1 / 26

New interfaces

New interfaces. The future of the OPAC at Cambridge Ed Chamberlain – Systems Librarian, University Library. Overview. Problems with current OPAC We are not alone – how others feel Wither the OPAC ? New data standards Resource discovery platforms. Background.

martha
Download Presentation

New interfaces

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. New interfaces The future of the OPAC at Cambridge Ed Chamberlain – Systems Librarian, University Library

  2. Overview • Problems with current OPAC • We are not alone – how others feel • Wither the OPAC ? • New data standards • Resource discovery platforms

  3. Background • Systems Librarian at the UL for the past 9 months… • Worked on the Newton ‘facelift’ • Very frustrated by the lack of options for customisation • Limited in how we could meet people’s expectations for a new OPAC • Became aware of issues beyond the interface…

  4. Newton / Webvoyage • No new LMS migration for sometime • Nothing on market to justify pain of migration • Out of all of the Voyager components, the OPAC is the one showing its age the most

  5. Problems with the current OPAC 1) Architecture • Several separate databases comprising Voyager • Greater administrative overhead for ESS staff • Cause problems with any future systems migration • Universal Catalogue is ineffective at integrating the separate record sets and providing consistently accurate results

  6. Problems with the current OPAC 2) Interface quality • Does not meet modern web standards • Lack of customisation options • Outdated conceptions about search workflows • Unable to easily share records and data with other systems (Marc + Z39.50, no XML)

  7. Problems with the current OPAC 3) Digital material • Libraries are now providing non-bibliographic resources alongside traditional material: • ejournals • ebooks • Reference and a&i databases • DSpace holdings • Metadata held and accessed in separate ‘silo’s’

  8. We are not alone – how others feel Voyager users • Other Voyager users report similar issues with their OPAC’s • Expecting a new OPAC two years ago… • Delayed by the Ex-Libris / Endeavor merger • Due as part of Voyager 7

  9. Voyager 7 update • New version of Webvoyage as part of Voyager 7 • Unlikely to be anything radically different • Hope for better quality interface • Problems with multiple databases, duplicate records and record quality will still be present …

  10. We are not alone – how others feel Other system users • Of 66 survey respondents: • 51 respondents do not love their OPACs, some expressing frustration or even outright hostility • Four respondents do love their OPACs • Six are neutral - XC Survey Report, University of Rochester, July 2007 http://www.extensiblecatalog.info/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/XC%20survey%20report.pdf

  11. We are not alone – how others feel Other system users • The top issues expressed in these complaints were… • Difficulty of customization (42 instances) • Inadequacy of search functions (31 instances) • Opacity of results and lack of grouping or faceting (27 instances) • Limitations of the user interface (16 instances) • Lack of Web 2.0 functionality (9 instances) • Backend problems (8 instances) • Lack of integration with databases or other systems (8 instances) - XC Survey Report, University of Rochester, July 2007 http://www.extensiblecatalog.info/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/XC%20survey%20report.pdf

  12. Wither the OPAC ? • OPACS have fallen ‘behind the times’ • Less relevant alongside e-resource platforms • Highly structured – 2-3 levels of screens to get to results • Users expect search results within one click • Expect spellchecking, error messages, better help

  13. New data container standards • MARC is old (40+ years) • Inefficient and unfriendly means to store data • Rest of the world uses XML – (MARC-XML, MODS)

  14. New data content standards • Resource Description and Access (RDA) • Functional requirements for bibliographic records (FRBR) • Semantic web technologies – (RDF)

  15. Resource Discovery Platforms • Growth of Resource Discovery Platforms • Separate platform for metadata • De-couple front end from the backend management system

  16. Resource Discovery Platforms • Single point of search for a library • Encompass and amalgamate data from: • Multiple LMS catalogues (Voyager) • ERM interfaces and knowledge bases (SFX, Metasearch) • Local repositories (Dspace)

  17. Resource discovery platforms Interface • The ‘Google generation’ expects keyword searching • Keyword based searching using traditionally created records – argued that this gives a ‘best of both worlds’ fit

  18. Products on the market • Primo by Ex Libris • Prism 3 from Talis • Encore from III • Aquabrowser from Vubis (formerly GEAC) • Endeca information platform

  19. Problems • Potentially difficult to argue a funding case for, should this functionality not be part of an LMS anyway ? • Data problems still remain – and would hamper any migration to a new LMS itself, let alone a new interface

  20. Data problems • Only solves the multiple database problem for the users • New interfaces exposes old problems with data • Presentation of bib records alongside data from A&I databases – risk of ‘swamping results’

  21. What next ? For us… • Continue to support and develop Newton where feasible • Track and investigate all options for a replacement interface encompassing all library materials in Cambridge

  22. What next ? For you… • Think about our consortia model • Data over container - i.e. AACR2 over MARC • How it would sit alongside non-MARC data

  23. Thank you • Ed Chamberlain - emc59@cam.ac.uk

More Related