Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Yang hofmann-next generationcatalogforenug

838 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Design
  • Be the first to comment

Yang hofmann-next generationcatalogforenug

  1. 1. The Next Generation of Catalogs for Academic Libraries Ex Libris Northeast User Group Annual Conference Oct 27, 2011 Sharon Yang & Melissa A. Hofmann Rider University Libraries
  2. 2. Purpose: • To measure the progress made in modeling current OPACs after the next generation catalog (NGC) in academic libraries in the United States and Canada. Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?” 2
  3. 3. Design/Methodology/Approach • A random sample of 260 colleges and universities was selected (about 10% of the population). • The libraries’ OPAC interfaces—both ILS- integrated and discovery tools—were evaluated against a checklist of the 12 features of the next generation catalog (NGC). Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?” 3
  4. 4. Design/Methodology/Approach • There were 273 potential OPAC interfaces • 40 institutions had no OPACs available for analysis (“missing”) • Data was collected from September 2009 through July 2010. • Findings can be extrapolated to the population at the 95% confidence level with a confidence interval of ±3. Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?” 4
  5. 5. 12 NGC Characteristics 1. Single point of entry for all library resources 2. State-of-the-art web interface 3. Enriched content 4. Faceted navigation 5. Simple keyword search box with a link to advanced search on every page 6. Relevancy 7. Did you mean…? 8. Recommendations/related materials 9. User contribution 10. RSS feeds 11. Integration with social networking sites 12. Persistent links Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?” 5
  6. 6. Institutions in the Sample Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?” 6
  7. 7. 1. Single point of entry Yes No Missing Total Journal articles 10 (4%) 223 (81%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%) Full-text journals 133 (48%) 100 (37%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%) Ebooks 185 (67%) 48 (18%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%) All three 9 (3%) 224 (82%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%) Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?” 7
  8. 8. 2. State-of-the-art web interface Poor: 10 OPACs (3%) OK: 89 OPACs (32%) Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?” 8
  9. 9. 2. State-of-the-art web interface Good: 83 OPACs (31 %) Excellent: 51 OPACs (19%) Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?” 9 Missing: 40 OPACs (15%)
  10. 10. 3. Enriched content Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?” 10 Yes No Missing Total Cover Images 126 (46%) 107 (39%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%) Reviews 93 (34%) 140 (51%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%) Summary/ Annotation 82 (30%) 151 (55%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%) TOC 82 (30%) 151 (55%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%) Excerpts 82 (30%) 151 (55%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%) Tags 34 (12%) 199 (73%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%) Rating /ranking 27 (10%) 206 (75%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%) Descriptions 8 (3%) 225 (82%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%) Comments 6 (2%) 227 (83%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
  11. 11. 4. Faceted navigation Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?” 11
  12. 12. 5. Simple keyword search box with link to advanced search on every page 0 50 100 150 200 250 Simple search box w/ link to advanced Other options Missing • Only 26 OPAC interfaces (9%) started with a Google-like search box and maintained it throughout. • “Other options”: interfaces starting with a basic or advanced search, dropping the search box on later screens, and/or providing other choices next to the search box. Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?” 12
  13. 13. 6. Relevancy • No OPACs or discovery tools incorporated these into the search results. Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?” 13 Circulation statistics and multiple copies should join the relevancy results criteria
  14. 14. 7. Did you mean? Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?” 14 Spell-checking and suggestion of terms. *Other” used language to explain dropping a user into list of headings or titles to browse, such as: “Item not found—perhaps the following list will help” / “Keyword not found. The closest subject match appears below”/ “No matches found; nearby titles are…” /
  15. 15. 8. Recommended/related materials. • No OPAC interfaces were found to have this feature. • However, 34% use patron-friendly language with existing functionalities, such as hyperlinked name and subject headings in records (searches and browses) and call number browses: – “Browse similar items” / “Find more about this author or topic”/ “Show similar items” / “Nearby items on shelf” / “More like this” Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?” 15 Recommend items for readers based on transaction logs.
  16. 16. 9. User contribution Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?” 16 Allow users to add data to records. Yes No Missing Total Tags 30 (11%) 203 (74%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%) Reviews 18 (7%) 215 (78%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%) Rating/ranking 11 (4%) 222 (81%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%) Comments 3 (1%) 230 (84%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%) Descriptions 0 (0%) 233 (85%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%) Summary/ annotation 0 (0%) 233 (85%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
  17. 17. 10. Persistent links / 11. RSS feeds / 12. Integration with social networking sites Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?” 17 Yes No Missing Total Persistent links 63 (23%) 170 (62%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%) Integration with social networking sites 21 (8%) 212 (77%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%) RSS feeds 9 (3%) 224 (82%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
  18. 18. Distribution of NGC Features Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?” 18
  19. 19. Summary of Findings • No OPAC or discovery tool possessed all 12 features. • Only 3% of the OPAC interfaces in the sample had 7 or more features of the NGC—and these were all discovery tools. • WorldCat Local and Summon were the top runners. • Comprehensive federated search is still largely missing (only 4% of OPAC interfaces included articles). Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?” 19
  20. 20. Summary of Findings • Only 13% of OPAC interfaces offered faceted browsing, 83% of which were discovery tools. • ILS-integrated OPACs that offered faceted browsing were Koha, Auto-Graphics, and Polaris. • 16% of institutions used a discovery tool; 85% of these used them in conjunction with their legacy or “classic” catalog. • 14% of institutions offered a choice of catalog interfaces (discovery tools and classic catalog) Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?” 20
  21. 21. Latest Study • 260 institutions in sample checked for changes in October 2011 • Use of discovery tools has doubled – 81 libraries out of 260, or 31% • (includes libraries sharing consortial catalogs) – (Was 41 out of 260, or 16%) Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?” 21
  22. 22. Latest Study • New-to-our-sample products – Ebsco Discovery Service (EDS) – LS2 PAC (Library.Corporation, part of ILS) • Changes in – ILS • 3 switched (2 to LS2 PAC w/NGC features) – Discovery Tools • 1 from WorldCat Local to EDS • 1 from Encore to WorldCat Local Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?” 22
  23. 23. Summary of New Findings • What discovery tool did institutions choose most since our initial data collection? Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?” 23 Summon 13 33% WorldCat 9 23% EDS 5 13% Primo 5 13% VuFind 4 10% AquaBrowser 2 5% Encore 2 5% 40 100%
  24. 24. Institutions in the Sample (260) October 2011 Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?” 4% 49% 16% 28% 3% ILS OPACs (faceted) (11) "Classic" Catalogs Only (non-faceted) (127) Missing (41) Discovery tools + classic catalogs (72) Discovery tools only (9)
  25. 25. Latest Study Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?” 25 *1 more than # of institutions (81) because GVSU has links to both Summon and Encore Discovery Tool # of Instances AquaBrowser 7 8.5% EDS 5 6.1% Encore 11 13.4% Endeca 5 6.1% Primo 10 12.2% Summon 15 18.3% VuFind 14 17.1% WorldCat Local 15 18.3% Total: 82* 100.0%
  26. 26. Latest Study Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?” 26 *Now has true faceted navigation. ILS-integrated faceted OPACs # of Instances Autographics 1 9% Evergreen* 2 18% Koha 4 36% LS2 PAC (TLC) 2 18% Polaris 2 18% Total: 11 100%
  27. 27. Summary of New Findings • 31% (was 16%) of academic libraries use a discovery tool • 90% (was 85%) of these use them in conjunction with their legacy or “classic” catalog. • 28% (was 14%) offer a choice of catalog interfaces (discovery tools and classic catalog) • If you combine discovery tools and faceted ILS OPACs, at least 35% of academic libraries are using a faceted interface. Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?” 27
  28. 28. Overall Conclusions • NGC features in legacy catalogs are cosmetic and minor. • The majority of catalog interfaces displaying the most NGC features are discovery tools. • Many proprietary vendors seem to be abandoning their ILS-integrated OPACs in favor of discovery tools. • Most libraries using a discovery tool still provide access to their “classic” catalog. • For some discovery tools, the legacy OPAC is necessary to perform advanced searches or to browse indexesHofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?” 28
  29. 29. References Antelman, K., Lynema, E., and Pace, A.K. (2006), “Toward a twenty-first century library catalog”, Information Technology & Libraries, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 128-39. Breeding, M. (2007), “Introduction”, Library Technology Reports, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 5-14. Creative Research Systems (2010), “Sample size calculator”, available at: http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm (accessed 20 April 2010). Funer, J. (2008), “User tagging of library resources: toward a framework for system evaluation”, International Cataloging & Bibliographic Control, Vol. 37 No. 3, 47-51. Haahr, M. (2010), “Random.org: random integer generation”, available at http://www.random.org/integers/ (accessed 12 October 2009). Kudo, E. and Kataoka, S. (2008), “A big wave of next generation catalog-its features and implementing into Japanese library systems”, Joho Kanri, Vol. 51 No. 7, pp. 480-98. Luong, T.D. and Liew, C.L. (2009), “The evaluation of New Zealand academic library OPACs: a checklist approach”, Electronic Library, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 376-93. McCormack, N. (2008), “User comments and reviews: decline or democratization of the online public access catalogue?” Feliciter, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 129-31. Mendez, L.H., Quiñonez-Skinner, J., and Skaggs, D. (2009), “Subjecting the catalog to tagging”, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 30-41. Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?” 29
  30. 30. References Merčun, T. and Žumer, M. (2008), “New generation of catalogues for the new generation of users: a comparison of six library catalogues”, Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 243-61. Murray, P. (2008), “Discovery tools and the OPAC”, PowerPoint presentation at NISO forum on next generation discovery tools: new tools, aging standards, available at: http://dltj.org/article/discovery-layer-video-tour/ (accessed 27 January 2010). Peterson’s Four-Year Colleges (2009), Peterson’s, Lawrenceville, NJ. Spiteri, L.F. (2007), “The structure and form of folksonomy tags: the road to the public library catalog”, Information Technology and Libraries, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 13-25. Tennant, R. (2005), “Digital libraries: ‘lipstick on a pig’”, Library Journal, Vol. 130 No. 7, p. 34. Tennant, R. (2007), “Digital libraries: ‘lipstick on a pig 2.0’”, available at http://blog.libraryjournal.com/tennantdigitallibraries/2007/05/04/lipstick-on-a-pig-2-0/ (accessed 3 June 2010). Trommer, D. (1997), “Open market goes live with next-generation catalog solution”, Electronic Buyers’ News, No. 1075, p. 90. Yang, S. Q., and Wagner, K. (2010), Evaluating and comparing discovery tools: how close are we towards the next generation catalog? Library Hi Tech. Vol. 28 No.4, pp. 690-709. Yang, S. Q. and Hofmann, M.A. (2010), “The next generation library catalog: a comparative study of the OPACs of Koha, Evergreen, and Voyager”, Information Technology and Libraries, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 141-50. Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?” 30
  31. 31. Questions? • Thank you! • To learn more, read our article, Published in Library Hi Tech, 29.2 (2011). Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?” 31

×