Library Portals: The Impact of the Library Information Environment on
Information Seeking Success
Brian Detlor*
Michael G. DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, CANADA, L8S 4M4.
Email: detlorb@mcmaster.ca.
Vivian Lewis
Mills Library, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, CANADA, L8S 4M4.
Email: lewisvm@mcmaster.ca.
*Author to whom all correspondence should be sent
This paper raises awareness of the impact, both
positive and negative, of a library’s information
environment on library portal design and usability
in terms of information seeking. The authors
propose that healthy information environments
lay the groundwork for effective end-user
searching and browsing. Deficiencies in the
information environment place constraints on a
library portal’s functionality and form, thereby
inhibiting searching and browsing. A case study
of the McMaster University Library Gateway is put
forward to illustrate the influence of a library’s
information environment on portal design and,
ultimately, information seeking success. Several
recommendations are made on ways to instill
healthy information environments which better
support a full range of end-user information
seeking behaviors. Though libraries may be
unable to change all aspects of their information
environments, they should be aware of the impact
these aspects have on library portal adoption and
use and take steps to minimize any resultant
negative effects.
Introduction
Library portals are user-centered, typically Web-based,
gateways to library information, services and resources.
These systems provide users with convenient, often
personalized access to a comprehensive collection of
information resources of relevance and authority. One of
the central functions of a library portal is to support a broad
range of information seeking activity from browsing to
search (Detlor et al., 2003).
The purpose of this paper is to bring attention to the
influence library information environments have on the
design and usability of library portals, specifically in terms
of their ability to support or inhibit information seeking.
The information environment can be defined as the overall
framework or context in which an information system
exists. This framework includes several factors such as
information politics, information staff, information
technology, and information handling routines (Detlor,
2004; Davenport, 1997). The authors propose that a healthy
information environment provides the framework for
successful portal initiatives with respect to supporting
browse and search, while deficiencies in the environment
can inhibit information seeking. This paper advocates
awareness of the effect of a library’s information
environment on a library portal’s information seeking
capacity as a means of resolving the inherent conflict
between unhealthy information environments and good
information seeking support.
The creation of healthy information environments is vital
given the increasing prominence of the “virtual” library in
terms of user perceptions, usage patterns and budgetary
allocations. For an increasing number of users, visits to the
physical library are rare. The electronic library is the only
one they know. The current generation of users value speed
and convenience, and are often willing to sacrifice quality
to get these. Web search engines such as Google and
Yahoo! provide stiff competition for libraries by serving up
quick bites of information packaged the way customers
want – the proverbial “Information Happy Meal” (Quinn,
2000). The stakes are high and libraries are turning to
portals as key weapons in the battle to be people’s first and
preferred source for information (Noer, 2003).
To elaborate this position, this paper is organized into six
further sections. The first provides theoretical background
on the information environment construct, its effect and
influence on portal design, and the range of information
seeking behaviors a library portal should support. The
second discusses the paper’s methodology which utilizes
the case study method to investigate the effect of a specific
library’s information environment on portal design and its
capacity to facilitate information seeking. The third
provides background information on the chosen case,
namely the McMaster University Library Gateway. The
fourth discusses research findings. The fifth offers a
discussion on these findings, including recommendations on
ways to overcome or minimize negative influences of the
information environment and ways to support healthy
information environments that promote robust information
seeking support in library portal offerings. The sixth and
last section offers conclusions and final remarks.
Theoretical Background
The two theoretical constructs of information
environments and information seeking are discussed briefly
below. This is followed by an explanation of how the two
constructs relate to one another.
Information Environments
Perhaps the most popular literature on information
environments is given by Davenport (1997) in his holistic
description of the information ecology of organizations.
According to Davenport, there are several critical
components of an organization’s information ecology; these
include information politics and information staff.
Information politics concerns the human struggle over the
management and governance of information. Information
staff are the people in the organization, such as IT
specialists and librarians, who provide and interpret
information to others in the organization.
Choo, Detlor and Turnbull (2000a) extend Davenport’s
model to intranet design and suggest some new elements
comprising the information environment construct. These
include: organizational mission; the goal or purpose of the
developed Web information system; physical setting; and
information handling rules and routines.
Organizational mission is described by the overarching
goals and activities of the organization that define its
identity and purpose. An analysis of the organization’s
mission should also elaborate the role that information
plays, the contribution of its information resources and
services, as well as the differences between actual situations
and intended scenarios.
This logically leads to the second element, an articulation
of the Web information system’s goals in relation to the
organizational purpose, that is, the ways in which the Web
information system would help the organization accomplish
its mission.
An organization’s physical setting can
particular constraints and requirements. For
organization that is dispersed over multiple
whose employees spend most of their time
also impose
example, an
locations, or
in the field,
would need to address issues such as information access,
remote communications, data currency, and so on.
Finally, an organization may have set in place information
handling rules and routines for the management of records
and archives, and the maintenance of institutional memory.
These routines are important because they allow the
organization to encode and transfer past learning, and to
present an accountable trace of its actions.
In evaluating the various elements that constitute an
organization’s information ecology, we constantly ask to
what extent each element is harming or helping the
organization’s efforts to attain its goals. Recent empirical
findings in organizational settings by Detlor (2001, 2004)
provide evidence of the influencing effect of the
information environment on the design of portal systems
and ultimately on their adoption and use. This suggests a
possible influencing effect of library information
environments on library portal design and library portal
adoption.
Information Seeking
Information seeking is a broad behavioral endeavor. It is
“a process in which humans engage to purposefully change
their state of knowledge” (Marchionini & Komlodi, 1998,
p. 97). In this sense, information seeking is not a restrictive,
narrow activity but rather a dynamic process comprising a
wide array of tasks ranging from wayward browsing and
exploration to specific, goal-directed search (Marchionini,
1995). It thus follows that library portals would need to
focus not just on the information retrieval aspects of
information seeking (i.e., search), but also browsing activity
as well. Doing so, it is argued, would help support library
patrons in their various on-going modes of information
seeking.
According to Weick & Daft (1983), there are four modes
of scanning that cover all modes of information seeking
activity in which individuals engage, namely undirected
viewing, conditioned viewing, informal search and formal
search. The first two are browsing in nature; the latter two
are searching-related.
In undirected viewing or browsing, the overall purpose is
to scan broadly. Many and varied sources of information
are used, and large amounts of information are screened.
The goal of broad scanning implies the use of a large
number of different sources and different types of sources.
These sources should supply up-to-date news and provide a
variety of points of views.
In conditioned viewing or browsing, the individual directs
viewing to information about selected topics or to certain
types of information. The individual has isolated a number
of areas of potential concern from undirected viewing, and
is now sensitized to assess the significance of developments
in those areas. The individual wishes to do this assessment
in a cost-effective manner, without having to dedicate
substantial time and effort in a formal search. Hence, the
individual routinely focuses on browsing through preselected sources of interest.
Table 1: Information Seeking Modes and Library Portals
Mode
Implications for Library Portals
During informal search, the individual actively looks for
information to deepen the knowledge and understanding of
a specific issue. It is informal in that it involves a relatively
limited and unstructured effort.
Undirected
Browsing
 Introduce search or recommendation
tools that identify Web sites or other
portal sites that match users’ subject
areas of interest
 Encourage users with similar subject
interests to share URLs of preferred
Web sites
 Support the wayward, undirected,
serendipitous browsing of information
Conditioned
Browsing
 Train users to evaluate and identity
sources of information of high
authority
 Make it easy for users with similar
subject interests to share information
via e-mail or online forums
 Offer or introduce users to services
that allow them to subscribe to and be
notified about new content of interest
Informal
Search
 Pre-select high quality sources and
search engines for quick, informal
searches
 Pre-package good search strategies
developed by subject matter experts –
allow users to view these strategies
and learn from them
 Educate users on how to evaluate
information provenance and quality
Formal
Search
 Educate users about the full range of
information sources that should be
considered for comprehensive
searching
 Educate users about when to use
commercial online databases, the
library or other information resource
centers, information brokers
 Train users on advanced search
techniques: narrowing or broadening
a search; balancing precision and
recall; backward and forward
chaining
During formal search, the individual makes a deliberate
or planned effort to obtain specific information or
information about a specific issue. Search is formal because
it is structured according to some pre-established procedure
or methodology.
Choo, Detlor and Turnbull (2000b, 2000c) offer
suggestions on tailoring the design of Web sites,
particularly in organizational settings, in ways that support
Weick & Daft’s four information seeking modes. Detlor et
al. (2003) apply these suggestions to library portals, which
are summarized in Table 1 below.
Since one of the main purposes of a library portal is to
facilitate user information seeking, the extent to which a
library portal supports these four information seeking
modes of browsing and searching likely would have bearing
on the successful end user adoption of these systems.
The Relationship
This paper hypothesizes an influencing effect of a
library’s information environment on a library portal’s
ability to support information seeking. This ultimately
impacts the degree to which a library portal is adopted and
utilized.
Thus, this paper suggests that libraries need to pay special
attention to providing healthy information environments –
ones which enable and promote the inclusion of a broad
range of information browsing and searching activity in a
library portal’s design (as suggested in Table 1) and ones
which eliminate or minimize those factors which impede
information seeking success.
Methodology
To explore the effects of a library’s information
environment on a library portal’s capacity to facilitate
information seeking, the case study method was chosen.
The case study was initially carried out by eight MBA and
Ph.D. students as part of a major assignment for a class on
information retrieval and intelligent agents taught by the
primary author (Detlor) in first quarter 2003. The
assignment asked students to assess the strengths and
weaknesses of a new real-life library portal, namely the
McMaster University Library Gateway (hereinafter referred
to simply as the Gateway). The Gateway had been
operational for just five months, and the library was eager
to receive constructive criticism to back up initial usability
testing. Detlor consolidated the best ideas from individual
student papers and led writing of a working paper (see
Detlor et al., 2003). The strength and beauty of the
investigation was that it solicited the honest opinions of
eight graduate students and the course instructor who were
well-versed on the fundamental concepts of Web
information retrieval and the application of those
fundamentals to portal environments. The second author
(Lewis) along with Ines Perkovic, Reference Librarian, and
Sheila Pepper, then Associate University Librarian
(Services), gave the students who analyzed the Gateway an
introductory lecture on the history and workings of the
library portal. Lewis and Perkovic also served as a resource
for students. They created a Web site where portal-related
documents and traffic logs were made available to the
students for analysis.
Several recommendations from the working paper were
used to inform a redesign of the library portal in the
summer of 2003. Not all recommendations were possible
due to constraints imposed by the library’s information
environment. The findings outlined in this paper reflect
those constraints, as well as the findings of the working
paper. Further, Lewis’ ongoing involvement in the Gateway
offers additional insights into the library’s information
environment and the portal’s capacity to facilitate
information seeking.
provided manually maintained lists of electronic resources.
In 1999, an ad hoc group reviewed the two Web sites. From
this review emanated several recommendations in terms of
the sites’ appearance, organization, content, and
maintenance routines. These included the standardization of
color and layouts, the re-organization of content, and the
use of short sentences and bulleted statements.
In March 2000, University Librarian Graham Hill
proposed a new vision for the Gateway where the
burgeoning Web site would be placed at the center of an
integrated information access plan. The Gateway would
become, not simply a suite of hardware and software, “but
rather signify the Library’s presence on the Web.” (Hill,
2000)
In terms of functionality, the Gateway includes three
primary components:
1.
2.
3.
MORRIS (McMaster Online Resource Retrieval
Information System), the University’s online
public access catalog of holdings, based on
commercial software (Horizon).
e-Resources Database, an in-house database
providing access to subscribed and non-subscribed
products, including e-journals, aggregator
databases, selected Web sites and reference
products.
information pages created by staff (providing
access to hours, resources, instructional pages and
services of McMaster’s four libraries).
Public access to the Gateway is available through
http://library.mcmaster.ca,
though
only
authorized
McMaster University students, faculty and staff have access
rights to the some of the licensed contents of the ERD.
Figure 1 below illustrates the main home page of the
McMaster University Libraries home page prior to the
redesign in the summer of 2003.
The McMaster University Library Gateway
The Gateway is a Web-based portal to McMaster
University’s library resources and services. It facilitates
virtual access to the University’s four libraries and two
library systems. At the time of the study, the Gateway
provided bibliographic access to over 1.7 million print
volumes, direct access to 15,223 electronic resources and
3,283 information pages.
The original Gateway concept was structured around the
library catalog. Rapid advances in Web-based technology
quickly encouraged this vision to be expanded to all library
resources. In 1996, Web sites for both library systems were
created. Neither contained a search engine although both
Figure 1: The McMaster University Libraries Home Page
Individual library home pages closely mimicked the look
and feel of the McMaster University Libraries home page,
however some of the information content posted on these
sites was tailored to the individual library. Figure 2 below
illustrates the home page of the Innis (Business) Library
site at McMaster prior to summer 2003.
information resources and services to support the teaching,
research and learning objectives of their respective
faculties. Collectively, these mission statements fostered
strong support for the development and maintenance of a
healthy library portal.
Portal Goals
The formal goals established for the Gateway also boded
well for information seeking. As outlined in the University
Librarian’s March 2000 report, the Gateway was mandated
to provide a unified, virtual environment for the University
Library System through which selected electronic services
could be delivered with functionality that: (1) met the
current needs of users; (2) provided the capacity to respond
to their future needs; (3) had the flexibility to incorporate
new technologies (Hill, 2000). Secondary objectives, as
outlined in subsequent reports, committed the library to the
creation of a clear and intuitive navigation system and a
consistent appearance. For example, users were to be able
to find information in a number of ways without needing to
know library jargon or the physical layout of the
organization (NetMinders, 2000).
Figure 2: The Innis Library Home Page
Findings
An analysis of McMaster University’s library information
environment and its impact on the library portal’s ability to
facilitate information seeking was guided by the criteria
outlined in the Theoretical Background section of this
paper. Overall, the following aspects were found to be
positive factors conducive to the development of a robust
library portal for information seeking: a supportive
organizational mission, portal objectives that aligned with
the delivery of good information seeking support,
collaborative information politics, and improved
information handling rules and routines. The fragmented
nature of current library information technology was seen to
pose the greatest challenge to Gateway information seeking
success. The small number of available staff, a design team
composed of expert information professionals and the
disparate physical organization of McMaster’s library
systems offered additional concerns. Each of these factors
are discussed in turn below.
Organizational Mission
The mission statements of both the university and the
library created an atmosphere conducive to portal design
and implementation. As a research-intensive university, the
institution’s entire focus is on learning and the sharing of
information. The university as a whole is committed to the
discovery, communication and preservation of knowledge
with a focus on creativity, innovation and excellence. The
mission statements of the university’s two library systems
coordinated well with the overall campus objectives: in
both cases, the focus was placed on the provision of
Information Politics
The collaborative political environment at McMaster was
generally conducive to effective portal design. At the time
of the study, procedures and committee responsibility for
ongoing maintenance of the Gateway had not yet been
determined. Regardless, the collaborative political context
in which the Gateway was designed and developed allowed
for the inclusion of information search and browse
functionalities across electronic products that were of
interest and value to different constituencies. As with many
other research libraries, the overall direction of the library’s
digital presence was and continues to be determined by
committee, with representatives from all areas (e.g.,
systems, services, etc.). For example, the actual content and
architecture of the initial Gateway design were pieced
together in seven open staff meetings, using ‘idea mapping’
and other facilitation techniques. Design ideas were
solicited from staff, posted to the Web and voted on by staff
and members of the public. This aided towards the
establishment of good information seeking support within
the developed portal.
Information Handling Rules and Routines
New information handling rules and routines were
established as part of the Gateway implementation project.
These new rules and routines worked well and addressed
many shortcomings indicative of prior systems. For
example, static lists of e-Resources were replaced with
dynamically generated Web pages. New electronic products
became available much quicker than before because the
work could be distributed among many people – most of
whom did not require knowledge of HTML coding. Staff
could extract information from MORRIS to populate some
fields in the e-Resources Database. Changes happened in
one place, rather than in several. The actual assignment of
subject headings could be done by the expert in that area.
For the first time, the resources paid for by the university’s
two library systems were combined into one single product.
All this contributed towards an improved information
seeking environment where new products and resources
could be quickly added to the portal and the information
content could be kept current, refreshed, and consistent as
possible.
Information Technology
The biggest stumbling block for the Gateway portal was,
and continues to be, the current state of library information
technology. Many would argue that most library gateways
are not portals at all, but rather collections of irregularlyshaped windows facing out in the same general direction.
Due to the sheer volume and complexity of information and
services being presented, library portals are typically
composed of interconnected layers of commercial software
purchased from multiple vendors – interwoven with inhouse databases and stop-gap connector pages.
McMaster fits this standard mold. For example,
MORRIS, McMaster’s library catalog, is based on
commercial software. The e-Resources Database was
created in-house, but channels users to thousands of
discrete databases created by independent vendors. The
vocabulary, classification systems and reference authority
structures are predetermined by external organizations (e.g.,
individual database publishers, the Library of Congress,
etc.). As such, access to information in the Gateway is more
piecemeal than integrated.
This forced separation of the e-Resources Database, the
online catalog and the library portal’s information pages
represents perhaps the biggest technological barrier to
facilitating an integrated information seeking environment.
Ideally these resources should be integrated with users
being able to do a single meta-search via one allencompassing search box from the portal’s home page.
However,
the
current
fragmented
technological
infrastructure prevents this type of integration.
bibliographic management software (such as ProCite or
EndNote) and more integration with course management
software already in use on campus (e.g., WebCT and
LearnLink). Communication mechanisms in the portal are
limited primarily to broadcast mode. Users can fill in
Web-based forms to ask reference questions or request
items from storage, but two-way dialogue is limited.
Journal alerting services are becoming fairly common in
some commercial databases, but this functionality is still
piecemeal. The portal currently does not provide interactive
chat reference.
Personalization tools are also largely absent at the present
time. Users do not sign in to the Gateway. Online catalog
users can log on using their library ID barcode to retrieve
lists of signed out items or to renew books online. But
portal users cannot customize the links they see on the
homepage or generate a list of materials on reserve for the
courses in which they are registered. The library portal does
not provide general SDI services.
Physical Organization of the Library
The actual structure of the library at McMaster posed
some challenges in terms of Gateway design: McMaster
University Libraries is comprised of two separate but
affiliated library systems, with four physical locations. The
two systems share the same online library catalog and work
on large projects together. However, they are separate
entities with separate library budgets, information
technology systems and staff, mission statements and
cultures. Historically, the two systems maintained separate
Web sites. The Gateway represented the first attempt to
combine the two Web identities into one relatively cohesive
framework. As expected, the process was not always easy:
with policies and procedures varying considerably in some
areas.
Users’ general confusion about when to use the library
catalog and when to use the e-Resources Database
exacerbated the situation. At the time of the study, the
Gateway did not provide sufficient clues about when to use
one product or the other. If a comprehensive search of both
the e-Resources Database and the catalog was not possible,
more explanatory text was necessary to help users make
more informed decisions.
Inadvertently, the physical structure of the library systems
had a strong impact on the original design of the library
portal interface. The design consisted of a main portal home
page with four sub-portal pages (one for each physical
library), where each of the sub-library sites mirrored, to a
large degree, the arrangement and content of the main site.
In some cases, (for example ‘circulation’), the information
melded together very well and library patron users were
well served. In other cases, however, the variations in
practice were many and users were frustrated in having to
drill down to find the information they needed. For
example, users clicking on ‘hours’ on a sub-library site
expected to be taken to the hours for that library – not to a
large system-wide table.
The absence of communication and collaboration tools,
typically present in portals, is also problematic from the
perspective of information seeking. There is no place in the
library portal where users can ‘work’ with the information
retrieved. The study recommended the addition of
As noted in the study and in later usability testing,
moving around the main site and sub-sites was confusing
for many end-users. The study recommended doing away
with the sub-sites altogether and providing a single,
integrated library home page for all four university
libraries. Given that this full integration was not likely
possible, more visual clues (color change, etc.) needed to
be provided to let people know where they were.
Information Staff
The library workforce at McMaster is one of the portal’s
great strengths. Librarians (individuals holding Master
Degrees in Library Science) and other library workers
(often holding college diplomas in library techniques) are
dedicated to facilitating access to and making effective use
of information. Staff spend much of their work life
grouping information into meaningful categories,
determining the precise relationship between categories,
and creating effective linkages for users. Many staff,
especially those in reference positions, are skilled Web
searchers, capable of working through even the most
complex databases or cryptic help screens.
But, as is the case with many knowledge organizations,
this expertise can be blindsiding. In essence, McMaster
library staff, who were the designers of the portal interface,
were sometimes too familiar with the university’s
information products to craft effective screens for
uninitiated end-users. This resulted in design and content
decisions that were not always fully supportive of end-user
information seeking behaviors.
In some cases, the problem was one of simple language.
Though library staff made great strides in reducing the
amount of ‘library speak’ in the portal, jargon continues to
be a problem impacting successful navigation and use by
novice end users. Hours were spent in open meetings
deliberating the merits of words such as ‘circulation’ vs.
‘checkout’ or ‘reference’ vs. ‘research help.’ In some cases,
the most meaningful word was not the most precise.
Sometimes, library staff knew they didn’t have the words
right, but had to plunge ahead in the hope that usability
would resolve the impasse. Despite these efforts, there was
still some confusion by lay end users with certain terms in
the portal interface. For example, words like ‘hold’ or
‘reserves’ posed problems: some users thought of
‘reserving’ library books rather than placing a ‘hold’ on
them. Other users had difficulty distinguishing between the
words ‘reference’ and ‘reserves’, especially those users
from non-English speaking backgrounds.
In other cases, the original selection and arrangement of
content by library staff was problematic. For example, prior
to the summer of 2003, prime “white space” real estate was
taken up on the Gateway homepage with library-focused
information (“Our Services,” “Our Libraries,” “About Us”).
Direct access was provided to MORRIS, the library
catalog, but the link was largely lost on the top navigation
bar. No direct access was provided to the library’s other
key search tool, the e-Resources Database.
In still other cases, library designers initially misjudged
how end users would actually use pages. For example, in an
attempt to simplify the e-Resources Database screens, staff
originally decided to separate the Search (Basic and
Advanced) and Browse functions onto different pages.
However, users were familiar and comfortable with search
facilities, such as Yahoo!, that combined search and browse
facilities on one single screen and hence were not satisfied
with the library portal’s design. Furthermore, the Browse
screen was awkward to use and failed to support the
wayward, undirected, serendipitous browsing of
information.
As is typical, staffing resources were also a problem. At
the time of the study, McMaster employed 136 people
(down considerably from the 185 a decade earlier). The
staff complement included 32 professional librarians, seven
systems staff and a host of staff from other areas with
interest and skill in HTML coding and Web site design. In
all cases, staff devoted significant amounts of time to the
Gateway project, but this was in addition to their regular
jobs. No staff could be dedicated full time to the Gateway
project.
The small size and lack of dedicated staff probably
resulted in some inconsistencies throughout the Gateway.
At the time of the study, clicking on HOME from within
one of the sub-sites took users to the main library home
page rather than the page for that library. Some of the pages
did not provide the necessary links back to meaningful
pages, thus forcing people to use their Web browser’s
BACK button. These kinds of navigational problems and
coding inconsistencies would probably have been
minimized if more staff resources were available for the
project.
Discussion
Based on the paper’s findings, there is evidence of both
positive and negative influences of a library’s information
environment on a library portal’s capacity to support robust
information seeking. In the Gateway case study, positive
aspects were supportive organizational missions,
information
seeking-oriented
portal
objectives,
collaborative approaches to design, and an emphasis on
improving information handling processes within the portal.
Negative aspects included the current fragmented state of
library information technology, a lack of dedicated full-time
staff, a reliance on expert information professionals to
inform design, and a physical organization of library
systems that influenced the portal’s look and feel. Together,
these aspects both promoted and inhibited the inclusion of a
robust range of browse and search mechanisms in the
portal’s design.
As such, the Gateway project serves as a good case study
from which to elicit recommendations for future library
portal design.
-
The organizational mission and portal objectives
should be supportive of creating a portal system with
a strong mandate to facilitate information access and
information seeking.
-
-
A collaborative process should exist where members
from across all library constituencies can steer the
design of the library portal. Users should be included
in this steering process.
Moreover, users should play an active and engaging
role in the daily design of the library portal. This will
better guarantee that user needs are met and that
design decisions remain focused on providing the
best information seeking support possible.
-
Emphasis should be placed on creating an underlying
information technology infrastructure that provides
integrated resources and a complete and
comprehensive
suite
of
communication,
collaboration, and personalization tools.
-
The portal design team requires full-time dedicated
staff who are responsible and accountable for
ensuring the delivery of a library portal supportive of
information seeking.
-
Care must be taken not to mimic existing hierarchical
structure or library organization in the design of the
library portal.
-
When designing the library portal, keep in mind the
broad range of information seeking support required
by end users (see Table 1). For example, when
adding a tool, modifying text (library jargon), or
adapting the design of a page on the portal in any
manner, ask how this affects an end user’s ability to
conduct
robust
information
seeking.
This
recommendation is based on the premise that a
library portal’s major function is to support
information seeking.
Since the Summer 2003, a new committee at McMaster
University was struck to oversee ongoing development of
the Gateway. This new group was mandated to establish
priorities for Gateway development, to make
recommendations regarding policy or staff allocation, to
ensure that pages conform to established policies and
templates and to monitor current Web development trends
and research. In August 2003, McMaster University
Libraries unveiled new top-level pages and e-Resources
Database screens. The revised pages adopted the new
university template and responded to many of the key
concerns put forward in the working paper:
-
Central and individual library home pages were
completely revised. Key resources and services links
were moved to a new left navigation bar. The
information links remained in the white space. News
was given greater prominence in “bubbles” at the
bottom of the page.
-
e-Resources Database screens were completely
reworked. Search and browse functions were combined
into one screen. The actual subject headings were
moved up front for users to pick from.
-
Some library jargon was eliminated.
-
Inconsistencies in screen design were resolved.
-
BACK buttons were added to some of the problem
screens to improve overall navigation.
-
Java scripting errors were fixed.
These revisions are indicative of the dynamic nature of
library portal development. Library portals are always in a
state of flux as revisions and improvements never end. For
example, upcoming versions of the library catalog software
at McMaster promise to introduce more customization
features. Further, McMaster library staff continue to work
on providing more direct pages to hours, printing, reference
and other services via the individual libraries’ home pages.
Plans are also underway to move the secondary and
subsequent pages to the new template. Discussions of
library jargon continue on a system-wide basis.
As such, library portals need continual care and attention,
especially if they are to achieve the goal of creating better
and more robust information seeking environments for
library patrons. This leads to more recommendations for
consideration:
-
Strong upper management support is required to
ensure continual revamping and maintenance of a
library portal.
-
The library portal should be treated as an ongoing
endeavor and not as a one-time information systems
project. This requires continued reinvestment in
terms of finances, technology and human resources.
Conclusions
Recall the purpose of this paper was to raise awareness
that a library’s information environment lays the
groundwork for a library portal’s ability to support robust
information seeking. Healthy information environments set
the context for the full range of searching and browsing
behaviors. Deficiencies in the information environment
place constraints on the portal’s design and set the stage for
poor seeking functionality. Libraries may not be able to
fully change their information environments, but they
should be aware of their limitations when developing
portals. A conscious effort should be made to keep end-user
information seeking needs in mind when designing portals
and attempt, where possible, to deliver functionality and
form that meet those needs.
REFERENCES
Choo, C. W., Detlor, B., & Turnbull, D. (2000a). Web work:
Information seeking and knowledge work on the World Wide
Web. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Choo, C. W., Detlor, B., & Turnbull, D. (2000b). Information
seeking on the Web: An integrated model of browsing and
searching.
First
Monday,
5(2),
Available
at
http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_2/choo/index.html.
Choo, C. W., Detlor, B., & Turnbull, D. (2000c). Working the
Web: An empirical model of Web use. In R. H. Sprague (Ed.),
Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International
Conference on System Science (HICSS-33). Maui, Hawaii,
January 4-7 (pp. 2794-2802). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE.
Hill, G. (2000). The library website: Planning for the future
(Report). Hamilton, ON: McMaster University Library.
Marchionini, G. (1995). Information seeking in electronic
environments. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Marchionini, G., & Komlodi, A. (1998). Design of interfaces for
information seeking. In M. E. Williams (Ed.), Annual Review of
Information Science and Technology (ARIST) (Vol. 33, pp. 89130). Medford, New Jersey: Information Today.
Morgan, E. L. (2000). Guest editorial: The challenges of usercentered, customizable interfaces to library resources.
Information Technology and Libraries, 19(4), 166-168.
NetMinders Inc. (2000). McMaster University Libraries Web Site:
Consultant’s Report.
Davenport, T. H. (1997). Information ecology: Mastering the
information and knowledge environment. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Noer, P. (2003). The Digital Library Toolkit (White Paper
available
at
http://www.sun.com/products-nsolutions/edu/whitepapers/pdf/digital_library_toolkit.pdf).
Santa Clara, California: Sun Microsystems.
Detlor, B. (2001). The influence of information ecology on Ecommerce initiatives. Internet Research, 11(4), 286-295.
Quinn, B. (2000). The McDonaldization of Academic Libraries.
College & Research Libraries, 248-261.
Detlor, B. (2004). Towards knowledge portals: From human
issues to intelligent agents. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Weick, K. E., & Daft, R. L. (1983). The effectiveness of
interpretation systems. In K. S. Cameron & D. A. Whetten
(Eds.), Organizational effectiveness: A comparison of multiple
models (pp. 71-93). New York: Academic Press.
Detlor, B., Ruhi, U., Pollard, C., Hanna, D., Cocosila, M., Zheng,
W., Fu, E., Jiang, T., & Syros, D. (2003). Fostering robust
library portals: An assessment of the McMaster University
Library Gateway (Working Paper No. 4). Hamilton, Ontario,
Canada: Michael G. DeGroote School of Business, McMaster
University.