utilising web 2.0 in the opac lipstick, cowbells and serendipity

02/Nov/2007 Transformational Technologies

1

Utilising Web 2.0 in the OPAC

lipstick, cowbells and serendipity

Dave Pattern, Library Systems ManagerUniversity of Huddersfield

[email protected]://slideshare.net/daveyp


2

Contents• does your OPAC suck?• OPAC survey findings• experiences at Huddersfield• other libraries• OPAC 2.0• further OPAC survey findings

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/


3

Does Your OPAC “Suck”?


4


5


6


7

“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)

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1673288


8


9


10

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)

http://libraryjournal.com/article/CA516027.html


11

Pig Ugly?


12

“Kissy, Kissy?”


13

OPAC Survey (2007)• 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


14

OPAC Survey (2007)

• 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


15

OPAC Survey (2007)• On a scale of 1 to 10, how easy do you

think one of your average users finds your OPAC is to use?

4.6• On a scale of 1 to 10, how important do

you think it is that an OPAC is easy & intuitive to use?

9.2


16

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


17

Spell Checker

• we monitored keyword searches over a six month period and discovered approx 23% of searches gave zero results– most OPACs present the user with a

“dead end” page– a good search engine should still give

the user options on a failed search (“did you mean?”)


18

Spell Checker


19

Keyword Suggestions

• failed keyword searches are cross referenced with www.answers.com to provide new search suggestions


20

Keyword Suggestions


21

Borrowing Suggestions

• we had details of over 2,000,000 CKOs spanning 10 years stored in the library management system and gathering virtual dust

• Web 2.0 – “Data is the Next Intel Inside1”• historic circulation data can be mined2 to

uncover the hidden trends and links between potentially disparate library items

http://tim.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html?page=3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining


22

Borrowing Suggestions


23

Ratings and Comments


24

Other Editions

• uses FRBR-y web services provided by OCLC and LibraryThing to locate other editions and related works within local holdings– OCLC’s xISBN1

– LibraryThing’s thingISBN2

http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/xisbn/

http://www.librarything.com/thingology/2006/06/introducing-thingisbn_14.php


25

Other Editions


26

Email Alerts


27

RSS feeds


28


29


30


31


32


33

“If you build it, will they come?”

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

May

-06

Jun-

06

Jul-0

6

Aug

-06

Sep

-06

Oct

-06

Nov

-06

Dec

-06

Jan-

07

Feb

-07

Mar

-07

Apr

-07

May

-07

Jun-

07

Jul-0

7

nu

mb

er o

f cl

icks

also borrowed other editions serendipity did you mean


34

Increase in Usage"Did You Mean" - 2006/07 Compared

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

May June July

nu

mb

er o

f cl

icks

2006 2007


35

Increase in Usage"People Who Borrowed This..." - 2006/07 Compared

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

May June July

nu

mb

er o

f cl

icks

2006 2007


36

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)


37

Problems ...Challenges!• there was no formal process for discussing

and agreeing new OPAC features– so we organised a web/library 2.0 afternoon for staff

• some initial scepticism from staff– would users think borrowing suggestions were formal

recommendations from the library?– aren’t borrowing suggestions just for selling books?– how relevant will the suggestions be?

• would sudden changes confuse users?


38

Solutions

• 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 then remove it


39

Searching for books by colour


40

Search visualisations


41

Search visualisations


42

CKO visualisations


43

Other Libraries

• Ann Arbor District Library• North Carolina State University

(Endeca)• LibraryThing for Libraries• Open Source OPACs


44

Ann Arbor District Library

• early adopter of “2.0” (John Blyberg)• OPAC deeply embedded in Library

portal• virtual catalogue cards (with graffiti!)• user tagging, ratings, and reviews• borrowing suggestions• RSS feeds• http://www.aadl.org/catalog/


45


46


47

North Carolina State University

• facetted browsing• http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/catalog/• http://endeca.com


48


49

LibraryThing for Libraries

• integrates LibraryThing data into the OPAC– tags– borrowing suggestions– other editions

• www.librarything.com/forlibraries/


50


51


52

Open Source OPACs

• Scriblio (formerly WPOpac)– uses WordPress (blogging software)

• VuFind– uses PHP & MySQL

• Lucene & Solr– Project Backlight (Univ. of Virginia)– FacBackOPAC– Huddersfield (blog post)


53


54

The Traditional Vendors

• Talis Platform– “an environment for building next

generation applications and services”

• Ex Libris Primo– “one-stop solution for the discovery and

delivery of local and remote resources”

• Innovative Interfaces Encore– “goes beyond the online-catalog model

to provide a better patron experience ”


55

OPAC 2.0

• “The best way to predict the future is to invent it.”

(Alan Kay, computer scientist and former Xerox PARC researcher)

• “The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet.”

(William Gibson, science fiction authorand creator of the word “cyberspace”)


56

OPAC 2.0

• shopping list of features:– spell checking (“did you mean?”)– 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


57

OPAC 2.0

• shopping list of features:– 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


58

Quick 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


59

Implementation of Features

0

100

200

300

400

500

nu

mb

er

of

resp

on

de

nts

(to

tal

72

9)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

imp

ort

an

ce (

ou

t o

f 1

0)

already got getting soon importance


60

Features – Future Trends?Rate of I ncrease of Feature I mplementation

72%

130%

28%

137%

311%279%

189%167%

500%

122%

0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

500%

600%

% i

ncr

ea

se

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

imp

ort

an

ce (

ou

t o

f 1

0)

% increase in "getting soon" compared to "already got" importance


61

Importance (getting soon)Feature I mportance

8.7 8.6 8.4

7.87.4

6.56.1 6.1 6.0

5.7

9.18.8 8.8

8.48.9

7.8 8.0

7.4

8.7

7.0

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

imp

ort

an

ce

(o

ut

of

10

)

importance (all) importance (already got) importance (getting soon)


62

Technology Adoption Lifecycle


63

Technology Adoption - Now


64

Technology Adoption – Q1 08?


65

Importance – UK respondents

8.6

8.17.8

7.2

6.5

5.95.7

5.45.8

5.3

8.7 8.88.6

7.97.7

6.7

6.2 6.26.0 5.9

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

stealt

h OPAC

did yo

u m

ean

enric

hed

RSS feed

s

face

ts

also

borro

wed

user

tagg

ing

user

com

men

ts

user

lear

ning

user

ratin

gs4

5

6

7

8

9

10

imp

ort

an

ce

(o

ut

of

10

)

UK respondents non-UK respondents


66

Thank you!

utilising web 2.0 in the opac lipstick, cowbells and serendipity

Documents

opac suck

opac lipstick

library journal

web sites new features

library management system

failed search

utilising web

average users