"How OPACs Suck" and what are we going to do about it?

Idly searching online for an interesting OPAC to survey, I ran across a series of articles on the various faults, foibles, and omissions in OPACs (and ILS) in general on Karen G Schneider's blog, and it caught my eye and my attention. Although the series is slightly dated, running through Decemeber 2006, I think that many of the features and issues discussed in the articles and the accompanying comments are worth review.

For the most part, Schneider emphasizes that libraries spend way too much money for the OPACs they receive, when you consider the widespread lack of features like default relevance searching and faceted classification, which she argues would make library catalogues more accessible and easier to navigate. She frequently uses search engines like Google and Amazon for examples, noting that often library professionals themselves prefer these sites to their own systems. She has an entire checklist of items in her second article that she suggests libraries use as requirements for their systems when buying/upgrading an OPAC. Of course, not everyone agrees with her assessment of what is needed (read some of the comments--they can get pretty harsh), but almost everyone who commented acknowledged that current OPACs are generally lacking (i.e. they suck).

Schneider, and many of the commentators, also remark that OPACs are often created, designed, and implemented in a total absence of user research or usability data. There seemed to be a cry for some sort of formal study or usability testing for OPACs specifically regarding features like relevance searching and faceted classification (how else are they going to justify paying for these features?) I was really surprised (given our core usability requirement) that usability seemed to be so foreign to the OPAC creation process.

Perhaps one of the most interesting things that Schneider notes is that OPACs and their vendors are not going to change and suddenly offer fabulous features and attractive user interfaces unless libraries ask for/demand them. Library professionals need to be proactive when dealing with vendors and well-informed as to what their users need in an OPAC. There was a vein of thought in the comments and articles that the OPAC may disappear altogether. I think that unless OPACs change soon, that may very well be true.