Examining the Effectiveness of Next-Gen Opacs

Examining the effectiveness of next-gen OPACs

By

Timothy W. Miller

Essay

LIBR 244-10

Online Searching

Virginia Tucker

ABSTRACT

Use of traditional Online Public Access Catalogs (OPACs) has dropped greatly in the last decade as users have embraced online searching, using websites like Google and Amazon. In these recent years, it has been widely asserted that library catalogs should adapt to match the interfaces of these websites or suffer from decreased use in the face of the overwhelmingly abundant information, albeit questionable in quality, that is so easily found on the Internet. OPACs can be adapted with Web 2.0 overlays (separate servers that interact with the ILS) to enhance and augment the catalog. Alternatively, new ILS systems have been developed with such features built-in to the system. The goal in including such features is to attract users to the superior quality resources that libraries offer compared to general Internet searching, but do these overlays and next gen catalogs actually enhance the users’ search?

Introduction.

Library catalogs are the gateway to information for library patrons. The online presence of the library in a society that emphasizes information-seeking on the Internet (the rise of search engines as well as social networking sites) is integral when promoting the use of library resources. Furthermore, libraries are well-established as being excellent collections of information, but in recent years, the overwhelming abundance of information on the Internet has drawn more users seeking to conduct research, despite its inferior quality. This sheer abundance of information has trumped the quality of information hidden behind the less user-friendly interfaces of library OPACs (Choy, 2011; Wisniewski, 2009). In recent years, many systems have emerged to enhance or replace the traditional OPAC, matching the features found on popular commercial webpages like Amazon and Google. These systems that employ Web 2.0 features are called ‘next generation’ or ‘next gen’ catalogs (Yang & Hofmann, 2010). The purpose of this essay is to analyze the design of such catalogs and to try to deduce if this design results in better search results for the user.

Improving the traditional catalog.

Traditional library catalogs have had shortcomings that have been identified for decades; however, it wasn’t until the emergence of Web 2.0 features that substantive improvements were made in library catalogs (Mercŭn & Žumer, 2008). Critics have seen many problems with traditional catalog systems, including overly complex interfaces and the use of confusing search commands and overly-strict syntax (Ballard & Blaine, 2010; Wisniewski, 2009). In 2005, John Blyberg called for an “ILS customer bill of rights” that included fundamental programming concepts, such as “A full-blown, W3C standards-based API (application programming interface) to all read-write functions,” that would give more control over the functionality of the OPAC to the individual library and allow for more adaptability to meet the needs of the user population. Reflecting on this “bill of rights” 18 months later, Blyberg (2007) noted that though the progress was slow, the vendors of traditional catalog systems were making Web 2.0 enhancements and new open source Integrated Library Systems (ILS) were being implemented with these features as well as built-in extensibility to allow for future changes.

Others have sought to determine just what specifically needs to be considered when creating the interface- whether it is a next-gen overlay of a traditional ILS or an entirely new OPAC. The needs of the user must first be considered- if the libraries wish to remain at the fore of the information industry, they must entice users, marketing to them and creating interfaces that increase accessibility to the high quality resources (Choy, 2011). As Mercŭn and Žumer (2008) have pointed out, the skills that users have developed en masse through using Internet search engines are being incorrectly applied to library catalogs- all too frequently with terrible results. Choy (2011) offers four main points to consider when developing a plan to include the users’ needs when designing a next-gen catalog: convenience, attention, awareness and perception. Convenience entails optimizing the user’s search time, striving to make the library experience as simple and expedient as a simple Google search. Attention is akin to selling the resources to the customer- the library has wonderful resources and we need to find a way to convince our patrons. Awareness is akin to marketing- if the patron doesn’t know what resources we have, we cannot sell them. Finally, we must alter the public’s perception of the library- libraries can no longer simply be warehouses of information because, regardless of the quality, it is far easier and more convenient to search online from home than to travel to a brick and mortar building to look up a call number and then search the stacks.

Implementing Web 2.0 features.

Next Gen catalogs often employ the use of features found on Web 2.0-rich sites such as Amazon, with the intent that users will add their own content, increasing accessibility, engaging the patron, and creating a sense of communal ownership of the library (Mercŭn & Žumer, 2008). Many authors have commented on features that should be included in next gen catalogs- when Yang and Hoffman (2010) analyzed three open source next gen OPACs, they devised a list of ten specific features that should be considered when evaluating the effectiveness of a system. Other authors have slightly different criteria, but almost all include user-defined content (tags, reviews, etc.), federated searches (searching for online articles, print books, videos, etc. all in one search), providing relevancy ranking of results, providing relevant recommendations alongside results, faceted navigation (narrowing results with subcategories), spell-checking and ‘did you mean?’ corrections for mistyped search terms and finally, and arguably most importantly, a single search box, mimicking the Google search interface, with options to conduct advanced searches if the user so chooses (Ballard & Blaine, 2010; Hoffman & Yang, 2011; Wisniewski, 2009). Many of these features are being included in updated versions of ILS and OPAC systems, albeit slowly and imperfectly. To date, there have been no extensive studies that compare these newer systems to traditional catalogs by using actual user data.

One important consideration in all of this is that as long as the system is extensible, the ability to improve and add to the system will enable future enhancements even if the current system is lacking. Wisniewski (2009) encourages libraries to have a ‘beta mindset’ wherein the customer expects improvements immediately and thus new features can be rolled out when they work, but before they are perfected, much like updates to web browsers. Customers are comfortable with a certain amount of imperfection, but an outdated and cumbersome system will be seen as obsolete and unattractive.

Defining Web 2.0 ‘effectiveness’

It is this author’s opinion that it is important to recognize that there are two basic concepts to consider when speaking of the ‘effectiveness’ of a system- the overall functionality and accuracy of the system, and the accessibility and attractiveness of the system. The system cannot be considered effective unless it can provide the results that are sought and unless the users are able to and desire to use the system. These two concepts have been analyzed separately in the literature, with more emphasis on the attractiveness (e.g. Choy’s forementioned attention, awareness and perception) than on the functionality. Equally, studies have sought to determine if catalogs truly are moving toward an emphasis on these Web 2.0 features, but the vast majority of these studies only determine the presence of the features, and do not investigate whether or not the features enhance the user experience. However, it is important to note that the goal of implementing next gen catalogs is to convince patrons to use the library’s superior resources- to entice them away from the lower quality Internet searches. Without the superior functionality, attracting users to an inferior system does not accomplish this goal; and without an attractive system, patrons cannot be expected to use the superior resources. Therefore, these two concepts are intertwined and should not be developed or evaluated without taking both into account.

Is OPAC 2.0 working?

Ballard and Blaine (2010) conducted a study based on Google Analytics results after a Web 2.0 overlay, Encore, was adopted by New York Law School and NYPL. The results of the study demonstrated that use of the new catalog was exceptionally higher- more pages were viewed and fewer searches were abandoned. Though these results clearly indicate that use is increased with these enhance features, the question remains as to the effectiveness of the actual search in comparison to traditional classic catalog systems. A separate study examined the usability of a Web 2.0 interface, VuFind- an open source overlay for the Ex Libris WebVoyage ILS- and found that overall, users preferred the VuFind interface. Closer examination of the results exposed some weaknesses in the system (e.g. not being able to filter by item format) but such weaknesses did not preclude the discovery of items (Emanuel, 2011). Furthermore, these weaknesses would be fixable in an extensible system. Though the VuFind study analyzed routine user searches, it did not evaluate whether or not the user was able to locate items relevant to actual searches, as has been done extensively with traditional catalogs (Waller, 2010).

A study by experts analyzed the search characteristics of several catalogs, comparing a traditional catalog to five other “modern and innovative” catalogs that employ Web 2.0 enhancements in one form or another. Though this study did not use subjects who are typical library users (inexperienced and inexpert), the study revealed that those catalogs with better functionality were more useful than those with more Web 2.0 features (Mercŭn & Žumer, 2008). These results can only be moderately helpful in determining how the Web 2.0 features would be received by typical, inexperienced users.

Studies analyzing the effectiveness of searches- that is, surveying not only whether or not the user was able to retrieve and access results, but to further track use to determine relevancy of results- should be conducted on the emerging next-gen catalogs to compare to previous exhaustive studies examining traditional catalogs, like the work of Waller (2010) in Australia, who examined the relevancy of results from the Ex Libris Voyager ILS. Until such detailed studies are conducted, it is difficult to establish whether or not the newer next gen features are as helpful to the novice as they are perceived.

Discussion

It is necessary to conduct a thorough investigation comparing actual search results, as conducted by real users, between traditional classic OPACs and next gen catalogs. Such a comparison would verify the effectiveness of the next gen search interface- and would be the true test of the value of such features. However, upon further reflection, the effectiveness of the search results is only as important as the widespread use of the catalog- just as was the problem with traditional OPACs being passed by in favor of using basic Internet searches, if the users are not, in fact, using the catalog- regardless of the effectiveness of each search- the catalog has no real value. Herein lies a contradiction of sorts- which comes first, the marketing and selling of the catalog or the effectiveness of the catalog? If we create the ultimate catalog, but wait too long to release it, will it be used? Or, as Blyberg (2007) has pointed out, should we release the beta version and perfect the effectiveness after it is released? Clearly, an effective catalog only has value if it is being used, and though an imperfect catalog may not be as effective, if it is attractive to users and provides a gateway to higher quality resources, its value really is merely less effective, not entirely ineffective. Finally, it is important to note that such a goal of perfecting the catalog to optimize the search effectiveness should always be central to the development of new OPACs and features, and extensibility is the key factor in facilitating such optimization in future iterations.

REFERENCES

Ballard, T. , & Blaine, A. (2011). User search-limiting behavior in online catalogscomparing classic catalog use to search behavior in next-generation catalogs. New Library World, 112(5/6), 261.

Blyberg, J. (2007). Always pushing information. Summer 2007 Net Connect Supplement, 132, 2-4.

Choy, F. C., (2011). From the library stacks to library-in-a-pocket: will users be around? Library Management, 32, 62-72.

Emanuel, J. (2011). Usability of the vufind next-generation online catalog. Information Technology & Libraries, 30(1), 44.

Hofmann, M. , & Yang, S. (2011). How next-gen r u? a review of academic opacs in the united states and canada. Computers in Libraries, 31(6), 26.

Mercŭn, T. , & Žumer, M. (2008). New generation of catalogs for the new generation of users: A comparison of six library catalogs. Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems, 42(3), 243-261.

Waller, V. (2010). Accessing the collection of a large public library: An analysis of opac use. LIBRES: Library & Information Science Research Electronic Journal, 20(1), 1.

Wisniewski, J. (2009). Control-shift. next-gen opacs: No time like the present. Online, 33(5), 54.

Yang, S. , & Hofmann, M. (2010). The next generation library catalog: A comparative study of the opacs of koha, evergreen, and voyager. Information Technology & Libraries, 29(3), 141.

Miller EssayExamining the effectiveness of next gen OPACs5.15.12