web 2.0 - continuing impact on library catalogues
DESCRIPTION
Library & Information Show presentation (24/Apr/2008)TRANSCRIPT
Library & Information Show 2008 (24/Apr/2008)
Web 2.0 - Continuing impact on Library Catalogues“Teaching the Pig to Sing”
Dave Pattern, Library Systems ManagerUniversity of Huddersfield
preamble• Presentation available at:
– www.slideshare.net/daveyp• Please remix and reuse this
presentation!– creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
sa/3.0
table of contents• Does your OPAC “suck”?• Experiences at Huddersfield• Other libraries• Open Source and Web services• OPAC 2.0
does your OPAC “suck”?
2007 OPAC survey• On a scale of 1 to 10 (where 1 is
extremely unhappy and 10 is extremely happy), how happy are you with your OPAC?
5.1
2007 OPAC survey• One criticism of OPACs is that they
rarely have cutting edge features that our users expect from a modern web site. On a scale of 1 to 10, how well do you think your OPAC meets the needs and expectations of your users?
4.5
the OPAC as a “pig”• “After all, you can put lipstick on a pig,
but it's still very much a pig.” (Roy Tennant discussing the OPAC, Library Journal, 2005)
• “Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.” (attrib. Robert Heinlein, author)
pig ugly?
“kissy, kissy?”
experiences at Huddersfield• Definitely not OPAC 2.0• Enhancements to the existing OPAC
– user suggestions from surveys– “2.0” inspired features– borrowing good ideas from other web sites – new features launched with no/low publicity– “perpetual beta”
• Required staff buy-in and a willingness to experiment and take risks!
spell checker• All OPAC keyword searches were
monitored over a six month period• Approx 23% of searches gave zero
results– 74 people entered “renew” as a
keyword(!)• Users expect suggestions and
prompts, not “dead end” pages that tell you to “check your spelling”
spell checker
keyword suggestions (1)• Failed keyword searches are cross
referenced with answers.com to provide new search suggestions
keyword suggestions (2)
keyword suggestions (2)• Automated suggestions can
sometimes raise issues – are these suggestions inappropriate?
borrowing suggestions
personalised suggestions
ratings and comments
other editions• Uses FRBR-like web services
provided by OCLC and LibraryThing to locate other editions and related works within local holdings– www.oclc.org/research/projects/xisbn/– www.librarything.com/api
other editions
email alerts
RSS feeds
RSS feeds
average feature usage per month (Apr/06-Apr/08)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
num
ber o
f clic
ks
did you mean? also borrowed similar subject other editions
was it worth doing?
was it worth doing?• 376 active email alerts• 113 active RSS feeds• 846 ratings• 53 comments• personalised suggestions
– 116 clicks per month (average)• combined keyword suggestions
– 753 clicks per month (average)
otherlibraries
Ann Arbor District Library
North Carolina State University
LibraryThing for Libraries
Plymouth State University
Topeka and Shawnee County
University of Warwick
Hennepin County Library
lipstick on the pig“We need to focus more energy on important, systemic changes rather than cosmetic ones. If your system is more difficult to search and less effective than Amazon.com, then you have work to do. After all, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still very much a pig.” (Roy Tennant, Library Journal, 2005)
doing it yourself• Encourage suggestions from staff• Include users in decision making
process• Encourage play and experimentation• Don’t be afraid to make mistakes!• Look widely for ideas• “Build crappy prototypes fast”• Monitor usage
– if usage is poor, rethink it or get rid of it
Open Source OPACs• Scriblio
– Plymouth State University– uses WordPress blog software
• VuFind– Falvey Memorial Library, Villanova University– uses PHP & MySQL
• LibraryFind– Oregon State University Libraries– uses Ruby on Rails
Open Source OPACs• fac-back-opac
– Laurentian University Library– uses Lucene & Solr
• Project Blacklight– University of Virginia Libraries– uses Lucene & Solr
• Open Source ILS– Koha– Evergreen
web services & APIs• Talis Platform• LibraryThing
– thingISBN, thingTitle, thingLang, data feeds
• OCLC WorldCat Grid Services• Amazon Web Services
– rebranded as “Amazon Associates Web Service” with new conditions of use
• Google Book Search API
Amazon Associates Web Service
• Cover scans, reviews, recommendations, sales commission, etc
• Already used by many libraries• However, recent change to conditions of
use (19/Mar/2008) may preclude libraries:– 5.1.3. You are not permitted to use Amazon Associates Web
Service with any Application or for any use that does not have, as its principal purpose, driving traffic to the Amazon Website and driving sales of products and services on the Amazon Website.(AWS Customer Agreement)
Google Book Search API• Launched 13/Mar/2008• Typically client-side implementation
(rather than server-side)• Link to GBS content:
– via ISBN, LCCNs, and OCLC numbers– front cover thumbnails– preview pages
the “traditional” vendors• Talis Platform• Bowker “AquaBrowser”• Ex Libris “Primo”• Innovative Interfaces “Encore”• SirsiDynix “???”
play and experimentation
it’s okay to play!• “We don’t stop playing because we
grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.”– attrib: George Bernard Shaw
• 2007 Library & Information Show Workshop on Library 2.0 – Q: I don’t get paid to play, I get paid to
work– A: So, don’t call it “play”, call it
“professional development”!
admit it, haven’t you wanted
to do this in your library…
somewhere over the rainbow?
Huddersfield Public Library
never judge a book by it’s cover
• “I borrowed a book 3 years ago that had an orange cover… can I borrow it again?”
keyword search visualisations
eye candy
OPAC 2.0
next generationlibrary catalogues
OPAC 2.0• Shopping list of features:
– spell checking (“did you mean?”)– search all library resources (inc. e-resources) – relevancy ranking, search refining, and facets– manual recommendations (“best bets”)– automated suggestions (based on both global
and user-specific data)– user participation (“read-write OPAC”)– foster communities of interest
OPAC 2.0• Shopping list of features (cont):
– improve serendipity– expose hidden links between items– APIs and Web Services to expose data– promote unintended uses– user personalisation– embed external data (e.g. Wikipedia,
LibraryThing)– RSS feeds and OpenSearch
2007 OPAC Survey – Features
• Please rate how important you feel the following features are to your users in a modern OPAC.– embedding the OPAC in external sites (e.g. portals) 8.7– “did you mean” spelling suggestions 8.6– enriched content (book covers, ToCs, etc) 8.4– RSS feeds (e.g. new books, searches, etc) 7.8– facetted browsing (e.g. like NCSU Library) 7.4– “people who borrowed this” suggestions 6.5– user tagging of items (i.e. folksonomy) 6.1– user added comments and reviews 6.0– personalised suggestions (e.g. like Amazon) 5.9– user added ratings for items5.7
implementation of features
0
100
200
300
400
500
num
ber
of r
espo
nden
ts (
tota
l 729
)
012345678910
impo
rtan
ce (
out
of 1
0)
already got getting soon importance
feature importanceFeature I mportance
8.7 8.6 8.47.8
7.4
6.56.1 6.1 6.0 5.7
9.18.8 8.8
8.48.9
7.8 8.07.4
8.7
7.0
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
impo
rtan
ce (
out
of 1
0)
importance (all) importance (already got) importance (getting soon)
importance – UK respondents
8.6
8.17.8
7.2
6.5
5.95.7
5.45.8
5.3
8.7 8.8 8.6
7.97.7
6.76.2 6.2
6.0 5.9
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
stealt
h OPAC
did yo
u mea
n
enric
hed
RSS feed
sfac
ets
also b
orrow
ed
user
tagg
ing
user
commen
ts
user
lear
ning
user
ratin
gs4
5
6
7
8
9
10
impo
rtan
ce (o
ut o
f 10)
UK respondents non-UK respondents
