----- Meeting Notes (3/10/11 09:21) -----I would like to talk about ways that we can make our OPAC more user-friendly. As we all know IRIS, our catalog, is a bit of a wall-flower. Today I am going to introduce you to a powerful and inexpensive tool called Library Thing for Libraries that would increase IRIS's visibility and make her an essential tool for students and librarians. I will begin with two “typical” search scenarios.
The value of IRIS is that it provides location information of an item that the user expects the library to have. If we search for the title Just Kids in IRIS, and if the library owns this item, then we will
find the record, complete with location and status information. The record also furnishes the very important Library of Congress subject headings, that potentially offer the user access points to discovering like items.
However, oftenthe user doesn’t know what she wants to find. She’s looking for a book on a topic, but is probably not familiar with the controlled vocabulary that characterizes the OPAC’s subject headings.
The user may have a vague recollection of the Patti Smith memoir, but have neither author not title information. So she will enter “rock and roll memoir” as her search type.
And here’s the one IRIS record result for “rock and roll memoir”. There was no list of titles to browse as we saw before, IRIS directed the user directly to this record. There is one subject heading for American poetry—20th century—history and criticisim, but by clicking on this leads the user to a bit of information overload.
According to the current model, searching is more or less a linear process, with a definite beginning, middle and end.
The reality is, the process ends short, with the user frustrated with this library resource.
The user still needs to find that item, so where will she go?
Amazon.com, where she can browse by keyword, read reviews, summaries, recommendations – even read the first few pages of a book
The way our OPAC stands now, it is as if the library is a lone ranger, independent and disconnected from other information resources.
When it actually belongs to a social, productive web of connectivity. The Report by the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control (2008) states that “Consistency of description within any single environment, such as the library catalog, is becoming less significant than the ability to make connections between environments, from Amazon to WorldCat to Google to PubMed to Wikipedia, with library holdings serving as but one node in this web of connectivity.”
Among the guiding principles of the LOC’s working report on Bibliographic control: That cataloging not exist in a vacuum, but rather be
What this means for the library, is making cataloging efforts more collaborative, by interacting with affiliates and 3rd party members in cataloging efforts
What this means for the user, is using an OPAC that enhances the search and discovery process.
Updating the OPAC need not be an expensive or labor-intensive endeavor. One enhancement that is relatively inexpensive and easy to install is LTFLLT is an online personal cataloging tool in which book lovers tag and rate books.ClaremontUniversity Libraries report in an article that set up was easy and did not require a lot of technical knowledge. LTFL is designed to work with any integrated library system that has editable HTML in its catalog.LibraryThing has found its niche in the library automation arena by creating products that integrate into a library’s existing library automation environment to add value through the delivery of content or services missing in the interfaces delivered by the ILS vendor. --
WUSTL Libraries are one of 1,616 libraries that subscribe to LTFL. If we enter the same item search as we did before, in IRIS, here’s what we get
WUSTL uses an Aqua Browser interface/search system
LINK OUT Scroll down, see LC subject headings, LT tags,
Same subject headings listed in IRIS (3rd party vendor?)
Tags differ from
The beauty of this tagging is that is it ____ . Jonathan Furner uses these words to describe the positive impact of tagging on both users and providers of library services
Focus on the User 2.0<br />Advocating for Information Literacy <br />and Next-GenerationOPAC Enhancements<br />Jill Baron<br />17:610:519<br />March 10, 2011<br />
Example 1: When the user knows what she wants to find<br />Title search<br />for Just Kids (2010)<br />
Example 2: The user is uncertain<br />Princes Lane Looking South, The Rocks<br />Glass plate negative<br />Date: 1880-1923 approximately<br />Tyrrell Photographic Collection, Powerhouse Museum, Australia<br />
Library of Congress on Bibliographic Control (2008): Guiding Principles<br />Collaborative, decentralized, international in scope, and Web-based <br />In cooperation with the private sector, and with the active collaboration of library users<br />
Item search<br />Washington University in <br />St. Louis Libraries<br />
LC Subject Headings for Just Kids<br />Smith, Patti.<br />Mapplethorpe, Robert.<br />Women rock musicians -- United States -- Biography.<br />Photographers -- United States -- Biography.<br />Women poets -- 20th century -- Biography.<br />Poets, American -- 20th century -- Biography.<br />Chelsea Hotel -- Biography.<br />Artists -- New York (State) -- New York -- Biography.<br />Musicians -- New York (State) -- New York -- Biography.<br />New York (N.Y.) -- Biography.<br />
Possible obstacles<br />Tag Relevancy<br />Difficult to evaluate benefit or assess use of LTFL in the OPAC<br />Do users notice tags?<br />Do users find materials based on tags?<br />LTFL provides usage statistics, but are these conclusive?<br />
Why LTFL promotesinformation literacy <br />Increased browsing and discovery<br />Access to reviews, recommendations, summaries<br />Invitation to participate (via LT)<br />Searching becomes FUN<br />Ability to make connections, consider items in a conceptual framework<br />
Why LTFL promotesinformation literacy <br />Empowers users<br />Makes IRIS a key player in the information search<br />
Reference List<br />Breeding, Marshall. (March 3, 2010). LibraryThing Delivers Mobile Access to Library Catalogs. ALA Tech Source. http://www.alatechsource.org/blog/2010/03/librarything-delivers-mobile-access-to-library-catalogs.html (Accessed March 7, 2011)<br />Coyle, K. (2007). The Library Catalog in a 2.0 World. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 33(2) 289-291.<br /> <br />Coyle, K. (2007). The Library Catalog: Some Possible Futures. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 33(3) 414-416.<br /> <br />Mendes, L. et al. (2009). Subjecting the Catalog to Tagging. Library Hi Tech27(1) 30-41.<br /> <br />Furner, J. (2008). User Tagging of Library Resources: Toward a Framework for System Evaluation. International Cataloguing Bibliographic Control 37(3) 47-51.<br /> <br />Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control. (2008). On the Record: Report of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control. http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/news/lcwg-ontherecord-jan08-final.pdf (accessed March 8, 2011) <br />LibraryThingfor Libraries FAQs: http://www.librarything.com/forlibraries/about#What_does_LTFL_cost.3F<br /> <br />Rolla, P. (2009). User Tags versus Subject Headings: Can User-Supplied Data Improve Subject Access to Library Collections? Library Resources & Technical Services 53(3) 174-184.<br /> <br />Westcott, J. (2008). Library Thing for Libraries at Claremont. Library Hi Tech 27(1) 78-81.<br />