New trends in OPACs – a comparison of add-ons, enhancements, and new designs

New trends in OPACs – a comparison of add-ons, enhancements, and new designs

a.     User’s needs: legibility, clarity, understandability, and navigability; language of users in search function(s); unique and different needs of users, including those with special needs:

                                               i.     The main url I will be looking at is http://dltj.org/article/niso-discovery-presentation-links/#comment-33084. This site provides a series of links to the newest add-ons, enhancements, and user-friendly designs in the OPAC world. And after conversations in this class, Winget’s “Survey of Digitization,” and Galloway’s “Intro to Electronic and Digital Records” class, I thought I would look at the newest trends and compare them based on the standards laid out here. The newest OPAC tech I will look at this week are: Aquabrowser, Encore, and Primo. Next week I will look at some others. When comparing these, I will be looking at both the originating websites and the libraries that are using them. So, for Aquabrowser, these websites are: http://www.medialab.nl/ (originating website) and http://aqua.queenslibrary.org/ (Queens Library using it); for Encore, http://www.iii.com/encore/main_index2.html (originating website) and http://ukty-mt.iii.com/iii/encore/app (University of Kentucky Libraries); and for Primo, http://www.exlibrisgroup.com/category/PrimoOverview (originating website) and http://prime2.oit.umn.edu:1701/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do?vid=TWINCITIES&reset_config=true (University of Minnesota Twin Cities Library).

                                             ii.     All three of these OPAC enhancements are trying to make the OPAC interface more user-friendly and accessible to a wide range of web users, while increasing navigability and understandability. All three are trying to incorporate the newest web technology to enhance the search and retrieval function(s) of OPACs, in response to criticism that people are finding it easier to search and find items in Google than in OPACS. For more on this topic, see: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/112092374/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0.

                                            iii.     For more information on the differences between OPAC enhancements, wrappers, replacements, and integrated library system replacements, see: http://dltj.org/article/web-opac-schemes/.  Basically, OPAC web enhancements are added to an existing OPAC system, which usually entails product purchases from a vendor to be added to the existing OPAC; an OPAC wrapper hides the existing library system behind an entirely new interface, but still utilizes the existing integrated library system from before. A web OPAC replacement are exactly what they sound like: they completely replace the existing OPAC with a new system and web interface – ALL THREE of the systems I am looking at, Aquabrowser, Encore, and Primo, fall under this category. The last, ILS replacements, is the newest enhancement, in that it is in test-phase and many people are extremely excited about its potential. It adopts open source solutions and focuses the most on user services, but at this time, none offer more than faceted search and browsing. See  http://dltj.org/article/dlf-ils-statement/ for more information on what we might expect from these new systems.

                                            iv.     Back to Aquabrowser, Encore, and Primo for the moment.

                                             v.     Aquabrowser offers “visual faceted search,” according to its originating website. AquaBrowser Library allows patrons to search for information using a standard query box, the way they are used to doing. The results are portrayed in a typical browser search list by relevance to the query terms given by the patrons. Clicking here takes the patron to the exact sources, both inside and outside the library. In addition to a search list, AquaBrowser Library compares a user's search terms to the metadata in the library’s catalog to create a visual map (a "word cloud") of associations or overviews of areas of interest. These words are suggestions for patrons to discover new information and help them formulate a query. The word cloud includes the most relevant associations, foreign language translations, spelling variations, and synonyms. Patrons can discover the sources behind these associations and broaden the scope of their search. Conventional catalogs require exact search terms; AquaBrowser Library finds items using associations, and stemming and spelling alternatives. It also answers the needs of users who aren't quite sure how to best approach a search. The OPAC’s users can filter their search queries to find the specific information they're looking for. Clicking here refines a user's search to create the best query or combination for what he or she is looking for. Users can zoom in on the details by picking any search option, such as a specific subject, author, category, or a language, etc. By doing this, users can not only find the exact information they're looking for, but also form the type of resource they want the information to come from. A list of Associations, Spelling Variants, and Translations appears in the left-hand side of the search results, in task-bar format; a thumbnail image of the source appears on the left of the metadata on the resource; on the right are a myriad of faceted search results, displaying hits in external venues as well as various locations within the Queens Library. There is also a window that scrolls with you for external search (very nice). It uses an easy-to-understand icon to request the item, and a drop-down search bar to search for copies in other locations. These all seem to provide a variety of ways to search. The “word cloud” is utilized by Flash Player, which looks really cool, provided you have Flash Player installed on your computer. If you don’t, it recommends you download it and provides a link.

                                            vi.     According to Encore’s originating website, it “goes beyond the online-catalog model to provide a better patron experience that leverages library content and patron-contributed information.” Key features include faceted search by multiple parameters; tag clouds; the phrase “Did You Mean...?” when something is misspelled; “popular choices & recently added suggestions”; RightResult™ relevance-ranking; real-time holdings and status information; patron tagging; latest design techniques including the use of AJAX; suggested links to content related to the user's search; and federated-search results without the need for additional queries. According to its originating website, “Encore manages Web complexity without the need for a programming team or maintenance at the library...and works with all leading ILS and federated-search tools.” To clarify some of this language, I explored further. The federated search results guide the patron to Google Scholar as well as “Academic Search Elite” and “Master File.” The faceted search guides users to a list of collections with a number in parentheses to the right, indicating the number of hits in that collection. RightResults guides the user to the most relevant results first. It seems that more advanced users might choose the faceted search or federated search, while all users might be interested in the RightResults and tag cloud searches. Its interface is a simple Search bar, with the option for advanced search taking you to a very World Cat- similar interface; in fact, they even name it Info Kat. The faceted search appears on the left, in a task-bar format, and the tag cloud appears on the right of the RightResults. Each result tells you if it is available online and guides you to Info Kat, if more information is needed about the resource. A Table of Contents and Summary is provided for each source. I could locate where I could tag the source or add my questions/comments/suggestions, however.

                                          vii.     Primo claims that it provides “end-to-end information discovery and delivery,” meaning that it offers users a single interface for finding all the information they need (users don’t have to search in multiple systems for different media types—books, e-books, print and electronic articles, digital media, and other types of resources); and it utilizes search features such as “did you mean?” and faceted navigation, which help users focus their search and quickly zero-in on the most relevant results. Users can access digitized resources and the full text of articles when available and authorized; they can see information about item's availability displayed in the search results; and they can place an order for an item from their library or through the ILL module. Users can save queries in their Primo e-Shelf, rerun saved queries and request notification by e-mail or via RSS of new results for a saved query. Any record shown in the brief result list or the full record display can be saved in the e-Shelf or pushed from Primo into a supported third-party online reference management tool. The Primo user experience incorporates Library 2.0 and social computing features—enabling institution members to share tags, ratings, and reviews; and lastly, Primo’s search functionality can be integrated into institutional portals, course management systems, or other third-party software, enabling users to find and get information whenever they need it and wherever they are. Primo’s features seem far more comprehensive in terms of user-needs, accessibility, and legibility, compared to the other two (Aquabrowser and Encore). Compared to the others, it seems to reside happily in the middle (in terms of features) and the search bar is simple but offers the most options. They have BY FAR the most faceted search and browse results, allowing options in various external venues and fields. It allows you to search elsewhere, in Google BookSearch, Google Scholar, and WorldCat. Unlike the other two, there is a VERY CLEAR right-handed task bar, which directs you to the tag cloud and a list of most recent tags, added to the book. Of all three OPAC replacements, Primo was my favorite.

b.     Importance of content and arrangement of records to finding, identifying, selecting, and obtaining items: display what is asked for in a meaningful way, not random; navigation correlates to displayed information in a logical way.

                                               i.     All three did a good job in directing you first to the mot relevant results, but allowing you options for search in other subject areas and other locations (both internal and external to the library). The arrangement of retrieved records was arranged in each case in a meaningful way, although the simplicity of interface and navigation varied depending on which was being utilized. In all three, navigation and displayed information was logical (what a relief!)

c.     The requirement to follow accepted international standards for information content and structure

                                               i.     Of all three, Aquabrowser has the most international user base (in terms of libraries that have partnered with them), but it’s clear that all three are trying to adhere to recognized national and international standards while trying to respond to the most innovative technologies and user responses, generated from surveys and conferences.