user participation (“read-write OPAC”) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>foster communities of interest </li></ul></ul>
    37. 50. OPAC 2.0 <ul><li>shopping list of features: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>improve serendipity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>expose hidden links between items </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>APIs and Web Services to expose data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>promote unintended uses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>user personalisation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>embed external data (e.g. Wikipedia, LibraryThing) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>RSS feeds and OpenSearch </li></ul></ul>
    38. 51. Quick OPAC Survey – Features <ul><li>Please rate how important you feel the following features are to your users in a modern OPAC. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>embedding the OPAC in external sites (e.g. portals) 8.7 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ did you mean” spelling suggestions 8.6 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>enriched content (book covers, ToCs, etc) 8.4 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>RSS feeds (e.g. new books, searches, etc) 7.8 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>facetted browsing (e.g. like NCSU Library) 7.4 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ people who borrowed this” suggestions 6.5 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>user tagging of items (i.e. folksonomy) 6.1 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>user added comments and reviews 6.0 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>personalised suggestions (e.g. like Amazon) 5.9 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>user added ratings for items 5.7 </li></ul></ul>
    39. 52. Implementation of Features
    40. 53. Features – Future Trends?
    41. 54. Importance (getting soon)
    42. 55. Technology Adoption Lifecycle
    43. 56. Technology Adoption - Now
    44. 57. Technology Adoption – Q1 08?
    45. 58. Importance – UK respondents
    46. 59. Thank you!
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×