Majorpaper Mcdonald

Running Head: ONLINE PUBLIC ACCESS CATALOGUES IN THE LIBRARY: HISTORY, ADVANCEMENTS, AND SHORTCOMINGS
McDonald 1
Online Public Access Catalogues in the Library: History, Advancements, and Shortcomings Kelly McDonald LIS 5937
McDonald 2
Online Public Access Catalogues in the Library: History, Advancements, and Shortcomings
What Are Online Public Access Catalogues? Online Public Access Catalogues (OPACs) have become a major staple in todays library systems. They provide patrons with complete access and act as a resource guide to the collections. OPACs replaced the card catalogue, but serve the same purpose. They give patrons as well as librarians a guide to what can be found within a given librarys collection. The OPAC is not the conventional card catalogue as it stands (Fayen, E., 1983). They are a digital form of the archaic card catalogue method, but they are far from the simplicity of the small drawers. OPACs not only have the ability to tell the user what materials the library owns, it can let them know if the item is currently at that library, and what section in which it can be found. In some county cooperatives, a user can even hold books through OPACs, or order them from another library. Interlibrary loans through online catalogues like WorldCat can also be conducted. It wasnt until these OPACs were created, that these services were offered at libraries. The first OPAC was launched by Online Computer Library Center, Inc. (OCLC) in 1967. It was regarded as the first successful, widely accepted library automation project. (Yee, M. M., Layne, S. S., & American Library Association, 1998). The interfacing wasnt as seamless as todays programs, and they were made for the use of librarians, not patrons. The first systems required more education to use, and because most people werent familiar with this kind of computer usage, it would have been difficult for the public to navigate. It wasnt until the early 1980s that these online systems were formatted and designed specifically for the public to use
McDonald 3
(Yee, M. M., Layne, S. S., & American Library Association, 1998). The interfacing made it possible for anyone to search the records and look for material within a library. It also made libraries more accessible to the public. The online catalogue made it possible for users to search through the catalogue without leaving their seats. OPACs work by utilizing existing bibliographic information. This information is organized within the program so that it is easily retrieved upon request. The users are able to look up material through a variety of access points (Fayen, E., 1983) provided by the MachineReadable Catalogue (MARC) records. The computer hardware and software configure the MARC records, making it possible for the system to retrieve the results needed. MARC operates by a cataloguer placing information from the material into numerical categories. These categories are then analyzed and reformatted to show under certain search terms. A user could search for an authors name in the Author search bar, and the OPAC will find any material that matches a 245 MARC field. The uniformity of using MARC records and AngloAmerican Cataloguing Rules (AACR2) in library classification allows data to be moved from system to system without unnecessary conversion (Yee, M. M., Layne, S. S., & American Library Association, 1998). The Library of Congress recognizes this relation of online catalogue and MARC records within their definition of OPACs:
An online catalogue is an access tool and resource guide to the collections of a library or libraries, which contains interrelated sets of bibliographic data in machine-readable form and which can be separated interactively on a terminal by users (Fayen, E., 1983).
McDonald 4
With the implementation of the AACR2 and the card catalogue now disbanded, libraries now have the opportunity to consider and explore the potential of online public access catalogues (Matthews, J. R., 1982). Advances In Online Public Access Catalogs (1992) tells us that it wasnt until the early 1990s that the graphical interfacing emerged for OPACs. Graphical interfacing made it easier for users to understand and manipulate information for their benefit. These interfacings allowed non-librarian workers and all members of the public and private library membership, who may not be educated in using the system, to use and understand their online catalogues. The graphical interfacing worked as a combination of windows with pulldown menus, icons, and pointing devices (Advances in online public access catalogs, 1992). These new designs differed greatly from the original online catalogues which were only used by expert searchers or individuals who knew what information was needed and how to express that need in the systems own language (Willson, R., & Given, L. M., 2010). Now, searches can be conducted by utilizing the different MARC levels such as author, title or keyword. In fact, a study by Shiv Kumar and Ranjana Vohra from the Department of Library and Information Science at Panjab University in Chandigarh, India confirmed that author and title were the most used access points on a given OPAC (Kumar, S., & Vohra, R, 2011).
McDonald 5
How OPACs are Used Today There have been many improvements to the online catalogue since its debut. These advances in Online Public Access Catalogues that have been implemented are very useful, and make the task of searching for material in a library a more worthwhile cause. More people will be willing to use the catalogue, if they feel comfortable and confident in their ability to successfully fill their queries. The OPACs Offer the library profession the opportunity to reexamine the role of the library catalogue and how it relates to the needs of library patrons (Matthews, J. R., 1982b). A study done by Pikes Peak Library in 1980 showed that 94% of their patrons preferred the online catalogue to the librarys previous method of using a card catalogue (Matthews, J. R., 1982b). They no longer had to hand sort through various cards to find their desired novel. It would be an even worse situation if they found it in the card catalogue, but not in the library itself. In fact, the study showed an increase in dissatisfaction with card catalogues once the online version was released (Matthews, J. R., 1982b). The stark comparison made it easy to see the flaws in the card catalogue that could easily be remedied with the OPAC. In addition to patron satisfaction, librarians didnt have as much trouble maintaining the records when they became digital and the cost of keeping it up was much more manageable and desirable (Matthews, J. R., 1982b). It was much easier to change, add and implement any information to the online records. OPACs require less time and effort to use as well as maintain. The Pike Peaks Library found that their patrons appreciated this new advantage to them. Their speed and ease of use
McDonald 6
(Matthews, J. R., 1982b) was a popular quality. This comes as no surprise, though. Today, were used to finding information with the great speed of the World Wide Web. With the Internet so accessible in the 21st century, patrons dont even need to be in the library when they search the collection. It can be accessed over the Net without interacting once with a librarian. Barry Trott and Laurel Tarulli point out the fact that many library patrons are rarely physically in the library (Trott, B., & Tarulli, L., 2011). They can spend less time searching for something, and more time enjoying the material provided.
What Needs to Change While there are plenty of advantages to having an Online Public Access Catalogue, they are in need of constant improvement. The face of the library as we know it is changing daily, and the OPAC must reflect this. Patrons are used to searching for information through websites and search engines. The popularity of Google and other search engines has a large impact on how a patron approaches and uses an online catalogue. The requirements they have will be based on their prior experience with these; however, Nancy McCormack tells us that Librarians still feel profoundly that OPACs should bring meaningful results to our patrons searches, not the mishmash you find on sites that sell hats or hotel reservations (McCormack, N., 2008). It is important to remember the library is used for educational purposes and the tools we have must also reflect that. So, while Google is fine to use for browsing websites, a librarys benefactor is looking for something so much more. A librarys catalogue must be structured and relative its
McDonald 7
environment. There is no reason, though, that we cant take what we know about search interaction and information retrieval from the Internet, and relate it to improving OPAC use. It is Martha M. Yee who compares Google to OPACs by saying the popular search engine would not be able to carry out the specific objectives set out by the catalogue. They also tell us that because OPACs do not exhibit the same ease of use Google does, the public is most likely going to turn away from the more difficult, more expensive library catalogue (Yee, M. M., 2005). It is important to keep the user in mind when dealing with any kind of information retrieval, and since it is now the library patron who uses the online catalogue, it must be formatted to please them. Rebekah Willson and Lisa M. Given from university libraries in Alberta, Canada both find that the most distinct difference between online catalogues and popular search engines is that the system complexity of OPACs is far greater (Willson, R., & Given, L. M., 2010). The search criteria should better match that of regular search engines since that is what most people will find more comfortable. But, since the information and structure is much more complicated, it must not lose its integrity. Improving OPACs is a fine balance between the two. There is also the issue of the usability of OPACs. How a patron utilizes the system has as much to do with its worth as what it can do. It has been found that a typical OPAC end user in a university will only search for a title or author that they know (Dinet, J., Favart, M., & Passerault, J., 2004). This means that unless a patron knows what they are looking for, they are not exploiting the services presented to them. Preliminary searches are not being conducted within an online catalogue, and browsing is almost nonexistent.
McDonald 8
OPACs are missing out on a large portion of library users if they do not address the issue of exploring the unknown or unspecified queries that some may be uncomfortable in asking a librarian to look for. People are more comfortable looking up things theyre sure of, so one of the most common OPAC searches is for a work of which the author and title are known (Yee, M. M., 2005). The problem arises when the interfaces of OPACs dont meet the end user needs in this regard. Or, they may know what they are looking for, but not how to express it. A patron may wish to search for the name of a book, but may not recognize that keyword was roughly the same as name-title (Yee, M. M., 2005). The wording made it difficult for patrons to navigate through the pages, even when they had an idea of what they were looking for. An OPAC should be easy to understand, so that it can be used effectively. The Panjab University study proves that the libraries OPAC users want a system thats easier to navigate. In the study, they found that
35 (97.2 per cent) of 36 respondents expressed 'Lack of knowledge', 26 (72.2 per cent) expressed 'Complication in use', 14 (38.8 per cent) expressed 'no output/null retrieval', 23 (63.8 per cent) express 'Lack of on-screen help', 14 (38.8 per cent) expressed 'lack of assistance from library staff', 11 (30.5 per cent) expressed 'slow speed' and one-sixth expressed 'lack of computer systems' (Kumar, S., & Vohra, R, 2011).
From this, we can see how a patron would shy away from using the system, if they dont get the results theyre looking for. Frustration in the system will push them away. If they do not know
McDonald 9
how to operate and manipulate the OPAC, their results will skew their understanding of what the library collections truly hold. They may believe a library doesnt have what theyre looking for, when in reality, it was only their search that came up short. An improper understanding of how an online catalogue works will give false information, even if that information is inferred. In this same study, users found that they sometimes receive too large or small results and did not know how to manipulate the catalogue in order to narrow or expand the list (Kumar, S., & Vohra, R, 2011). So even when they know what they want and express it the correct way, the system can still work against them by overwhelming or underwhelming them. Another issue that is quite common with many retrieval systems, but especially OPACs is the user committing spelling errors. There is no spell check built into the program which may deter patrons from filling their desired query and it leaves them unaware of one of the key reasons they may experience an unsuccessful search (Willson, R., & Given, L. M., 2010). It does not give a reason they could not find the material, and so a user may leave thinking the library cannot fill their request. In actuality the service needs could be met, but an inadequate knowledge of how the OPAC operates, leaves the request unfulfilled. This is another issue that arises from using Internet search engines in their everyday life. Patrons get so used to the autofill functions and auto-correct capabilities of these outside services, that when they use an OPAC, they expect the same results. Boolean logic also plays a large part in the use of online catalogues. The more the user can specify with this search strategy, the more likely their results will reflect their true search intent. The use of Boolean operators in an OPAC is common for library professionals who have
McDonald 10
had training in the matter, but one who has never heard of or used the methods would not have much luck in trying to locate something with its help. This renders the Boolean logic useless for the public. So, even though OPACs have the capability to use Boolean indicators, it will not be of any importance or value to the public.
How to Implement the Changes It is important to listen to the comments and concerns that patrons have about these issues and others that may arise when using OPACs. Some public access catalogues allow the user to make and submit reviews to the library about their experience with the software. This allows statistics to be drawn up and changes to be made to the system to better fit the patrons needs. These statistics will be able to not only let us know what the patron dislikes, but it also allows us to gauge the value of the systems. Nancy McCormack thinks the matter of patron comments and reviews may be the inevitable path down which libraries will go in the future (McCormack, N., 2008). The library should rely on these reviews because they will shape the new OPAC from the changes made. The reviews will express how patrons search for books and how they want their results listed (McCormack, N., 2008). From these reviews, libraries and those in charge of creating these systems will be able to craft an OPAC that better reflects the needs of the user.
McDonald 11
As a public service entity, the library is constantly putting the needs of their patrons first, and OPACs shouldnt be any different. Their motivations and goals for the catalogue should be what drives our design modifications and interfacing changes (Schmidt, A., 2013). They are the reason libraries are in existence, and public access catalogues are one of the reasons people use the library. The patron should always be given more priority. If people have less priority than the collection, the result will be user-hostile interaction design and a poor user experience, which is good for neither the library nor the user (Schmidt, A., 2013). The patron experience should be of the highest precedence, and improving the OPAC that a library uses will also improve said experience. Not all OPACs are created equally. Some have functions and capabilities that others may not have. What one library may deem essential for their patronage may not be of any use to another. This can lead to an increased difficulty for libraries to choose the software that is right for their branch. Since the programs are made by people who have apparently never heard of Lubetzky or FRBR and who have not, therefore, understood the principles that under lie the AACR2R records that are indexed and displayed in their software (Yee, M. M., 2005), librarians must listen carefully to their patrons needs and make an informed decision (Bailey, K., 2011).
McDonald 12
Conclusion Libraries, as well as their patrons, are very dependent on their Online Public Access Catalogues. In fact, Shiv Kumar and Ranjana Vohra declare that the use of these online catalogues as the indicator of a librarys value (Kumar, S., & Vohra, R, 2011). So, by placing the importance of an easily navigable system on the forefront of their technology evolution, a library will increase its worth. The better a patron is able to access their material, the better that library looks. Likewise, if a patron has an unusually difficult time finding what they need, the less likely they will be to try again, or use the services anymore. Aaron Schmidt states that The deeper libraries dive into the lives of their members and explore opportunities for improving their lives, the more impact we can make and the more valuable libraries will become (Schmidt, A., 2013). The more emphasis libraries put into improving the user experience in the library, which includes OPACs, the more likely a patron will be to come back again and again. Ultimately, if the users needs are met, a library has done its duty. In order for this to happen, the library must start with providing an accessible collection which can be found with the use of an up-to-date, user-friendly online catalogue. There are always going to be changes that need to be made to OPACs so that they stay current with technology standards and patron needs, but it should not be forgotten that our basic objectives remain to help users find the subjects, authors, and works they seek (Yee, M. M., Layne, S. S., & American Library Association, 1998). An OPAC is essential in fulfilling that objective. One cannot dismiss a system that has proven itself to be vital in the librarys everyday use. But, OPACs still have a long road ahead of them, filled with change after change, and
McDonald 13
improvement after improvement. We must continue to improve our interfacing, functionality, and approach. Libraries are in the midst of a technology boom. Likewise, the online catalogue is changing forever the way people use their libraries (Fayen, E., 1983) and we must stay ahead of that curve.
McDonald 14
References Advances in online public access catalogs. (1992). Westport, CT : Meckler, c1992-. Bailey, K. (2011). Online Public Access Catalog: The Google Maps of the Library World. Dech, L. (2012). Technology in Libraries: Past and Present. PNLA Quarterly, 76(2), 56-60. Dinet, J., Favart, M., & Passerault, J. (2004). Searching for information in an online public access catalogue (OPAC): the impacts of information search expertise on the use of Boolean operators. Journal Of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(5), 338-346. Fayen, E. (1983). The online catalog: improving public access to library materials / by Emily Gallup Fayen. White Plains, N.Y.: Knowledge Industry Publications, c1983. Gorman, M. (1987). Implementing changes in cataloging rules. Library Journal (1976), 112110-112. Hawkins, L. (2000). REFINEMENT OF CATALOGING TOOLS. Serials Review, 26(4), 37. Key Vendors Meet with ReadersFirst. (2013). Library Journal, 138(2), 16. Kumar, S., & Vohra, R. (2011). Online Public Access Catalogue Usage at Panjab University Library, Chandigarh. DESIDOC Journal Of Library & Information Technology, 31(4), 302-310. Matthews, J. R. (1982). ONLINE PUBLIC ACCESS CATALOGS. Library Journal, 107(11), 1067.
McDonald 15
Matthews, J. R. (1982). Public access to online catalogs : a planning guide for managers / by Joseph R. Matthews. Weston, Ct. : Online, Inc., [1982]. McCormack, N. (2008). User Comments and Reviews: Decline or Democratization of the Online Public Access Catalogue?. Feliciter, 54(3), 129-131. Petrie, J. H., Gaines, E. J., Peguero, G., Krikelas, J., & Cargill, J. (1984). Online Catalog: Improving Public Access to Library Materials, The (Book). Journal Of Academic Librarianship, 9(6), 369-370. Schmidt, A. (2013). Catalog by Design. Library Journal, 138(2), 19. Smith, K. (1998). OCLC, 1967-1997 : thirty years of furthering access to the world's information / K. Wayne Smith, editor. New York : Haworth Press, c1998. Trott, B., & Tarulli, L. (2011). Readers' Services and the Library Catalog: Coming of Age Fiction? Or Non-Fiction?. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 51(2), 115-118. Willson, R., & Given, L. M. (2010). The effect of spelling and retrieval system familiarity on search behavior in online public access catalogs: A mixed methods study. Journal Of The American Society For Information Science & Technology, 61(12), 2461-2476. Yee, M. M. (2005). FRBRization: A Method for Turning Online Public Finding Lists into Online Public Catalogs. Information Technology & Libraries, 24(2), 77-95. Computers In Libraries, 31(6), 30-34.
McDonald 16
Yee, M. M., Layne, S. S., & American Library Association. (1998). Improving online public access catalogs. Chicago: American Library Association. Yongming Wang, W., & Dawes, T. (2012). The Next Generation Integrated Library System: A Promise Fulfilled. Information Technology & Libraries, 31(3), 76-84.

Majorpaper Mcdonald

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Majorpaper Mcdonald

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Running Head: ONLINE PUBLIC ACCESS CATALOGUES IN THE LIBRARY: HISTORY, ADVANCEMENTS, AND SHORTCOMINGS

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi