1 / 16

Introduction

Trial and evaluation in the use of library services away from the library Chris Awre – University of Hull Ralph Q uarles – Indiana University. Introduction. How many computers to run a campus? How about libraries? Why can’t we all get together? Two paths to discerning user needs.

zarek
Download Presentation

Introduction

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. Trial and evaluation in the use of library services away from the libraryChris Awre – University of HullRalph Quarles – Indiana University

  2. Introduction • How many computers to run a campus? • How about libraries? • Why can’t we all get together? • Two paths to discerning user needs

  3. CREE : Genesis • Increasing range of search tools available • Parallel development of institutional environments • Web look and feel, Portal, Virtual Learning Environment/Course Management System • How do search tools fit into these environments? • JISC funding to explore user requirements and new technologies(JSR 168 and WSRP)

  4. CREE : Background • Institutional portal introduced in September 2003 (uPortal) http://www.hull.ac.uk/esig/portaltour/ • User requirements an integral part of implementing this - has resulted in up to 15,000 users per week • Library and library services underrepresented within the portal and away from home website

  5. CREE : Goals • Examine user requirements for using different types of search tools in different institutional contexts • Inform future technical development across project partners and focus resources • Test feasibility of using JSR 168 and WSRP standards for presentation of search tools within conformant portals

  6. CREE : Stakeholders • Project partners • University of Oxford & Newark and Sherwood College • Technical partners • Library staff • Impacts on future planning of service delivery • Most importantly - the users! • Requirements gathered according to role (teaching staff, undergraduate etc.)

  7. CREE : Process • National online survey, Sept-Oct 2004 • Covered current and potential use of search tools in different contexts • Focus groups, Nov-Dec 2004 • Collective views and response to survey results • User testing with demonstrators, Apr-Jul 2005 • Feedback based on practical interaction • Each fed into the next stage

  8. CREE : Test & Evaluation • Survey: Backed accepted search use wisdom and suggested open-mindedness to the use of search tools in different contexts • Focus groups: validated survey results and allowed search behaviour to be re-assessed • User testing: very positive response to use of search tools in different contexts • Subject resource access within VLE/CMS favoured • Full results at http://www.hull.ac.uk/esig/cree

  9. Twin Peaks : Genesis • Collaborative libraries & campus computing • Evolution in IU course management systems • Point of need and opportunity

  10. Twin Peaks : Background • Separate database driven library web 46,000 digital collections & 6M item catalogue http://www.libraries.iub.edu • Increasingly central campus collaboration and learning web http://oncourse.iu.edu , local version of… http://www.sakaiproject.org

  11. Twin Peaks : Goals • To search at the “point of need” within course management & collaboration system • Create list of article level persistent links without “leaving” CMS for vendor site • Create functional tool in one year or less to allow demo, feedback, and potential use in early production version of new CMS

  12. Twin Peaks : Stakeholders • On campus & remote users • Faculty • Undergraduate & Graduate students • Informed by LibQUAL+TM 2004 survey • Service staff • University IT Services staff • Library staff • Sakai project participants & partners

  13. Twin Peaks : Process • Rapid prototyping • Evolutionary formative testing • Demonstrations to wider Sakai audience • “Rolling refinement”

  14. Twin Peaks : Test & Evaluation • Demo site at http://129.79.35.230:8080/portal • Incorporation into users’ workflow • Wide solicitation of informal & formal feedback • Simultaneous prototyping by others • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) • Johns Hopkins University

  15. Comparison & Outcomes

  16. Future Plans • CREE • Disseminate user requirements to all project partners and wider community • Develop contextual library services for delivery at Hull • Twin Peaks • Fall 2005 debut in IU production course systems ‘as is’ • Migration to a central resource service in Sakai • Planned addition to overall Sakai system v2.1

More Related