WEB OPAC 2.0

Discovering a better search tool

Kevin Collins & Darren Chase, Stony Brook University

the one-two punch

1 university.• Stony Brook University – SUNY University Center, 24,600

students

2 campuses. • academic and medical

2 library systems.

2 OPACS.

One OPAC to rule them all.

• Users complained about having to switch between 2 catalogs.

• OPAC committees from both libraries came together to find a single-search solution.– The joint OPAC committee’s

makeup is important: a blend of technical staff and public services librarians.

What do we need & want?

NEEDS: Identify our users’ needs, our needs• Combined search results• Categories• Easy to use• Multi-base searching, all-in-one “like Google”WANTS: Identify what we want: what do we value? what are

the characteristics of a 21st Century library discovery tool?• Features for sharing records• Supports multiple platforms and devices• Modular & mashable

Usability & Knowing What Is Good

Invite users to test the new OPAC• Use an assessment tool to measure user

experience, functionality, result relevanceEveryone has an opinion. Opinions and

suggestions are great, but it is vital to look for strategies to measure the efficacy of the OPAC.

This slide sucks.

Mandatory Features Desirable (Optional) FeaturesAbility to load/link to vendor generated enriched content such as table of contents, summaries, etc.

Ability to load cover art.

Faceted navigation with ability to narrow a set of search results by attribute.

Faceted navigation with “breadcrumbs” to easily add or delete facets.

Ability to link back to “classic” catalog and library databases, from discovery tool screen

Ability to work with federated searching tools for accessing licensed databases.

Keyword searching with ability to place/code search box on our own web page.

Advanced or Boolean searching capabilities

Spelling alternatives or “Do you mean…?” (Alternatives can be automatic or given as an option to widen range of search)

ILL integration.

Relevancy ranking of results. Library has ability to control relevancy ranking of results or turn off relevancy ranking altogether.

Ability to save and export results to bibliographic software management tools such as Endnote.

Ability to save results in bookshelf (e.g. issue requests)

Ability to search with Mobile devices FRBRized (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) display of results

Key:•Does not currently meet the requirement•Somewhat meets the requirement•Completely meets or exceeds the requirement

Mandatory Features Product 1

Product 2

Product 3

Product 4

Ability to load/link to vendor generated enriched content such as table of contents, summaries, etc.

2 2 2 2

Faceted navigation with ability to narrow a set of search results by attribute.

2 2 2 2

Ability to link back to “classic” catalog and library databases, from discovery screen

2 2 2 2

Keyword searching with ability to place search box on our own web page.

2 2 2 2

Spelling alternatives or “Do you mean…?” (Alternatives can be automatic or given as an option to widen range of search)

2 0 2 1

Relevancy ranking of results. 2 2 2 1Patron has ability to control results ranking (eg. by Relevancy, title, author, year)

2 2 2 1

Product 1 Product 2 Product 3 Product 4 Product 5 Product 6 Product 7

Mandatory Features Score

14 26 26 26 22 19 25

Desirable (Optional) Features Score

09 21 17 21 15 12 20

Overall Total Score

23 45 43 47 37 31 45

3rd Party Vendor: Ebsco Discovery Service (Ebsco)Encore (Innovative Interfaces Inc)EndecaPrimo (ExLibris)Summon (Serial Solutions)Worldcat (OCLC )

Open Source:

BlacklightIDS Project VuFIND XC Project (eXtensible Catalog)Xerxes Project (calstate)

Actively Managed Passively Managed

Implementation times range from 3 to 6 weeks.

False True

Longer implementation times because a library must customize software (eg several months)

True False

Required ongoing (day to day) management can be more automated. (automated data loads)

True True

Staff have little customization for look and feel of the screen.

False True

We must wait for the vendor to 'innovate'. True, for vendor softwareFalse, for custom changes

True

Library must wait for vendors to correct software problems

True, for vendor softwareFalse, for custom changes

True

Upgrades / maintenance will be handled by the vendor, with little required for a library

False True

Upgrades mean libraries must make implementation changes to gain new software changes

True False

Upgrades can be scheduled for a more convenient time for us.

True False

Ongoing cost of opportunity for staff time (IT and non-IT staff)

True False

Active and growing community of users to keep supporting it

True for VuFind and PrimoUncertain for Blacklight

Yes, according to vendor sales staff

Images•Amazing Circle: Blockhead 3•Lucha_libre_0158•I’m Going To Have Nightmares

ReferencesFeldman, Susan. "The Key to Online Catalogs That Work? Testing: One, Two, Three." Computers in Libraries 19.5 (1999): 16. Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text. EBSCO. Web. 19 Oct. 2010.

Letnikova, Galina. "Developing a Standardized List of Questions for the Usability Testing of an Academic Library Web Site." Journal of Web Librarianship 2.2/3 (2008): 381-415. Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text. EBSCO. Web. 19 Oct. 2010.

Thank You! Any Questions?

ContactKevin J. Collins, Health Sciences Library ALEPH Administrator. 631.444.9740Darren Chase, Web Services Librarian, Melville Library. 631.632.9830