The user interface: content integration

The user interface: content integration

1. 
   OPAC developments
   

As stated above, Web OPACs have become almost universal and de rigueur in present day library systems. Web OPACs generally offer a wide range of search options. They may incorporate information retrieval techniques such as word stemming, truncation, weighted searching, use of fuzzy match search logic, natural language processing; they may provide enriched subject access, or enhanced content. They may (e.g. Fretwell-Downing’s OLIB) provide automatic spelling correction of common terms. They frequently provide the ability for a reader to save searches via email. Self-service features, such as reader-initiated reservations, renewals, equipment bookings, and document ordering, are common; the trend is towards “borrower empowerment” (Saffady 2000). The interfaces may incorporate extensive search limiting or browsing features. The vendor may offer access to the catalogues of other libraries via a Z39.50 client; such access may be an important component of resource sharing and hybrid library initiatives, as well as enriching the content of the OPAC itself . (Beheshti 1997). It is common now also for OPACs to be able to display book jacket images, tables, of contents, abstracts and reviews. (Breeding 2002c). Babu and O’Brien (2000) provide a detailed overview of currently available Web OPAC functionality.

1. 
   Steve Coffman’s well-publicised piece “Building Earth’s largest library…” (Coffman 1999), which made a appeal for library catalogues to become more like online bookshops in terms of the content offered to the reader, offering features, such as self-service issue and return, pictures of book jackets, access to reviews, the ability to compile book lists, and recommendations for similar titles based on previous purchasing decisions (see also Block, 2001)
   
2. 
   A considerable body of evidence from research conducted in the early 1990s that OPAC searching benefits considerably from the addition of information to enrich the bibliographic record, such as tables of contents (reviewed by Matthews 1997).
   

Surpass’s OPAC is perhaps the most obviously “Amazon-ised” of those currently available. Surpass offers the facility for a reader to look at book jackets and reviews, to submit their own reviews, and to create a ‘book bag’, which may be used later to generate a reading list. The enhanced content is syndicated from a content provider. Another notable product is SIRSI’s iBistro, which includes enhanced OPAC content.

Web OPACs have obvious major advantages that:

1. 
   the user is offered access via the browser, integrating the OPAC with other information sources
   
2. 
   using the USMARC field 856 it is possible to include URLs within the bibliographic database, creating live links to digital objects, or enabling the association of print and digital sources within a bibliographic record
   
3. 
   they are highly customisable; search types can be defined, and special interfaces, e.g. for children or disabled users, can be provided
   
4. 
   cross references, and links to full text sources, can be provided via hyperlinks
   
5. 
   the basic navigation conventions of the search interface, while sometimes questionable in themselves (Ridley 2000) are familiar to the reader.
   

However, they have the disadvantage of requiring relatively high Internet bandwidth to run at an acceptable speed, owing to their inherent slowness. Where enhanced content is provided, this is an additional expense for the system vendor, and is not always relevant or useful for special libraries (Gordon 2001).

1. 
   A body of recent studies of information seeking behaviour which suggests that searchers, particular in younger age groups, are becoming reluctant to make use of library catalogues, finding them slow and irrelevant, and prefer Web search engines as their search tool of first resort (e.g. Leibovich 2000, Davidson 1999, Tennant 2001, Jackson 2002)
   
2. 
   The success and influence of commercial portals such as MyNetscape, MyYahoo, etc. in terms of enhanced visibility, accessibility, and interaction with users;
   
3. 
   The competition to libraries presented by commercial information portals such as WebFeat, Ebrary and Questia (Davidson 1999);
   
4. 
   The results of focus group studies among groups of students, which suggested that they are often confused by the plethora of choices facing them (Lease Morgan 1999).
   

Thus, personalised portal interfaces are perceived primarily as a solution to the problem of information overload (Tennant 1999). Their other aims are to provide traditional library services via a Web interface, to provide an organised context for information (Stevens 1998), and to “brand” the library (Lease Morgan 1999). They enable readers to set up personal information systems (Lakos and Gray 2000). For librarians, they are a way of countering Web-induced marginalisation of the library already referred to, and also of enhancing the usability of Web-based services.