Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Glasgow - Transformative Technologies

Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …3

Check these out next

1 of 72 Ad

More Related Content

Slideshows for you (20)

Similar to Glasgow - Transformative Technologies (20)


Recently uploaded (20)


Glasgow - Transformative Technologies

  1. 1. Utilising Web 2.0 in the OPAC lipstick, cowbells and serendipity Dave Pattern, Library Systems Manager University of Huddersfield [email_address]
  2. 2. Contents <ul><li>breaking news – Library 2.0! </li></ul><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> </li></ul>
  3. 4. Library 2.0 <ul><li>“ ...a loosely defined model for a modernized form of library service that reflects a transition within the library world in the way that services are delivered to users. This includes online services such as the use of OPAC systems and an increased flow of information from the user back to the library.” </li></ul>Wikipedia article for “ Library 2.0 ”
  4. 5. Library 2.0 <ul><li>use of “2.0” technologies (blogs, wikis, RSS feeds, etc) </li></ul><ul><li>actively involve users in service developments </li></ul><ul><li>user centric developments & initiatives </li></ul><ul><li>delivering services directly to users </li></ul><ul><li>libraries without walls (“ The Third Place ”) </li></ul><ul><li>The “Read/Write Library” </li></ul>
  5. 6. Library 2.0 <ul><li>challenges us to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>be more flexible </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>embrace change </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>be more willing to take risks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>go to where our users are, rather than force them to come to us </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>give our users opportunities to contribute </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>give library staff the opportunity to play and experiment </li></ul></ul>
  6. 7. Librarian 2.0?
  7. 8. Librarian 2.0!
  8. 9. Does Your OPAC “Suck”?
  9. 13. “More Cowbell” …huh? “ Used to express that something is deeply lacking oomph... to express that something is far from perfect, needs repair, fixing, rectifying.” ( )
  10. 16. The OPAC as a Pig <ul><li>“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) </li></ul><ul><li>“Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.” (attrib. Robert Heinlein, author) </li></ul>
  11. 17. Pig Ugly?
  12. 18. “ Kissy, Kissy?”
  13. 19. 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>
  14. 20. 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>
  15. 21. 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>
  16. 22. 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>
  17. 23. 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>
  18. 24. Spell Checker
  19. 25. Keyword Suggestions <ul><li>failed keyword searches are cross referenced with to provide new search suggestions </li></ul>
  20. 26. Keyword Suggestions
  21. 27. 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>
  22. 28. Borrowing Suggestions
  23. 29. Ratings and Comments
  24. 30. 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>
  25. 31. Other Editions
  26. 32. Email Alerts
  27. 33. RSS feeds
  28. 39. “If you build it, will they come?”
  29. 40. Increase in Usage
  30. 41. Increase in Usage
  31. 42. 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, 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>
  32. 43. 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>
  33. 44. 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>
  34. 45. Searching for books by colour
  35. 46. Search visualisations
  36. 47. Search visualisations
  37. 48. CKO visualisations
  38. 49. 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>
  39. 50. 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:// / </li></ul>
  40. 53. North Carolina State University <ul><li>facetted browsing </li></ul><ul><li>http:// / </li></ul><ul><li>http:// </li></ul>
  41. 55. 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> / </li></ul>
  42. 58. 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>
  43. 60. The Traditional Vendors <ul><li>Talis Platform </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ an environment for building next generation applications and services” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Ex Libris Primo </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ one-stop solution for the discovery and delivery of local and remote resources” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Innovative Interfaces Encore </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ goes beyond the online-catalog model to provide a better patron experience ” </li></ul></ul>
  44. 61. 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>
  45. 62. 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>
  46. 63. 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>
  47. 64. 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>
  48. 65. Implementation of Features
  49. 66. Features – Future Trends?
  50. 67. Importance (getting soon)
  51. 68. Technology Adoption Lifecycle
  52. 69. Technology Adoption - Now
  53. 70. Technology Adoption – Q1 08?
  54. 71. Importance – UK respondents
  55. 72. Thank you!

Editor's Notes