Yang hofmann-next generationcatalogforenug

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).


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.


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


5

Institutions in the Sample


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%)


7

2. State-of-the-art web interface

Poor: 10 OPACs (3%) OK: 89 OPACs (32%)


8

2. State-of-the-art web interface

Good: 83 OPACs (31 %) Excellent: 51 OPACs (19%)


9 Missing: 40 OPACs (15%)

3. Enriched content


10


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


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.


12

6. Relevancy

• No OPACs or discovery tools incorporated these into the search results.


13

Circulation statistics and multiple copies should join the relevancy

results criteria

7. Did you mean?


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”


15

Recommend items for readers based on transaction logs.

9. User contribution


16

Allow users to add data to records.


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


17


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


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).


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)


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%)


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


22

Summary of New Findings

• What discovery tool did institutions choose most since our initial data collection?


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


29

http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

http://www.random.org/integers/

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.


30

http://dltj.org/article/discovery-layer-video-tour/







http://blog.libraryjournal.com/tennantdigitallibraries/2007/05/04/lipstick-on-a-pig-2-0/











Questions?

• Thank you!

• To learn more, read our article, Published in Library Hi Tech, 29.2 (2011).


31

Yang hofmann-next generationcatalogforenug

Technology

Transcript of Yang hofmann-next generationcatalogforenug