The OPACToday and Tomorrow

Chris Kiess, MLS

Electronic Bibliographic Catalog of Library Holdings with an interface for both the user and administratorAdvantages:

Access points/Search Capabilities (By keyword, subject, author, title)

Administration = less labor

Command & Control

Records, Search Logs, Stats

Online, Off-Campus, 24/7 Access (and by more than one person at a time)

OPAC

OPAC Faults/Requirements – Schneider

• Relevance ranking (precision vs. recall) is a major fault

• Stemming – Truncating • Weighting• Spell-check• Refining, sorting and faceting• Boolean, operators, default query processing• Duplicate removal• In-line limiters (e.g. site: .edu) – Advanced Search

OPAC Faults/Requirements – Schneider cont.

• Best Bets – Manipulated results• Web log reports• Administrative interface• Search full-text • Data set shared by libraries (OCLC)• OPAC should minimize focus (i.e. it does too much

and none of it well)

*Calls for user studies and usability analysis in Part 2.

OPAC Criteria from Markey

• Post-Boolean Probabilistic Searching (e.g. Google)• Subject Cataloging

Ranking algorithmsBrief Document DisplaysRelevance Feedback (e.g. “find more like”)

• Qualification CatalogingSimilar to faceted searchType of documentGenreAge group

OPAC Criteria from Markey Cont.

• Guided Search (similar to faceted search)• Full text search reconciliation• Leverage Citation Data – Could capitalize on

domain experts• User involvement, social networking (e.g. wisdom

of crowds)

*Calhoun’s Report advised diverting resources from traditional cataloging to unique resources such as local collections, etc.

OPAC Debut & History• 80% of users favor OPAC on debut• No internet access on debut• Mid-90’s spawns Internet• Problems w/OPAC become evident even prior to

Internet though:Poor subject searchingNo full-textNo link outTOC and indexes not catalogued

*Many OPACs still have not implemented some of these changes!

Enter Google• Successful because it eased fears of technology,

fears of not knowing and the difficulty of the search

• Users rarely know what they need• Some users know what they need, but cannot

translate it into “search language”• Domain expert does not have same search

problem (Most doctors ask a colleague rather than initiate a literature search)

• What does it take to be a domain expert?

Critical Thinking: Access vs. Usability – is there a trade off? (CRH

ebook example)

There is a difference between librarian satisfaction and user satisfaction

Research NeedBest PracticeLatest Study Results

Patient EducationGuidelinesClinical Question

CDS, Labs,Immediate Need

Health InformaticsHealth Information – Levels

of Need

Medical Librarianship

Search Model

Expert

Detail Level (book, article)

Broad Info Need (reference)

Stages of Information Needs

• Stage 1 (General need): I need to know what it is (e.g. What is squamous cell carcinoma?)

• Stage 2 (Larger Picture w/more Detail): I need to know more (e.g. how did I get it and how is it treated?)

• Stage 3 (Detail Level): I need to know all of the details (treatments, stats for survival, pros and cons, clinical trials)

• Stage 4 (Expert Level): I just need to keep up with new studies, trials, publications etc.

Stages of Information Needs Cont.

• Most end-users never reach stage 4• Stage 4 is more likely at the doctorate level• Detriment of being an expert: Forced to ignore

larger picture• Translational research example

Critical ThinkingWhat if you played a game where the object

was to shoot a target, but you only received a score with no scale? Each time you shot, you were given a score not knowing where you were on the scale or what the score meant.

This is how searching can feel to the end-user

Other OPAC Criteria

• Usability• Standards compliant• Flexibility • Web-based vs. Server-based• Plays well with others• Social networking• Cost $$$$$$

*Note: There is no attempt to distinguish OPAC criteria for user vs. library professionals.

Your Criteria• Your criteria for a system/OPAC could be different• Depends on:

Size of libraryUser needs (different from your needs!)Content of collectionCost/BudgetYour needsOther systems/services currently subscribed

Next Generation Catalogs?

• Relevancy ranking• Improved interface• Spell check• Faceted navigation/Guided search• Breadcrumbs • Cover images• Suggestions

Is this truly progressive or worthy of a NexGen Label?

Alternative #1 – Make it Yourself

• Not very realistic• Garza article is a prime example • Used a CMS with a catalog and many, many

workarounds• Most libraries do not have the resources• Using existing Web 2.0 technologies lacks as

much flexibility as out-of-box-solutions

Alternative #2 – Wait for Wheels to Turn

• Know what exists in next generation catalogs• Pick the best solution you can afford• Remain at mercy of industry, but make your

voices heard• Stay on top of industry seeking solutions – who’s

who in industry and what’s what• The next 5 years will spawn numerous large-scale

changes

Alternative #3 – Frankenstein Approach

Piece together your solution based on:Best productsSolutions that communicate with one anotherDo backend work to ensure systems are talking

Summary• Solutions will depend on your library, resources,

your position and whom you are working with• Most important elements you can master are

initial evaluation, the RFP and staying abreast of industry changes

• The above elements require you have knowledge of:Information Architecture/UsabilityIndustry Trends Evaluation MethodsBusiness Sense (Vendor Relations, RFP, Specifications)

References1. Breeding M. Introduction. Library Technology Reports. 2007;43(4):5-14.  2. Breeding M. Next-Generation Flavor in Integrated Online Catalogs. Library Technology Reports. 2007;43(4):38-41.  3. Garza A. From OPAC to CMS: Drupal as an extensible library platform.  4. Markey K. The Online Library Catalog: Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained? D-Lib Magazine. 2007;13(1/2). Available at: http://www.dlib.org//dlib/january07/markey/01markey.html [Accessed January 10, 2010].  5. Wolverton RE, Burke J. The OPAC - is Dead: Managing the Virtual Library. The Serials Librarian. 2009;57(3):247.  6. How OPACs Suck, Part 1: Relevance Rank (Or the Lack of It) | ALA TechSource. Available at: http://www.alatechsource.org/blog/2006/03/how-opacs-suck-part-1-relevance-rank-or-the-lack-of-it.html [Accessed January 10, 2010].7. How OPACs Suck, Part 2: The Checklist of Shame | ALA TechSource. Available at: http://www.alatechsource.org/blog/2006/04/how-opacs-suck-part-2-the-checklist-of-shame.html [Accessed January 10, 2010].8. How OPACs Suck, Part 3: The Big Picture | ALA TechSource. Available at: http://www.alatechsource.org/blog/2006/05/how-opacs-suck-part-3-the-big-picture.html [Accessed January 10, 2010].9. The OLE Project | Final Report on OLE Project. Available at: http://oleproject.org/final-report-on-ole-project/ [Accessed February 13, 2010].10. Perceptions 2007: an International Survey of Library Automation. Available at: http://www.librarytechnology.org/perceptions2007.pl [Accessed February 13, 2010].