Strategies and Solutions for Building and Maintaining the Next

Generation WebOPAC

John CulshawUniversity of Colorado at Boulder

Libraries

Wisconsin Connections

University of Colorado at Boulder

• Flagship campus of CU System

• Nearly 29,000 students

• Main library plus 5 branch facilities

• Mid-size ARL library

Looking Back• University of Colorado migrated to

Innovative in 1994

• Made presentation at 1995 IUG 3 conference: “Enhancing Public Service through Gateway and Screen Design”

Presentation Concept• Scoured the literature for what little was

available about screen design

• Hands-on screen design

• Provided technical details (no more than 9 double spaced lines with up to 77 characters per line).

Guidelines for Screen Design• 4 pages of tips

• General to language to commands

Sample General Guidelines• Display only necessary information• Name of the library and database should

always be apparent on the screen• Each screen should be titled clearly• Use upper and lower case• Certain information should always appear

in standard locations

Sample General Guidelines• Make messages relevant and timely• Offer short, medium, and long message formats• Specify actions needed to continue• The screens should page through, not scroll

through• In a series of screens, show position within the

series

From 1994 to today• “Complimentary” WebPAC in 1995-1996

• WebPAC launched 1996

• Redesign in 2004

• Redesign and installation of WebPAC Pro features on June 1, 2007

Toward WebPAC Pro• Beta test site for Release 2006

• Implementing ERM module

• Implementing WebBridge link resolver

• Needed to re-index the system

• Disclaimer: not “the” expert!

Slow Migration• Took slow road to WebPAC Pro• Redesign was more than a new look and

feel• Needed broad input – particularly from

user community• Had to coordinate with instruction

schedules

Surprise: Form Committees• COG: Chinook Oversight Group

– ERM Working Group– WebBridge Working Group– WebOPAC Working Group– Reindexing Task Force

Reindexing• First comprehensive look at system

implementation in 1994

• Implementation of ERM demanded some indexing decisions

• Line by line review

Sample Indexing Changes• De-indexed fields no longer part of

national standard

• Removed indexes no longer used

• Indexed some new fields

WebPAC Pro Working Group• Diverse membership and ideas

• Stuck to a vision of a “cleaner, more modern” look and feel – Google, anyone?

• Feedback from library staff and users

Soliciting User Feedback• Feedback from Library staff

• Usability Testing

• Link to new catalog on current site

Usability Testing• Uncover issues with existing interfaces

• Develop user friendly designs

• User feedback early in development process

Usability Tests• Determined the usability test did not require

approval from IRB• Solicited volunteers via campus e-mail

announcements• Tested 6 students and one faculty member• Summarized the findings• Determined what we could fix – and what we

couldn’t

Testing Method• Developed 8 tasks/questions

• Used a team of 3– One asked questions and probed for

additional information– Two people observed the process, recorded

user behaviors on a record sheet

Recording Form

Usability ResultsDoes the library have a copy of Harry Potter

and the Goblet of Fire?* Most common suggestion was to move the Request button to the right of the status bar* What to call the HOLD/REQUEST button? * People mistakenly click on Call Number link.* Prospector needs more descriptive text so users know what it is.

What’s New?

Still to come…• RSS Feeds

– Feed Builder– My Feeds

• Blackwells Table of Contents service

• Hopefully…Community Reviews

Future of Library Catalogs• Industry changes: FUD• Adoption of Web Services architecture• Open Source/Community source• ILS-like products• Lots of unknowns: • But vendor support still vital for most

libraries

Keeping Up• Watch Innovative listserv to see what

peers are doing

• Follow Andrew Pace in American Libraries or Marshall Breeding in Computers in Libraries

Keeping Up• Horizon Report

– Annual report by New Media Consortium and the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative

– Highlights technologies that will impact college and university campuses in next 5 years

Horizon Report 2007• 1 year or less: User-created content and

social networking

• 2-3 years: Mobile phones and virtual worlds

• 4-5 years: New scholarship and “massively multiplayer educational gaming”

Advice• Make changes more often

• Look at other catalogs

• Are the library “website” and “catalog” becoming one and the same?

• Get user feedback

• Look seriously at tools like Encore