Friday, April 17, 2015

Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office - some improvements

I've recently been involved in analysing  LibQual+ Survey at my new institution and one of the things recommended nowadays when doing LIBQUAL analysis is to do a plot of performance of various items versus how important those items are to users.

Above we see sample data from Library Assessment and LibQUAL+®: Data Analysis

We proxy importance of a factor by the mean desire score on the vertical axis and the how well a factor is performing by the adequacy mean score on the horizontal axis, so the higher the dot the more important it is.

In the above sample data IC 1 or "Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office" is the 2nd to 3rd most important factor, and I suspect this is typical for most libraries.

Also do note that the analysis above is for to *all* users. Undergraduates traditionally have high desire for space, if we include only faculty, it will probably be even higher ranked.

LibQual questions can be hard to pindown on what they mean, though in this case, I would suspect it is the accessibility from home that is the issue. Currently, most forward looking academic libraries try to make access as seamless as possible by ip authentication in-campus so users don't need to use proxy methods within campus. (Expecting users to start from the library homepage to access resources is a futile goal)

Off campus access is more tricky since not all users will be informed enough or bother to VPN even if that is an option.

Meeting Researchers Where They Start: Streamlining Access to Scholarly Resources 

Is seamless access to library resources particularly off-campus really that difficult? Roger C. Schonfeld in the recent Meeting Researchers Where They Start: Streamlining Access to Scholarly Resources believes so. He wrote ,  "Instead of the rich and seamless digital library for scholarship that they need researchers today encounter archipelagos of content bridged by infrastructure that is insufficient and often outdated." 

He makes the following points
  • The library is not the starting point   
  • The campus is not the work location
  • The proxy is not the answer
  • The index is not current  (discovery services often have lag time compared to Google/Scholar)
  • The PC is not the device (despite the mobile push in the last 5 years, publisher interfaces are still not 100% polished) 
  • User accounts are not well implemented
Most of these points are not really new to many of us in academic libraries, though it is still worth a read as a roundup of issues researchers face.

Still the listing above misses one very important issue, that is the classic problem of the "Appropriate copy problem" that the openurl resolver was invented to fix. The key problem is that openurl still isn't widely implemented and while Google Scholar, supports it , Google itself doesn't and it is extremely easy to end up on an article abstract page without any opportunity to use openurl to get to the appropriate copy. More on that later.

BTW Bibliographic Wilderness responds to Roger Schonfeld from the library side of things, pointing out among other things the appropriate copy issue and difficulties of getting vendors to improve their UX (aka we can't cancel stuff based on UX!).

Shibboleth and vendor login pages

So what should be ideal view when a user lands on a article abstract page and needs to authenticate because he is off campus and/or without proxy? 

One way is Shibboleth but that is not something I have experience with but it seems it is poorly supported and as poor usability.  Without Shibboleth is there a way for vendors to make sign-ins easier when users are off campus and land directly on the article page without the proxy?

The way JSTOR has done it (for last 1-2 years?) has always impressed me. 

JSTOR will intelligently look at your ip and suggest institutions to login from. As far as I know you don't have to have Athens/Shibboleth or do anything special for this to work.

Recently Stephen Francoeur brought to my attention the following announcement from Proquest

Essentially the Proquest login screen is redesigned to make it simple to allow users to enter their institution and the system will attempt to authenticate you using the usual method.l

"Today we are debuting a simplified login experience for institutions that use a remote login method such as Proxy, Shibboleth, OpenAthens, or barcode to authenticate users into ProQuest ("

"To reduce this confusion, we've redesigned the login page ( as shown below to make it easier for remote users to authenticate into ProQuest by adding the "Connect through your library or institution" form above the ProQuest account form. Further, remote users can select their institution on the login page, instead of having to click through to another page as they had to do previously. After users select their institution, they will be re-directed to the remote authentication method their institution set up with us."

Though it doesn't seem to suggest institutions, it's still fairly easy to use, just type in your institution and you will be asked to login (via ezproxy in my case).

Ebsco is another one that seems to make it possible to select your institution and login for full text but like the Proquest one above, I could never get it to work either at my old institution or new. This could be some configuration setting needed.

It's really amazing how few publishers follow the lead of JSTOR and Proquest. If the Elseviers/Sages etc of the world followed a similar format, I am sure there will be much less friction for accessing to paywall articles. Let's hope Proquest's move will lead to others converging to a similar login page, the way now many article databases look pretty much similar.

Appropriate copy problem revisited

Say most publishers start to wise up to UX matters and implement a login page like JSTOR so our users can select a institution and quickly get access. Will that solve every problem? Arguably no,

At my old institution, we had great success with promotion of the proxy bookmarklet, Libx etc to overcome proxy issues (part of it is because ALL access is through proxy whether in campus or off so the proxy bookmarklet would be essential all the time as long as you did not start from the library homepage) 

But even if a user was smart even to add the proxy string , that still led to a common problem.

Often even after proxying full access would still not be granted. The reason of course is because we may not have access to full text on that particular page but may have access somewhere else on another platform.

A classic example would be APA journals, where access would be available only via Psycharticles (which can be on Ovid or ebsco platform). Google results tend to favor publisher rather than aggregator sites, so one would often end up on a page where one would have access only via another site.

The more a academic library relies on aggregators like Ebsco or Proquest as opposed to publishers to supply full text the more the appropriate copy issue arises.

As mentioned before this issue can be solved if the user starts off searching at a source that supports openurl such as Google Scholar and access via the library links programme or even a reference manager like Mendeley. But with multiple ways of "discovery" you can't always guarantee this.

In fact, I am noticing the rise in number of people who tell me they don't even use Google Scholar but Google to find known item articles. Interestingly enough the recent ACRL 2015 proceedings Measuring Our Relevancy: Comparing Results in a Web-Scale Discovery Tool, Google & Google Scholar  finds that Google is even better than Google Scholar for known item searching. Google scored 91% relevancy in known item queries while Google Scholar and Summon both scored 74%!

If so, we will have ever increasing number of users who will land on article abstract pages without the opportunity of using link resolvers to find the appropriate copy.

Another example, I find many interesting articles including paywall articles via Twitter.  From the point of someone sharing, what is the right way to link it so others who will have different options for access will be able to get to it?

There's doesn't seem to be a obvious way (link via doi? link to a Google scholar search page?) and even if there was this would be troublesome to the sharer, so most of the time we end up with a link to a publisher version of the article which others may not be able to access.

 Lazy Scholar and the new Google Scholar Chrome extension

So what should we do, if we end up on a article page and we want to check access via our institution?

I've wrote about Libx before but my current favourite Chrome extension is Lazy Scholar, which I reviewed here. 

It exploits the excellent ability of Google Scholar to find free full text and also scrapes the link displayed by Google Scholar for the library link programme.

With more and more providers cooperating with Google Scholar (see the latest announcement by Proquest for Google Scholar to index full text from Proquest), Google Scholar is by far the largest storage of scholarly articles and every Scholar's first stop to check for the existence of an article.

Lazy Scholar automatically attempts to figure out if you are on a articles page and will search Google Scholar for the article and scrape what is available. In this case there is no free full text so it says no full text. But you can click on Ezproxy to proxy it or click on "Instit" which triggers the link resolver link found in Google Scholar (if any).

There are many other functions that the author has added to try to make the extension useful , I encourage you to try it yourself.

Interestingly in the last few days, Google themselves had a similar idea to help known item searches by exploiting the power of Google Scholar. They created the following Google Scholar Button extension.

It is very similar to Lazy Scholar but in the famous Google style a lot simpler.

On any page with an article, you can click on the button and it will attempt to figure out which article you are looking for an search for the title in Google Scholar and display the first result. This brings in all the usual goodies you can find in Google Scholar.

If the title detection isn't working or if you want to check for other articles say in the reference, you can highlight the title and click on the button.

It's interesting to see the future of both extensions, see here for a comparison between the features of Lazy Scholar vs Google Scholar button.


 "Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office" isn't as easy as it seems. A approach that combines

  • improved usability of publishers login pages
  • Plugins to support link resolvers and the ability to find free full text via Google Scholar
is probably the way to go for now, though even that doesn't address issues like seamless support for mobile etc. 

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

[Personal] Moving on from my first library job

After over 7 years of working at NUS, I am finally moving on.

I am very grateful for the opportunities given to me here and I have changed and grown far beyond I expected. This period has been by far the most eventful period in my life, I've changed so much I wager the newbie librarian who first stepped into NUS in 2007 could hardly recognise the person I am in 2015.

A much younger me, a few weeks after joining NUS in 2007

This is also the longest I have held any job so far, and I admit I have grown extremely comfortable to the culture, people and systems here. But I've always been driven by curiosity and the need to try new things and this has led to many new initiatives and even transfers to different departments to study the systems and procedures. But leaving NUS Libraries? That would be a far bigger change. 

Another early photo of me in NUS

So when the offer came from the Singapore Management University as Manager, Library Analytics, I was at a cross roads. I have always been impressed by the energy, passion and knowledge of the librarians at the Singapore Management University and I could see myself helping to make an impact working with such great colleagues. And yet there is of course the doubt that comes with any major change. Would I fit in? Could I adjust to a very different working style?

In many ways the safer choice would be to remain at NUS where I have been doing well and will probably continue to do well in the foreseeable future. But there are times in my life where you have to take risks to grow and I decided to push out of my comfort zone and accept the offer. Let's see what else I can learn elsewhere.

My last day

So on 23th Jan 2015, I came into NUS Libraries for my last official working day (was on leave for the next 4 weeks).

It was already a emotional week, after the announcement was publicly made. It was heartwarming to hear kind words from colleagues, staff and students (some of whom came as a surprise to me) who heard and reached out to say they appreciated what I had done and it made me feel that I had at least made a difference in my time here.

On my last working day, in an odd kind of symmetry in the morning I gave a final training/briefing session to the new librarians who were just starting their careers in NUS. [Another nice bit of symmetry, found out later that one of the new librarians was a former student who thanked me for some of the work we did 4 years back]. The rest of the day was spent saying goodbye to many colleagues who dropped by to chat and a final exit interview.

How did I feel on that last day? I felt a little like JD from Scrubs (a character I identify with a lot).

"Endings are never easy; I always build them up so much in my head they cant possibly live up to my expectations, and I just end up disappointed. I'm not even sure why it matters to me so much how things end here.

I guess its because we all want to believe that what we do is very important, that people hang onto our every word, that they care what we think. The truth is: you should consider yourself lucky if you even occasionally get to make someone, anyone, feel a little better. After that its all about the people that you let into your life.

And as my mind drifted to faces I've seen here before, I was taken to memories of family, of coworkers, of lost loves, even of those who left us. And as I rounded that corner, they all came at me in a wave of shared experience.

And even though it felt warm and safe, I knew it had to end. Its never good to live in the past too long.As for the future, thanks to Dan, it didn't seem so scary anymore. It could be whatever I wanted it to be."
So to the future I go! Wish me luck.

Thursday, January 15, 2015

A Bento style search in LibGuides v2

LibGuides V2 Search Display

Like many libraries right now, my institution is working towards upgrading to SpringShare LibGuides V2.

Update 15/1/2014 just went live!

Like many libraries, we took the opportunity to revamp many aspects of Libguides v2. One of the areas, we spent the most effort on was the front page.

What follows is a joint post by my colleague  Feng Yikang and myself

Designing the LibGuides home page

One of the main questions that vexed us was, what should the LibGuides homepage do? What purpose should it serve that distinguished it from the library home page?

Most academic libraries use the LibGuides home as a landing page to list all their libraries' subject guides and topic guides. That is certainly one option.

We went the other way and designed it as an alternative home for research oriented users. 

Like many academic libraries, our library homepage was designed before the current slew of expertise based services likeScholar communication/ Open Access support, GIS services etc was common place and there was little "real estate" to link to such services on the main library homepage.

Also arguably, it was difficult to justify adding a link to a niche service like Scholarly Communication from the library home page because the vast majority of users (undergraduates and graduate students) would never need to use it on the main library home.

Our LibGuides homepage could be the logical place to add such links.

Also we noticed from the chat queries received on the LibGuides homepage, the questions we received were a mixture of the following

a) Users want to figure out how to place a hold and how to locate the book they wanted. as well as problems with passwords - (The "Find Book" and "Password" boxes handle this)

b) Graduate students and above trying to figure out what library support services were available. Often it was a case of a new experienced graduate student or faculty trying to see if the specialised support service they enjoyed in their prior institution was available here. (The "Research support" box handles this)

c) Users looking for specialised librarians in their area to support them. (The pull down menus on the right support this).

As such we designed the LibGuides homepage to encourage browsing of such services.

The drop down menus on the right, help users quickly locate the appropriate subject librarians, while the other categories are carefully curated based on a combination of usage, chat queries asked and just plain old institution. 

The design is of course currently tentative, and will evolve with time. 

What about search? Bento style ?

Of course browsing is all very well, but we know a lot of people will just search. Handling LibGuides search is probably an issue that has always causes me some amount of headache.

In LibGuides v1, you could customize your search. So you could add a keyword search to any of the following

1) Libguides search
2) Libanswers (FAQ) search
3) Classic catalogue search
4) Web Scale discovery search - eg Summon

or pretty much any search you wanted as long as you could craft the right url.

Below is how it looked in our Libguides v1 search. I had hooked it up to multiple options including search our web scale discovery search (dubbed "FindMore@NUSL") as well as a Google site search of our web pages ("All Library Pages"). There were the normal options of searching within all guides as well.

The problem was which default search was the right one?

Like most libraries, I initially set the default to search "All Guides".  It was a search in Libguides, so you expected Libguides results right? What else could be simpler?

The problem is I did an analysis of the keywords that people did in LibGuides v1, a few years ago and though I don't have the analysis now, I remember roughly 90% of searches resulted in no hits.

Why? Because users were searching very specific searches like singapore chinese temple architecture.

Most of such searches had zero results. 

As a sidenote, the same keyword search in LibGuides v2, does yield results, it seems likely in LibGuides v2, there isn't strict AND boolean going on. I am not sure if this is a good idea, since the user may not be aware this is happening and be disappointed at totally irrelevant guides appearing.

Such searches would be yield reasonable hits if you did them in a Web Scale discovery system like Summon, but not in a LibGuides search.

The other issue I found with using the default LibGuides search was that people were found searching for specific book titles using title, isbn, issn etc eg. "1984", journal titles "Nature", or databases "Scopus" in the Libguides search. In other words they were treating the Libguides search like a catalogue search.

For the more obscure databases or journal titles and most certainly books that were not listed in LibGuides this often led to no results. 

Even if the guide happened to list the item the person was looking for say a database was listed in the guide, you still ran into a problem. 

Below shows a search for "Realis" (a local real estate database). 

It isn't very obvious that the subpage - Databases in the Real Estate Guide has a link to Realis.

Many users might even click on the topmost "Real estate" link and hunt for the Realis link on the home of the real estate guide, not realising it is in the databases page.

All these searches were very common in my logs, and explains why a default LibGuides only search was not always the best.

So what was the solution? 

The idea we had which seems obvious in hindsight was suggested by my colleague Yikang. I was telling him how many research intensive Universities like Duke, Colombia, Princetion are currently spotting bento style search results

Such bento style search results would display multiple boxes of different types of content. By entering keywords, users will be presented with a holistic spread of results including resources, services, library guides, FAQs or more. 

So one could display results not only from the LibGuides but also from Libanswers, Catalogue, article index of discovery services and more, fitting every need.

Yikang realised that LibGuides v2 allows one to customize the search result template and this made it possible to pull in bento style results.

Below show some results, when someone searches for "Systematic Review".

In our current simple implementation of Bento, we have the simple "Our Guides" box and  "FAQs" box,

In addition, we have three more boxes - "Our Suggestions" , "Library Catalogue" and "Articles" which comes directly from our Summon API. 

They are drawing respectively from Summon best bets, Search filtered to "Library catalog" and filtered to article-like content types.

How do they work together?

The leftmost and most prominent box feeds you with LibGuides as expected. This can display LibGuides that are not just disciplines or subject specific but can also cover services like EndNote, Bibliometrics, GIS etc.

Below shows someone searching for bibliometrics and a relevant guide surfaces plus other relevant material.

But what if the keyword does not allow any good LibGuides matches? Hence the existence of other boxes.

The "Library Catalogue" box helps resolves searches where people are searching for specific book titles, database titles and most known items etc. Below we see an example of searching by database (Business Source Premier) and searching by isbn.

Below shows a search by ISBN

The "Articles" box, would at least show some results if the user searches for something highly specific not covered by any guide, pulling in at least a few relevant articles or books.

"Our Recommendations" could be customized based on what users are searching. It could be used to cover cases not covered by the other boxes. 

"FAQ box" comes from Libanswers, and it helps resolve common policy and procedural questions.

Broad Implementation

For those interested in the details of setting, here is the report from my collegue Yikang. 

For this setup to work, I needed a proxy page, which will act as "middle-man" between our LibGuides page and the Summon server. 

Once a search query is entered into the LibGuides search page (A), a javascript sitting in the LibGuides search page will pass the query to this proxy server page (B), which will in turn parse the query to Summon server (C). 

The Summon server will then return the results in JSON format to the proxy server page (D), which will pass the results to the LibGuides search page (E) to be interpreted and displayed (F). 

The really difficult part was setting up the proxy server page as coding the proxy server page from scratch would be time-consuming, because it was foreign territory to me. Fortunately Virginia Tech University Library shared some sample php files at which I could refer to. I used the files, together with some HTTP_Request php files downloaded from PEAR

They worked! The potentially time-consuming part of the job was done.

Next, I had to do some Javascript programming to design the Bento search layout results. Aside from
the layout, the Javascript interprets the various search API results for each compartment (LibGuides,
Summon, LibFAQ) and incorporates it into the search results page, in a presentable form. Javascript
was used to add the "see more" buttons. Each "see more" button opens a popup window showing
the full results of each respective result type compartment."


Our bento style search result page is in the scheme of things not exactly a new idea. Though it's the first example I know of that links the search from a LibGuides search as opposed to from the main library homepage.

By pilot testing the search display on LibGuides search only, we can carry out a small scale experiment, rather than rolling it out to all users on the main Library portal search bar.

Arguably, the bento style search for LibGuides is a much safer bet, because the use cases are more constrained.

Consider 3 Alternatives for the display of search results from LibGuides

1) Pointing to Libguides only results
2) Pointing to Web Scale discovery blended search ie Summon default search
3) Pointing to Bento style with boxes for Libguides and Discovery results.

If the user is searching in LibGuides and is really looking for a suitable LibGuide say the Economics or EndNote guide, chances are there are only a few relevant hits anyway in the LibGuides, so for such users, a box with 10 top hits for guides should be more than enough. Both Alternative 1 and 3 will be successful as they show ranked list of Libguides, while alternative 2 will fail.

Alternative 2, which is pointing solely to Summon may succeeded since LibGuides are indexed in Summon, but the blended style list and uncertain relevancy ranking means the user have to plough through many results to find the guide he needs.

For other use cases, whose searches are best satisfied by non-guides results, the bento style boxes (alternative 3) provide a far better option than a straight out LibGuides search (alternative 1) which would have no results.

Also as blended lists in Summon can have problem with known item searches , we handle this case by creating two separate boxes of content, "Library Catalogue" and "Articles" (though both are drawn via Summon api using different filters)

So what do you think?  Is this a general improvement from the default search?

Wednesday, December 31, 2014

A personal review of 2014

"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."

Somehow though, I doubt successful libraries are all alike except in the most general of ways.

Still, these are some of the changes or trends in librarianship in the year of 2014 that resonated with me or occupied me. A lot of it probably is highly specific to my current institution and environment so your mileage might vary. 

1. Open Access finally takes off in academic libraries

I know many open access advocates and librarians are thinking, this isn't really new. But from my highly localized context, this was the year, my current institution formally created a "Scholarly Communication team" and created outreach teams. I had my first experience presenting on open access to faculty.

In the local (Singapore) context, this was the year with the passing of A*Star mandate for A*star funded research as well as the instruction from National Research Foundation that research institutions should have open access policies to tap on funding, meant finally Singapore is starting to get serious on this. Of course, this is just the beginning.

I also began to see some interest in altmetrics eg Plumx, though it may be still early days.

2. Shifts in mobile 

Yet another year and yet another new iPhone. What was different this year was the upgrade in screen sizes with Iphone 6 and Iphone 6 plus. Measuring 5.5 inch, the iPhone 6 plus is Apple's first venture into "phablet territory". Even the iphone 6 got a size upgrade from 4 inch to 4.7 inch.

I myself upgraded this year from Iphone 4s with a tiny 3.5 inch screen to perhaps currently the best Android smartphone/Phablet, a Samsung Galaxy Note 4 which has a large 5.7 inch screen. Note like most new owners of devices I am obviously biased. 

My Samsung Note 4

I have pretty long fingers, so I adapted to the large screen fast. The current trend is for flagships on Android to become bigger including the Nexus 6 (huge 6 inch screen), so it's clear to me that this will eventually lead to large screens becoming the normal on mobile.

My own experience mirrors most people, who find that after a few days, they just can't go back to smaller screens. Also like many have reported, my usage of  tablets has also fallen, in my case the Nexus 7 (2013) doesn't seem so useful anymore, though admittedly, the new Android Lollipop 5.0 on Nexus 7 did give it a new lease of life.

Looking at my own institutional statistics (sessions on portal, Libguides, Summon etc) for the last 6 months, it's somewhat surprising to me that besides the Iphones, the next most popular phone is the large Samsung Galaxy Note 3

This could be something unique to my situation, or it could be simply because people only bother to use our websites with large screens (there is build-in web responsive design for Summon 2 and Libguides 2 though but the library portal is a mobile page redirect).

Still, I think the upgrading to bigger screen sizes and phablets probably means more online reading and services like Browzine and the new Ebscohost's Flipster, a digital magazine  are going to benefit.

Browzine in particular just launched support for Android smartphones at the end of the year, just in time for our new subscription to Browzine and my new Phablet!

Browzine on Samsung Note 4

I used to be quite "hot" on mobile developments in libraries (refer to blog posts in 2010/2011) but somehow I felt after an initial furry of interest, it pretty much died out at least in academic libraries.

Most of us have mobile library pages, or a native app of sorts, typically from offering like Boopsie or Librarything Mobile. More recently, responsive web design has become popular, with library vendors from Databases, Discovery Services (e.g Summon) and LibGuides moving towards that. Library websites are also slowly moving towards that. 

All this is nice, but still pretty boring really. Still this year some interesting developments. 

Other mobile developments to watch

  • Adding of NFCs to iphone 6 , apple pay etc may make such technologies main stream

3. Upgrades lots of upgrades

This was the year my institution chose to upgrade to the following (some were already available in Aug 2013 but we wisely chose to wait until 2014)

Some upgrades were more major than others (eg 360Link v2 upgrade was relatively minor) but still all could be considered major upgrades with changes to functionality and UI that users would notice straight away.

This year, we finally managed to achieve the popular Bento style search that I have blogged about so much, though we are currently only linking it to the LibGuides v2 search.

From the redesigned Libguides V2 screen (see below), users can search and will see a modified LibGuides v2 search page that shows results from Libguides, Libanswers and Summon!

This helps solve one major issue I noticed in Libguides searches - users tend to search for article titles, books, or very specific search results that are best answered by a search results page from your discovery service. They also sometimes search for policies, opening hours etc. 

All this was achieved by a talented new colleague of mine and he will be doing a guest blog in the new year to explain how it was done.


I had a great 2014 though my blogging rate suffered, hopefully this will change in 2015. Still thank you all loyal blog readers for subscribing to my blog all these years and wish you all a amazing New year to come.

Sunday, December 7, 2014

Four possible Web Scale Discovery Future Scenarios

I was recently invited to give a talk at the Swedish Summon User Group meeting and I presented about possible scenarios for the future of web scale discovery.

As Web Scale Discovery in libraries goes back to roughly 2009, most academic libraries have by now had 2-3 years of grappling with the concept. Using the hype cycle concept many if not most have moved past the pains of trough of disillusionment and are moving up the slope of enlightenment or even at the plateau of Productivity as pointed out by Dave Pattern.

For example, mobody today here believes that web scale discovery in its current form can replace subject databases totally, an idea that was mooted during the peak of inflated exceptions.

Still one wonders, what lies in store for web scale discovery in academic libraries? How would things looks like in 5 , 10 or even 15 years time?

How well is web scale discovery doing?

To forecast possible futures, we need to know where we are now. Generally I think many of us (where us = the odd mix of technologists including ILP librarians who have worked on implementing discovery services though we are of course biased)  think it is doing decently well based on any one of the criteria

a) Usage of web scale discovery is increasing year on year typically for most institutions (eg See University of Michigan's experience)

b) Statistics on Openurl origins show a substantial share from Discovery services (varies by institution but typical share would be 40% at least for most destinations)

c) Studies are appearing that show when controlling for various factors, institutions that have web scale discovery systems Summon or Primo , do seem to increase usage per FTE versus institutions that do not have any such systems.

This bright picture seems to contradict the sense we get (via surveys etc) that increasingly more users are favoring Google, Google Scholar, Medneley etc and that the University Library is slowly having a declining role as a Gateway for discovery.

 Ithaka S+R US Faculty Survey 2012 above shows a slight improvement in 2012, though the trend is generally down.

Lorcan Demseley notes,“They have observed a declining role for the "gateway" function of the library, partly because it is at the wrong level or scale. Google and other network level services have become important gateways.”

So what is happening here? Is there a shift to other non-library sources of discovery? Or isn't there?

Lots of unknowns

One way to reconcile this contradiction is to note, undergraduates are by far the largest group typically, and we know undergraduates love web scale discovery while other groups particularly faculty do not, so it is not a surprise to note usage goes up when web scale discovery is initially implemented while noting most sophisticated users could be favoring something else.

A typical year on year increase in web scale discovery is good news. Still I suspect part of it is inertia, my experience is it takes a while for any major change to filter down to users. So if you implemented web scale discovery in say 2012. It is likely you will continue to see gains until 2015 (assuming a 4 year course), when the freshman who were the first batch to start using web scale discovery become final year students. As prior to that, the more senior students will likely to ignore it.

It is somewhat surprising to me even today that many students are surprised to know our default search tab handles articles as well as books though part of it could be a UX issue.

It's also unclear to me, what a say 10% increase usage of your discovery system year on year really means since we don't know how much the "demand for discovery" went up. So say between 2014 and 2015, required "discovery incidents" that one could conceivably use your discovery went up say 100% more but your usage of web scale discovery only went up 10%. Doesn't sound so good right?

Lastly, web scale discovery systems also work beautifully as known item article search tools by simply cutting and pasting articles, so the increased usage seen (a), or frequent use as openurl orgins (b) or even increased usage compared to peer control institution per FTEs could simply be due to increased ease in finding known articles as opposed to really helping in discovery.

In short, there is a lot of uncertainty here. It's not easy for libraries to know if Web Scale discovery has helped shift the balance of discovery from outside the library back to the library in both the short and long term.

I suspect the answer is probably not, indirect evidence I have on the use of the proxy bookmarklet (which is usage primarily when user does not start from library homepage) and link resolver usage of Google Scholar of my institution seem to suggest even though the implementation of Summon was successful, usage of both tools continued to rise. In fact in the following year after implementation of Summon, usage rose even higher than before. If this trends continues.....

Four Discovery Scenarios

In the long run, I suspect the ultimate fate of web scale discovery will fall into one of these four broad category

Discovery Dominant - Web Scale Discovery continues to grow and become the prime source of discovery displacing google, google scholar and other external sources (Unlikely)

II Discovery Deferred - Web Scale Discovery continues to be used along side other non-library tools. Most often it will be used as a secondary source after looking at other places first (Possible)

III Discovery Diminished - In this scenario, Web scale discovery services have been displaced in their discovery role, and are used for known item search only. Kinda like a glorified catalogue, except it includes article, conference etc titles (Perhaps)

IV Discovery Decommissioned - This is the most extreme scenario, where the whole system is removed and doesn't even play a role in known item searching. (Unlikely)

Discovery use matrix

After reading all the various arguments about the position of search in libraries, I was initially confused. But let's try to create a framework here.

Let's consider 2 dimensions of use here.

Firstly, are users using the web scale discovery for known item search or for discovery?

Secondly, it is their primary go-to tool? Or is it secondary?

Below shows one hypothetical use of one library discovery search.

Known item Search Subject Search
First Stop 50% 10%
Secondary Stop 30% 40%
Total 80% 50%

We could split this up further into content types, say search of books vs articles but let's keep it simple.

In this hypothetical example , say users have a "discovery need" 100,000 times a year.  (Look at the 2nd column)

10% of the time, they go straight to your discovery service and starting typing keywords.

40% of the time, they do some preliminary search elsewhere eg Wikipedia, Google, Google Scholar, but they do eventually end up doing subject searches in library discovery for whatever reason.

50% of the time, they totally ignore our tools and use something else such as Google Scholar, Mendeley to search.

Note : If one cares about library supplied tools, then one would need to take into account subject Abstract and indexining databases provided by the library such as Scopus, but I will ignore this for now.

Similarly say users have a need to find a known item 100,000 times a year (Look at the 1st column)

50% of the time, they go straight to your discovery service and starting searching for known item by entering article or book titles.

30% of the time, they do some preliminary search elsewhere eg Wikipedia, Google, Google Scholar, but they do eventually end up doing known item search in library discovery.

20% of the time, they totally ignore your discovery service for known item search. It could be they found it using another tool which could be either library related such as traditional catalogue, Browse A-Z list, or non-library related Google, Google Scholar, or it could be they use link resolvers from Google Scholar, Libx, or they just give up.

Discovery is not just keyword based search

One thing to note is that when there is a desire for discovery, search based tools like web scale discovery or Google Scholar are not the only options.

There are recommender sources or systems (both humans and machines) as well as discovery based on citation based methods. In this case, I am assuming discovery here is keyword based discovery. In other words if there is a need to enter keywords, how many times do people use the library discovery service vs other systems.

It possible to envision a future where a powerful Google Now type recommender system becomes so dominant, keyword based discovery becomes obsolete but let's put aside this possibility.

Scenario I : Discovery Dominant 

Known item Search Subject Search
First Stop Variable High
Secondary Stop Variable Moderate
Total Variable Very high

This would be the ideal scenario. Our discovery tools become the dominant tool for discovery as first stop.

How popular such tools for known item search would be less critical, though I suspect it's easier to optimize  for one rather than both,

This scenario unfortunately I think is unlikely. It implies at least one of the following

a) All other non-library discovery sources dry up.

For example, Google giving up on Google Scholar would be a good example.

While Google Scholar is doing well now after 10 years, this has always been a possibility. Still, is hard to believe this will happen for all the competitors.

b) We created tools so compelling that it makes all other sources pale in comparison.

What would such compelling differences be?

I suspect the following would NOT be them

a) Gesture/Motion based inputs - eg Kinect/ Leapfrog

b) Augmented reality outputs - eg Oculus

While such features might eventually be included in future discovery tools, they don't give such tools any competitive advantages  They would be the equivalent of mobile responsive design features for example.

The following might give us a fighting chance

Personally tuned discovery layers - Championed by Ken Varnum - see his two recent presentations Personally-Tuned Discovery and Library Discovery: From Ponds to Oceans to Streams . The idea as I understand it is that libraries can create specially tuned features , particularly scopes that appeal specifically to their communities. So I suppose in the context of my institution we can create filters and features that are specially designed to work well with research on southeast asia. A more generic global system is unlikely to be able to tune the system to such an extent.

Improved semantic search - No doubt Google etc are working on this. However libraries particularly publishers like Ebsco have tons of expert assigned subject headings in specialised theasuri. Would a cross walked "mega theasuri" be leveraged to improve relevancy? Do note , I have practically no idea how linked data will come into this.

Scenario II : Discovery Deferred

Known item Search Subject Search
First Stop Low to Moderate Low
Secondary Stop Moderate to High Moderate
Total Moderate Moderate

This scenario is the scenario I think that is closest to the current situation. Our discovery tools are seldom the first stop in the discovery process. But many users do use it in combination with Google , Google Scholar etc. So overall use is moderate.

Use for known item searching is generally low to moderate. While tools like library links in Google Scholar , use of link resolvers in mendeley and other systems means that users can use the link resolver to check for availability after discovery direct, there is still sufficient numbers of users who do put in article titles or book titles in discovery services.

One can encourage use of discovery service has a secondary discovery source by various means.See for example 6 ways to use Web Scale Discovery tools without visiting library sites which provides some ideas, chief among them is to use Libx.  If you have Libx with Summon you can even pull off something interesting with the API.

For driving subject searches/discovery from Wikipedia, I've blogged about John Mark Ockerbloom's Forward to Libraries service that takes the title of the Wikipedia article you are on (among other things) and does the same search in your discovery service.

Scenario III : Discovery Diminished

Known item Search Subject Search
First Stop Moderate for books Extremely Low
Secondary Stop Moderate for books Extremely Low
Total Moderate for books Extremely Low

This is basically the situation prior to web scale discovery in 2009. Federated search wasn't successful , most users went to the library catalogue to do known item search for books and to a lesser extent search for books but not articles.

So with Web Scale Discovery we are happily over with this scenario and are in at least Scenario II, where some discovery at least happens in our tools right?

Is there any chance we should fall back to Scenario III?

I think Utrecht University believes so and was one of the first if not the first to talk about giving up discovery to focus on delivery or fulfillment.

I've blogged about this in the past. Essentially the idea here is that Google etc have won the discovery battle already and there is no point trying to compete with them.

Libraries should focus on supporting fulfillment. In other words Discovery occurs elsewhere say on Google or Google Scholar and we provide the way to check/obtain full text.

Google Scholar, of course has the well known library links program.

A newer idea would be collaboration that Worldcat is working on with Wikipedia that allows linking from references in Wikipedia to full text or library catalogues.

The title of the talk  is A library without a catalogue, though interestingly while the speaker has decided they won't bother to implement a web scale discovery system and will give up their federated search, they are not sure if they can give up the the normal traditional catalogue (stated at the end).

I suspect that while one can give up web scale discovery, giving up a catalogue for known item search is harder. Sure, one can contribute holdings to Worldcat, which will allow the holdings to be shown from various places including Google books but can this truly work for everything?

I somehow doubt it would be likely any library wouldn't have a search facility for known item search- or a comprehensive search of what is available to the institution since it wouldn't be a lot more work to do so especially after the effort spent on populating the ILS or Knowledgebase.

Under this scenario, libraries would maintain something similar to classic catalogues that are optimised for known item searching of books, DVDs etc. The difference is they may also include an article index but unlike Discovery services available between 2007-2014 they give up the pretense of serving discovery at all.

Some libraries may totally dispense with this if most major outside discovery tools have good linkages with link resolvers, catalogue apis etc. But as I said this is unlikely.

By focusing on known item search of books and articles, the relevancy issue would be much easier solved then trying to balance discovery and known item search needs. A bento type box search might even make more sense.

Discovery Decomissioned

Known item Search Subject Search
First Stop Low to zero Zero
Secondary Stop Low to zero Zero
Total Low to zero Zero

This is the most unlikely scenario. In this scenario, use of library discovery tools, for both known item and subject search is utterly destroyed!

This most unlikely Scenario was mentioned in The day library discovery died - 2035 . In this scenario, open access has won out completely, with open access been the norm in both books or articles.

How academic libraries may change when Open Access becomes the norm details the implications.

After summarizing the argument in the above scenario about losing the war in discovery and focusing on delivery, I proposed that the rise of open access

"has the potential to disrupt even the delivery or fulfilment role. In a open access world when most articles or perhaps even books (open access models for books exist, as well "as all you can eat" subscription services like Scribd, Oyster, Amazon Prime) can be gotten for free, academic libraries' role in both discovery and fulfillment will be greatly diminished."

In such a world, libraries would no longer need to maintain long lists of holdings for both books/traditional catalogue items as well as article index. Libraries don't even

As everything or nearly everything is open access, discovery and delivery would be coupled together. Where you do your discovery is where you get delivered the articles or books. There would still be some portion that would be unavailable immediately (special collections, older books , articles not digitized) but in time they would be reduced.

Even in such a world, some argument there may be a role for libraries in terms of aiding discovery by providing better curated collections, metadata etc - based the personal tuned discovery services argument above. It is of course unclear if that will be enough.


This is an extremely speculative piece of course but had to get it off my chest.

If you found it thought provoking, or at least entertaining do comment or share.

Saturday, October 25, 2014

How should academic library websites change in an open access world?

In How academic libraries may change when Open Access becomes the norm  , I argued that as open access takes hold, academic libraries will increasingly focus on Expertise based services like bibliometrics, open access publishing, GIS services, Research data management and more.

The question is this, with this change in focus how should academic libraries reflect these changes in priorities on their library website? It is after all the digital front door of the library and it sends out a message on what the library is about.

A typical academic library in 2010s

Academic library websites in the 2000-2010s are all focused towards search, typically with a single search box or a tabbed search box (whether horizontally or vertical). Most sites would also have links to databases (the number of links varies) plus links to common and popular (read undergraduate) services like printing, booking of study rooms, opening hours etc.  Lastly some would devote some amount of space to news and events the library wants to promote typically in the form of some rotating banner.

I think it is fair to say this describes 90% of most academic library websites and most despite their efforts are bursting to the seams with content.

What experts think are academic libraries best practices in 2013/2014

Emily Singley currently with Harvard Library reviews academic library sites she likes, and the #1 site for her 2013 reviews is Stanford University. Which looks like this.

Noted UX expert, Aaron Schmidt was recently asked for Library Websites worth looking at.  

One academic library he went for, was MIT Libraries.

Both sites had fairly major redesigns within a year or two and spot what can be considered current state of art in academic library design. A partial hint comes from the fact that they spot dynamic opening hours widgets that dynamically state what facilities are open today, a relatively new idea compared to just static lists of opening hours on most sites now.

They devote roughly the same amount of space to the search box (though one uses a simple one box vs tabbed approach), opening hours and a news box, with the major difference being that MIT devotes a lot of screen space to displaying their research guides and experts.

In this difference hints at a possible challenge.

As academic libraries in the 2010s are adding new expertise based services and the question we face is how do we incorporate such services into the library website? How do you incorporate your shiny new Scholarly Communication team, or GIS service on your library front page? Or should you even try?

Given how political changing websites can be, easiest is to just give up and tuck the service under some hidden drop down menu or some secondary level link and hope your liaisons can make such services known.

Stanford for example tucks GIS under a drop down in "Computing - equipment & services"

Besides an argument can be made that such services are very niche (even in fairly research intensive universities like my own, the undergraduates and graduate students far out-number the research and faculty staff), so one shouldn't spend so much screen space on them.

Then again even the best liaisons can't reach everyone. And increasingly as more library effort is spent on such services it seems perverse that they don't have or have a very minimum presence on the library websites. This parallels slightly the older development where the budget on eresources increased but the manpower devoted on managing it was restricted to just one eresources librarian.

To anticipate the whole argument, I believe that while a complete redesign would be eventually necessary to showcase the new focus and provide browsing affordances, a short term solution that is increasingly adopted by leading academic librares is the bento style search box or as Lorcan Demseley calls it full library discovery

This has several advantages, one of which is it avoids a sudden shift and hence avoids the need for political battles. Users also are conditioned to search and a search box that allows you to find articles,books, AND expertise/services would scale and transition smoothly as libraries slowly (or quickly as it may) transition away from discovery/search/purchaser business to expertise business.

The age old debate on library websites

It's perhaps only a slight exaggeration to say that designing the library front page (hence forth library homepage) is a highly political affair but leaving that aside is there a "objective" way to do it?

The difficulty lies in the fact that Libraries are a mix of totally different classes of content. Traditionally the debate on library websites has always been between adding features to find "stuff" that users need to do their assignment or research (eg library databases, ebooks etc)  and using the screen space to market services/events/expertise.

The difficulty is so great, a recent 2014 article asked  Do we need two library landing pages?

The argument against Discovery on websites in 2009

But let's go back to 2009 first where Steven Bell in The Library Web Site of the Future argued that library websites should shift away from what these days we call "discovery".

He argues that academic library websites of the time pretty much fail to connect users to the full range of content library offers, as most users just use it to link to their favourite databases anyway. So libraries have failed in that task anyway despite a screen full of links and should give up trying to play that role.

He writes

"Rather than attempting to mimic search engines academic librarians should aim to differentiate their Web sites. They should devote the most eye-catching space to information that promotes the people who work at the library, the services they provide and the community activities that anchor the library’s place as the social, cultural and intellectual center of campus. That shifts the focus from content to service and from information to people."

He then asks what do we do with all the expensive databases that library buy if we don't put links on the library website?

Bell clearly anticipates some of the more common ideas currently in play in 2014. He talks about how users "invent their own backdoor routes to the content" and how we should be embedding library service so  “we’ll be where you are.” (eg Library Links in Google Scholar) or as another meme goes "Discovery happens elsewhere".

However he does propose a rather unusual idea that the LibGuides that librarians create for specialised courses and serve as a substitute for listing databases on library websites. This drew a response by Catherine Pellegrino - The Library Web Site of the Future: thanks but no thanks.

The main argument seems to be 1) The idea of providing LibGuides for every need can't scale and 2) Following Steven's idea would lead to the now famous XCD comic about the difference between what users want to find on a University Homepage and what the marketing people want to sell.

Has the argument changed in 2014?

I would argue that Steve Bell's argument for devoting less space to content for "finding stuff"  is even stronger in 2014 then in 2009 for the following reasons.

Firstly back in 2009, web scale discovery was just being launched in the first pioneer libraries. Whatever shortcomings there are in modern web scale discovery services it definitely does a job better at the exposing the full range of content a library has then 50 links to databases.

While we know that users no longer start their research from the library homepage, they do eventually return to the library homepage. Part of the reason is to check for known content, in which case our web scale discovery tools are light years ahead of the federated searches of 2009.

Because of that academic libraries of today can get away with using less space for searching features and yet be more effective.

Secondly, I have controversially speculated that as open access takes hold, Libraries roles in traditional discovery and even fulfilment/delivery for users will diminish .

As of 2014, whether libraries should bow out of discovery roles is been heavily discussed, for example see
Does Discovery Still Happen in the Library? Roles and Strategies for a Shifting Reality. One of the interesting points he makes I think is that current web scale discovery services are failing to match the Googles of the world, not due to the size of the index but the lack of "deep personalization".

 Jill O' Neill asks "Should libraries abandon investment in formal discovery services (of whatever ilk) and leave the job to the somewhat mysterious algorithmic mercies of Google, Amazon...."  Like Roger Schonfeld, she asks “Can libraries step forward to play a greater role in current awareness? Should they do so?”

For other responses see the follow up post by Roger Schonfeld

This debate is up in the air, though  Barbara Fister points out even in the day pre-web when it came to discovery academic libraries were  "supplementary, not the only way discovery happened". 

For now, I am going to be pessimistic and say No, libraries should eventually (when I do not know) prepare to walk away gracefully.

This is an argument that is not one that I make happily. However it does make the tussle over the academic library website much easier because there is one less thing off the agenda to focus on. 

That said, personalised recommenders strike me to be a totally different class of services then simple search boxes or links to databases. For example a Journaltocs type system enhanced with Google Now level smarts and perhaps mediated by knowledgable librarians strikes me as fundamentally different and something users would want assuming we can do it better than Google etc. But those don't require a search box....

The library website of the future will focus more on services and showcasing expertise

The typical academic library of 2014 now has a lot more services or put a lot more head count on them than 10 years ago and this will accelerate as the library loses it role for discovery and fulfillment.

Most typical academic libraries (granted of at least a certain research intensity), will be at the very least be working on promoting open access and populating institutional repositories, perhaps managing APC funds. Most will also be assisting with bibliometrics, benchmarking etc.

Depending on how progressive the academic library is they might be also be supporting other parts of the research life cycle.
  • GIS services
  • Data research management services
  • Grant management - playing a role in CRIS/IR integration 
  • Supporting innovative teaching environments like MOOCs

As the library shifts to devote effort to such initiatives, the academic website of the future will have to correspondingly devote more screen space to such services. Slowly there will be a shift towards using more and more space on such services and less on searching features.

Could we see a day where search boxes become de-empathized, or even disappear totally and exist merely as links as a rare few libraries do?

How much space are academic libraries devoting to search vs marketing now?

A Use of Space: The Unintended Messages of Academic Library Web Sites a study of 50 academic libraries and how they devote screen space to various categories of resources and services is probably worth looking at if you want to know what academic libraries are doing now.

Somewhat to the average space taken by marketing/PR is pretty high 28.2% (excluding white space etc) and and is ranked first.

Multisearch box comes in 2nd on average using 10.2% of used space.

The paper points out variance is high, range of space used for marketing/PR varies from 4.6% to 67.9%, with the paper heavily criticizing the instance of 67.9% usage.

According to the paper one of the most important findings is

"Occupying an average of 28.2 percent of the used space, promotion/PR is clearly important for all sites. This indicates libraries are trying to engage their users with more than just text-based communications. The message seen in this content is libraries know they have value to provide and are working proactively to connect users to these essential resources and services rather than waiting for users to locate them on their own."

Not bad at all isn't it? Academic libraries are trying to market... That said Steven Bell in The Library Web Site of the Future would argue

"It’s not that academic library Web sites completely ignore marketing. It’s just done badly. News about the library’s programs, events or new resources are often crammed into a corner of the page, are limited to small bits of text or are relegated somewhere out of the F-zone, the area, according to usability experts, to which most web users’ eyes naturally gravitate. Those prime real estate areas are instead dedicated to lists of links to catalogs, database lists and things with names that mean little to anyone other than a librarian."

So his problem is that such marketing are not prominent enough. 

Marketing - a dynamic short term effect?

I think most marketing/PR type content consist of rotating banner type ads, which markets whatever is the "favour of the month". Are they effective in pulling in eyeballs and clicks? My own personal experience at my institution is while they don't beat mass email marketing, yes they are effective (contingent on positioning on your website).

That said, I am not a big fan of such dynamic content at least for long term efforts. So your library just did a big push for "shiny project or service of the year" and you splash it or over the big rotating side banner. All well and good for a quick boost in publicity but not something you would rely for in the long term on for a core, essential part of your library offerings.

If academic libraries are going to move toward expertise based services where librarians are your greatest resource, I would advocate a permanent, prominent spot on your library homepage to advertise your library expertise and services, what MIT Libraries does for their libguides and experts is a start.

Are bento style boxes or full library discovery the (short term) answer?

One must be careful though of avoiding the problem pointed out by the famous xkcd webcomic


A redesign that goes too far , too fast before users are ready could backfire. The open access tipping point isn't easy to predict so a redesign that moves away from discovery is difficult to time.

Tons of user testing needed here.....

A possible solution is the bento style idea. I've written about the bento style idea at least half a dozen times.

Here's again the famous NCSU one that started it off.

Notice this form of bento style is distinguished from the following type of display of search results.

Lorcan Demseley called it the difference between full library discovery and full collection discovery.

The Villanova University Library example  which is common with many Universities using Vufind etc, is still focused on showing only standard results from discovery systems including books and articles.

 I have argued that this form of presentation is designed to help with relevancy issues. This is particularly useful for users who only have interest in typical catalogue results such as books or multimedia material, which may be buried in a more conventional "blended" single style result.

It also helps to cater to more sophisticated users who dislike the all in one blended approach and prefer results segregated by format.

However this still doesn't go far enough. The way ahead I agree is "full library discovery" and not just full "collection discovery".

The next generation website and also search will have a bento search that includes various sources, not just collection results, but also services, people expertise results.

This can be accomplished most simply by pulling in results from a general website search. More refined approaches would pull in anything from

  • Libguides
  • Faqs
  • Some smart matching of Librarian profiles (See Mlibrary)
  • Best bets - whatever is popular or uniquely searched by your users

Why is this important? Simply put, this allows the academic library to showcase not just the collection but also expertise and services.

So while Stanford library does not make it quite so easy to find GIS services and expertises directly by browsing, a search will surface it easily.

It is also a low risk strategy as compared to revamping the whole academic website.

I have not done a recent survey on academic libraries that use bento-style results from their search but it is likely to be popular with the biggest and most research intensive libraries.

MIT Libraries currently does not have it yet but their environment scan report prior to implementing Ebsco Discovery notes

"With the exception of BU, the sites that did offer a “Search All” option on their homepage, typically pointed users to a homegrown “composite library search” application that unified search results from multiple sources in a tabular user interface (see Stanford, NCSU, Dartmouth, Columbia, Virginia); with the exception of Stanford, these sites utilized the discovery service as a data source (via API) to populate an articles/e-books section of the composite library search results" and plans for one in the future.

Yale University is also implementing a quicksearch that is supposedly inspired by the Columbia example., though the current example includes only collection based boxes.

What are the drawbacks of a bento style box?

The most obvious drawback is users are used to Google and Google Scholar style results.

Here's one way to put it.

"At present, we are not using bento. This is because our community is familiar with Ebsco's blended interface, in which the results are presented as a list, ranked by relevancy based on the available metadata."

From here to discovery

Some argue Google, does some degree of segregation, though I would argue not to the level Mlibrary or NCSU (another interesting example) does it.

Recently work by Karen Mills of the Open University What do students want from library discovery tools?
suggests that students are confused by Bento style results. This is probably due to confusion with the labels and terminology.

I suspect, the effectiveness of bento style boxes would be affected by the number of boxes and the type of users. Freshman with almost no academic experience will probably dislike bento style. On the other extreme, a experienced graduate student or faculty with good mental models of research would appreciate a bento style display especially if they are predisposed to utilize the other non-collection based services (eg consulting of librarians) that such a search would throw up.

As such, I would expect the most research intensive University Libraries who have a higher share of such advanced users to push for bento style searches, while community colleges might go for a blended google style results display. This is what we see of course, though this could be driven by the fact that bento style display results more resources to implement since currently the major web scale discovery services do not provide bento style results out of the box.

A personalised approach that allows one to pick either display is possible of course.


Let me end by quoting Bell again.
"Academic libraries must promote their human side. The library portal experience should emphasize the value of and invite stronger relationships with faculty and students. That means going beyond offering a commodity that, by and large, the user community can well access without the Web site. The next generation academic library Web site must leverage what academic librarians can do to help faculty and students improve their productivity and achieve success."

With the rise of open access, the above has never been more true.

How would such a website look like, when the academic library is freed from the responsibility or duty of discovery? In the long term, I believe it should be radically different but that is for the future say 2020ish. For instance how would a "people/expert first search" look like? Would it simply be a CRIS system like Vivo?

Share this!

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...