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