The document discusses ways that library catalogues (OPACs) can adopt more modern, user-centered features inspired by Web 2.0 technologies. It describes the University of Huddersfield's experiences enhancing its OPAC with spell checking, keyword suggestions, ratings and comments, and integrating data from outside sources. It advocates an experimental approach to prototyping new features, and highlights examples of OPACs adopting open source platforms or using third party APIs. The document argues that while cosmetic changes may not be enough, libraries should explore new ways of engaging users and exposing collections through their OPACs.

1. Web 2.0 - Continuing impact on Library Catalogues “Teaching the Pig to Sing” Dave Pattern, Library Systems Manager University of Huddersfield [email_address]

2. preamble Presentation available at: www.slideshare.net/daveyp Please remix and reuse this presentation! creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0

3. table of contents Does your OPAC “suck”? Experiences at Huddersfield Other libraries Open Source and Web services OPAC 2.0

4. does your OPAC “suck”?

6. 2007 OPAC survey On a scale of 1 to 10 (where 1 is extremely unhappy and 10 is extremely happy), how happy are you with your OPAC? 5.1 

7. 2007 OPAC survey One criticism of OPACs is that they rarely have cutting edge features that our users expect from a modern web site. On a scale of 1 to 10, how well do you think your OPAC meets the needs and expectations of your users? 4.5

8. the OPAC as a “pig” “After all, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still very much a pig.” (Roy Tennant discussing the OPAC, Library Journal , 2005) “Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.” (attrib. Robert Heinlein, author)

9. pig ugly?

10. “kissy, kissy?”

12. experiences at Huddersfield Definitely not OPAC 2.0 Enhancements to the existing OPAC user suggestions from surveys “2.0” inspired features borrowing good ideas from other web sites new features launched with no/low publicity “perpetual beta” Required staff buy-in and a willingness to experiment and take risks!

13. spell checker All OPAC keyword searches were monitored over a six month period Approx 23% of searches gave zero results 74 people entered “renew” as a keyword(!) Users expect suggestions and prompts, not “dead end” pages that tell you to “check your spelling”

14. spell checker

15. keyword suggestions (1) Failed keyword searches are cross referenced with answers.com to provide new search suggestions

16. keyword suggestions (2)

17. keyword suggestions (2) Automated suggestions can sometimes raise issues – are these suggestions inappropriate?

18. borrowing suggestions

19. personalised suggestions

20. ratings and comments

21. other editions Uses FRBR-like web services provided by OCLC and LibraryThing to locate other editions and related works within local holdings www.oclc.org/research/projects/xisbn/ www.librarything.com/api

22. other editions

23. email alerts

24. RSS feeds

25. RSS feeds

26. was it worth doing?

27. was it worth doing? 376 active email alerts 113 active RSS feeds 846 ratings 53 comments personalised suggestions 116 clicks per month (average) combined keyword suggestions 753 clicks per month (average)

28. other libraries

29. Ann Arbor District Library

31. North Carolina State University

32. LibraryThing for Libraries

33. Plymouth State University

34. Topeka and Shawnee County

35. University of Warwick

36. Hennepin County Library

37. lipstick on the pig “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. After all, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still very much a pig.” (Roy Tennant, Library Journal , 2005)

38. doing it yourself Encourage suggestions from staff Include users in decision making process Encourage play and experimentation Don’t be afraid to make mistakes! Look widely for ideas “Build crappy prototypes fast” Monitor usage if usage is poor, rethink it or get rid of it

39. Open Source OPACs Scriblio Plymouth State University uses WordPress blog software VuFind Falvey Memorial Library, Villanova University uses PHP & MySQL LibraryFind Oregon State University Libraries uses Ruby on Rails

40. Open Source OPACs fac-back-opac Laurentian University Library uses Lucene & Solr Project Blacklight University of Virginia Libraries uses Lucene & Solr Open Source ILS Koha Evergreen

41. web services & APIs Talis Platform LibraryThing thingISBN, thingTitle, thingLang, data feeds OCLC WorldCat Grid Services Amazon Web Services rebranded as “Amazon Associates Web Service” with new conditions of use Google Book Search API

42. Amazon Associates Web Service Cover scans, reviews, recommendations, sales commission, etc Already used by many libraries However, recent change to conditions of use (19/Mar/2008) may preclude libraries: 5.1.3. You are not permitted to use Amazon Associates Web Service with any Application or for any use that does not have, as its principal purpose, driving traffic to the Amazon Website and driving sales of products and services on the Amazon Website. ( AWS Customer Agreement )

43. Google Book Search API Launched 13/Mar/2008 Typically client-side implementation (rather than server-side) Link to GBS content: via ISBN, LCCNs, and OCLC numbers front cover thumbnails preview pages

44. the “traditional” vendors Talis Platform Bowker “AquaBrowser” Ex Libris “Primo” Innovative Interfaces “Encore” SirsiDynix “???”

45. play and experimentation

46. it’s okay to play! “We don’t stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” attrib: George Bernard Shaw 2007 Library & Information Show Workshop on Library 2.0 Q: I don’t get paid to play, I get paid to work A: So, don’t call it “play”, call it “professional development”!

47. admit it, haven’t you wanted to do this in your library…

48. somewhere over the rainbow?

49. Huddersfield Public Library

50. never judge a book by it’s cover “ I borrowed a book 3 years ago that had an orange cover… can I borrow it again?”

51. keyword search visualisations

52. eye candy

53. OPAC 2.0 next generation library catalogues

54. OPAC 2.0 Shopping list of features: spell checking (“did you mean?”) search all library resources (inc. e-resources) relevancy ranking, search refining, and facets manual recommendations (“best bets”) automated suggestions (based on both global and user-specific data) user participation (“read-write OPAC”) foster communities of interest

55. OPAC 2.0 Shopping list of features (cont): improve serendipity expose hidden links between items APIs and Web Services to expose data promote unintended uses user personalisation embed external data (e.g. Wikipedia, LibraryThing) RSS feeds and OpenSearch

56. 2007 OPAC Survey – Features Please rate how important you feel the following features are to your users in a modern OPAC. embedding the OPAC in external sites (e.g. portals) 8.7 “ did you mean” spelling suggestions 8.6 enriched content (book covers, ToCs, etc) 8.4 RSS feeds (e.g. new books, searches, etc) 7.8 facetted browsing (e.g. like NCSU Library) 7.4 “ people who borrowed this” suggestions 6.5 user tagging of items (i.e. folksonomy) 6.1 user added comments and reviews 6.0 personalised suggestions (e.g. like Amazon) 5.9 user added ratings for items 5.7

57. implementation of features

58. feature importance

59. importance – UK respondents

60. thank you! www.slideshare.net/daveyp [email_address]