Upload
enug
View
820
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
The Next Generation of Catalogs
for Academic Libraries
Ex Libris Northeast User Group Annual Conference
Oct 27, 2011
Sharon Yang & Melissa A. Hofmann Rider University Libraries
Purpose:
• To measure the progress made in modeling current OPACs after the next generation catalog (NGC) in academic libraries in the United States and Canada.
Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?”
2
Design/Methodology/Approach
• A random sample of 260 colleges and universities was selected (about 10% of the population).
• The libraries’ OPAC interfaces—both ILS-integrated and discovery tools—were evaluated against a checklist of the 12 features of the next generation catalog (NGC).
Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?”
3
Design/Methodology/Approach
• There were 273 potential OPAC interfaces
• 40 institutions had no OPACs available for analysis (“missing”)
• Data was collected from September 2009 through July 2010.
• Findings can be extrapolated to the population at the 95% confidence level with a confidence interval of ±3.
Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?”
4
12 NGC Characteristics
1. Single point of entry for all library resources 2. State-of-the-art web interface 3. Enriched content 4. Faceted navigation 5. Simple keyword search box with a link to advanced search on
every page 6. Relevancy 7. Did you mean…? 8. Recommendations/related materials 9. User contribution 10. RSS feeds 11. Integration with social networking sites 12. Persistent links
Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?”
5
Institutions in the Sample
Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?”
6
1. Single point of entry
Yes No Missing Total
Journal
articles 10 (4%) 223 (81%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Full-text
journals 133 (48%) 100 (37%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Ebooks 185 (67%) 48 (18%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
All three 9 (3%) 224 (82%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?”
7
2. State-of-the-art web interface
Poor: 10 OPACs (3%) OK: 89 OPACs (32%)
Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?”
8
2. State-of-the-art web interface
Good: 83 OPACs (31 %) Excellent: 51 OPACs (19%)
Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?”
9 Missing: 40 OPACs (15%)
3. Enriched content
Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?”
10
Yes No Missing Total
Cover Images 126 (46%) 107 (39%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Reviews 93 (34%) 140 (51%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Summary/
Annotation
82 (30%) 151 (55%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
TOC 82 (30%) 151 (55%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Excerpts 82 (30%) 151 (55%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Tags 34 (12%) 199 (73%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Rating /ranking 27 (10%) 206 (75%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Descriptions 8 (3%) 225 (82%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Comments 6 (2%) 227 (83%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
4. Faceted navigation
Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?”
11
5. Simple keyword search box with link to advanced search on every page
0
50
100
150
200
250
Simple search box w/link to advanced
Other options Missing
• Only 26 OPAC interfaces (9%) started with a Google-like search box and maintained it throughout.
• “Other options”: interfaces starting with a basic or advanced search, dropping the search box on later screens, and/or providing other choices next to the search box.
Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?”
12
6. Relevancy
• No OPACs or discovery tools incorporated these into the search results.
Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?”
13
Circulation statistics and multiple copies should join the relevancy
results criteria
7. Did you mean?
Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?”
14
Spell-checking and suggestion of terms.
*Other” used language to explain dropping a user into list of
headings or titles to browse, such as: “Item not found—perhaps the
following list will help” / “Keyword not found. The closest subject match
appears below”/ “No matches found; nearby titles are…” /
8. Recommended/related materials.
• No OPAC interfaces were found to have this feature.
• However, 34% use patron-friendly language with existing functionalities, such as hyperlinked name and subject headings in records (searches and browses) and call number browses: – “Browse similar items” / “Find more about this author
or topic”/ “Show similar items” / “Nearby items on shelf” / “More like this”
Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?”
15
Recommend items for readers based on transaction logs.
9. User contribution
Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?”
16
Allow users to add data to records.
Yes No Missing Total
Tags 30 (11%) 203 (74%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Reviews 18 (7%) 215 (78%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Rating/ranking 11 (4%) 222 (81%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Comments 3 (1%) 230 (84%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Descriptions 0 (0%) 233 (85%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Summary/
annotation 0 (0%) 233 (85%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
10. Persistent links / 11. RSS feeds / 12. Integration with social networking sites
Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?”
17
Yes No Missing Total
Persistent
links 63 (23%) 170 (62%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Integration
with social
networking
sites
21 (8%) 212 (77%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
RSS feeds 9 (3%) 224 (82%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Distribution of NGC Features
Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?”
18
Summary of Findings
• No OPAC or discovery tool possessed all 12 features.
• Only 3% of the OPAC interfaces in the sample had 7 or more features of the NGC—and these were all discovery tools.
• WorldCat Local and Summon were the top runners.
• Comprehensive federated search is still largely missing (only 4% of OPAC interfaces included articles).
Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?”
19
Summary of Findings
• Only 13% of OPAC interfaces offered faceted browsing, 83% of which were discovery tools.
• ILS-integrated OPACs that offered faceted browsing were Koha, Auto-Graphics, and Polaris.
• 16% of institutions used a discovery tool; 85% of these used them in conjunction with their legacy or “classic” catalog.
• 14% of institutions offered a choice of catalog interfaces (discovery tools and classic catalog)
Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?”
20
Latest Study
• 260 institutions in sample checked for changes in October 2011
• Use of discovery tools has doubled
– 81 libraries out of 260, or 31%
• (includes libraries sharing consortial catalogs)
– (Was 41 out of 260, or 16%)
Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?”
21
Latest Study
• New-to-our-sample products
– Ebsco Discovery Service (EDS)
– LS2 PAC (Library.Corporation, part of ILS)
• Changes in
– ILS
• 3 switched (2 to LS2 PAC w/NGC features)
– Discovery Tools
• 1 from WorldCat Local to EDS
• 1 from Encore to WorldCat Local
Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?”
22
Summary of New Findings
• What discovery tool did institutions choose most since our initial data collection?
Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?”
23
Summon 13 33% WorldCat 9 23% EDS 5 13% Primo 5 13% VuFind 4 10%
AquaBrowser 2 5% Encore 2 5%
40 100%
Institutions in the Sample (260) October 2011
Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?”
4%
49% 16%
28%
3% ILS OPACs (faceted)(11)
"Classic" Catalogs Only(non-faceted) (127)
Missing (41)
Discovery tools +classic catalogs (72)
Discovery tools only(9)
Latest Study
Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?”
25
*1 more than # of institutions (81) because GVSU has
links to both Summon and Encore
Discovery Tool # of Instances AquaBrowser 7 8.5% EDS 5 6.1% Encore 11 13.4% Endeca 5 6.1% Primo 10 12.2% Summon 15 18.3% VuFind 14 17.1% WorldCat Local 15 18.3% Total: 82* 100.0%
Latest Study
Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?”
26
*Now has true faceted navigation.
ILS-integrated faceted OPACs # of Instances Autographics 1 9% Evergreen* 2 18% Koha 4 36% LS2 PAC (TLC) 2 18% Polaris 2 18%
Total: 11 100%
Summary of New Findings
• 31% (was 16%) of academic libraries use a discovery tool
• 90% (was 85%) of these use them in conjunction with their legacy or “classic” catalog.
• 28% (was 14%) offer a choice of catalog interfaces (discovery tools and classic catalog)
• If you combine discovery tools and faceted ILS OPACs, at least 35% of academic libraries are using a faceted interface.
Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?”
27
Overall Conclusions
• NGC features in legacy catalogs are cosmetic and minor.
• The majority of catalog interfaces displaying the most NGC features are discovery tools.
• Many proprietary vendors seem to be abandoning their ILS-integrated OPACs in favor of discovery tools.
• Most libraries using a discovery tool still provide access to their “classic” catalog.
• For some discovery tools, the legacy OPAC is necessary to perform advanced searches or to browse indexes
Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?”
28
References
Antelman, K., Lynema, E., and Pace, A.K. (2006), “Toward a twenty-first century library catalog”, Information Technology & Libraries, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 128-39.
Breeding, M. (2007), “Introduction”, Library Technology Reports, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 5-14.
Creative Research Systems (2010), “Sample size calculator”, available at: http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm (accessed 20 April 2010).
Funer, J. (2008), “User tagging of library resources: toward a framework for system evaluation”, International Cataloging & Bibliographic Control, Vol. 37 No. 3, 47-51.
Haahr, M. (2010), “Random.org: random integer generation”, available at http://www.random.org/integers/ (accessed 12 October 2009).
Kudo, E. and Kataoka, S. (2008), “A big wave of next generation catalog-its features and implementing into Japanese library systems”, Joho Kanri, Vol. 51 No. 7, pp. 480-98.
Luong, T.D. and Liew, C.L. (2009), “The evaluation of New Zealand academic library OPACs: a checklist approach”, Electronic Library, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 376-93.
McCormack, N. (2008), “User comments and reviews: decline or democratization of the online public access catalogue?” Feliciter, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 129-31.
Mendez, L.H., Quiñonez-Skinner, J., and Skaggs, D. (2009), “Subjecting the catalog to tagging”, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 30-41.
Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?”
29
References
Merčun, T. and Žumer, M. (2008), “New generation of catalogues for the new generation of users: a comparison of six library catalogues”, Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 243-61.
Murray, P. (2008), “Discovery tools and the OPAC”, PowerPoint presentation at NISO forum on next generation discovery tools:
new tools, aging standards, available at: http://dltj.org/article/discovery-layer-video-tour/ (accessed 27 January 2010). Peterson’s Four-Year Colleges (2009), Peterson’s, Lawrenceville, NJ. Spiteri, L.F. (2007), “The structure and form of folksonomy tags: the road to the public library catalog”, Information Technology
and Libraries, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 13-25. Tennant, R. (2005), “Digital libraries: ‘lipstick on a pig’”, Library Journal, Vol. 130 No. 7, p. 34. Tennant, R. (2007), “Digital libraries: ‘lipstick on a pig 2.0’”, available at
http://blog.libraryjournal.com/tennantdigitallibraries/2007/05/04/lipstick-on-a-pig-2-0/ (accessed 3 June 2010). Trommer, D. (1997), “Open market goes live with next-generation catalog solution”, Electronic Buyers’ News, No. 1075, p. 90. Yang, S. Q., and Wagner, K. (2010), Evaluating and comparing discovery tools: how close are we towards the next generation
catalog? Library Hi Tech. Vol. 28 No.4, pp. 690-709. Yang, S. Q. and Hofmann, M.A. (2010), “The next generation library catalog: a comparative study of the OPACs of Koha, Evergreen,
and Voyager”, Information Technology and Libraries, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 141-50.
Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?”
30
Questions?
• Thank you!
• To learn more, read our article, Published in Library Hi Tech, 29.2 (2011).
Hofmann & Yang: "Next Generation?”
31