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 singlesearch 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 relevance
Everyone 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) Features
Ability to load/link to vendor generated enriched
content such as table of contents, summaries, etc.
Faceted navigation with ability to narrow a set of
search results by attribute.
Ability to link back to “classic” catalog and library
databases, from discovery tool screen
Keyword searching with ability to place/code
search box on our own web page.
Spelling alternatives or “Do you mean…?”
(Alternatives can be automatic or given as an
option to widen range of search)
Relevancy ranking of results.
Ability to load cover art.
Ability to save and export results to bibliographic
software management tools such as Endnote.
Ability to search with Mobile devices
Ability to save results in bookshelf (e.g. issue
requests)
FRBRized (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic
Records) display of results
Faceted navigation with “breadcrumbs” to easily
add or delete facets.
Ability to work with federated searching tools for
accessing licensed databases.
Advanced or Boolean searching capabilities
ILL integration.
Library has ability to control relevancy ranking of
results or turn off relevancy ranking altogether.
Mandatory Features
Product Product Product Product
1
2
3
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
2
2
2
1
1
Patron has ability to control results ranking (eg. by Relevancy,
title, author, year)
Key:
•Does not currently meet the requirement
•Somewhat meets the requirement
•Completely meets or exceeds the requirement
Product 1
Product 2
Product 3
Product 4
Product 5
Product 6
Product 7
Mandatory 14
Features
Score
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
Encore
Endeca
Primo
Summon
Worldcat
(Ebsco)
(Innovative Interfaces Inc)
(ExLibris)
(Serial Solutions)
(OCLC )
Open Source:
Blacklight
IDS Project
VuFIND
XC Project
(eXtensible Catalog)
Xerxes Project (calstate)
Implementation times range from 3 to 6
weeks.
Actively Managed
Passively Managed
False
True
Longer implementation times because a
True
library must customize software (eg several
months)
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 software
False, for custom changes
True
Library must wait for vendors to correct
software problems
True, for vendor software
False, 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 Primo
Uncertain for Blacklight
Yes, according to vendor sales staff
Thank You! Any Questions?
Contact
Kevin J. Collins, Health Sciences Library ALEPH Administrator. 631.444.9740
Darren Chase, Web Services Librarian, Melville Library. 631.632.9830
References
Feldman, 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.
Images
•Amazing Circle: Blockhead 3
•Lucha_libre_0158
•I’m Going To Have Nightmares