1. In reviewing the Web Voyage screen Betsy Gamble commented that the "underlining" of the various "selected" search types, made the underlined text appear as it if were a hyperlink. The underlining was added to enhance navigation and to clarify, for the user, that they had in fact selected a specific search type. This feature was added after feedback from IRPC indicated that it was not clear which search type was activated when the only distinction was a color change. Ed will ask Jennifer Conklin to play with other possible options for framing the search choice.

2. The main search page has the search types listed on the left side of the page: ranked keyword; title; author...; etc. It was suggested that "Telnet" might be placed at the bottom of this list thus maintaining its prominence and yet not taking up real estate among the navigational tabs. This is a design issue and will be discussed with Jennifer and others.

3. Lance asked for clarification on the "catalog" name. We agreed it should be either "Cornell University Library Catalog" or "CU Library Catalog".

4. We need to decide on the "relevancy icon". Choices can be stars, circles, the letter "C", a CU tower (really just about anything - sorry but the bears have to go, much to Lynn's disappointment). Need to decide soon.

5. Reduce the banner image on active pages. This will save precious real estate and help ensure our goal of limiting scrolling.

6. The group "thanked" Noni for all of her wonderful work and wished her well in her new position. Noni has graciously agreed to work with Jennifer to successfully transition the design work to her. Jennifer is not able to attend our meetings as they are currently scheduled. We may need to set special meeting times to discuss design elements.

7. Philip reported that he did not change the "radio" button order but that he will do so. The new order will lead with "title". Currently it starts with "author".

Philip also stated that he changed title search back to left anchor and reminded the group that this was our initial decision before we made the temporary switch to "browse".

With respect to display names Philip changed the following: From "OPAC Title Heading" to "Title"; From "OPAC Name Heading" to "Author"; and from "Subject Browse" to "Subject Heading".

In the headings display we decided to remove the left anchor symbol "<".

Marty Kurth reminded the group that our changes would not impact staff browse searching as the "OPAC specific stuff is not seen in the staff mode" (I'm not sure if I have this right, Marty please edit as necessary)

8. With respect to the "relevancy" search display results, it was noted that we do not have control over the display: "Title Long", "Author", "Date". The only flexibility we have in reordering/naming the display options is in the various heading searches which are initiated by the radio button choices.

9. Philip stated that he will remove the left anchor symbol, "<", from the "Journal Title" search display.

With respect to the Call Number headings search, we agreed to delete the word "All" which had been displaying as "CALL (ALL)".

10. Ed expressed concern with browse searches and the display of "1-50 of 50" in the "search results". We discussed whether it might be better to eliminate this altogether or to change the words "search results" to something else that would better reflect that you are "browsing" an index of headings.

11. Just a reminder that both "journal title" and "title" searches are set to be left anchored. The sort displays are currently set for "title long" >in the first column even though the 1st sort is on "date", the 2nd on "author" and the 3rd on "title". The group discussed options for displaying the results and felt some sample display options should be sent to IRPC for their reaction. (is this right? I recall our not being able to rearrange the displays in headings searches).

12. The MTIL search in music was seen as particularly problematic with respect to how the information displayed. The "uniform title" display left many pages without much decipherable information. It was felt that music folks would work just fine with this arrangement but that it might cause problems for those not as knowledgeable about music titles. A discussion ensued about these three composites: MNAM, MTIL, and KMAP. Since these each search more than just music specific material it was felt that the public might be better served if they incorporated these options as "limits" rather than selecting them as specific fields in the keyword drop-down list. For example, "MNAM" will search more than just music names.

13. Ed has agreed to test the "limits" function for effectiveness in searching.

14. Fred has agreed to capture various search screens based on TKEY, GKEY, NKEY, and SKEY options and to display the results two ways: First to display by Date, Author and Title and secondly to display the results by Title, Author and Date. He will share these with IRPC for their reaction and review.

15. Another area of concern was over the KMAP search. It was learned that KMAP searches fields like numeric coordinates and not names. For example a search on "Tompkins" would not generate maps relating to the county. Philip will talk with Nancy Holcomb and Susan Greaves to see if they have suggestions. Marty Kurth will begin a dialogue as well and will attempt to lay out the problems and issues. This search might be better incorporated into a limit rather than as part of the pull-down, keyword menu choice.

16. With respect to "naming" conventions, it was decided that we would use "Name(Music Display)" for MNAM, and "Title(Music Display)" for the MTIL search.

17. Fred demonstrated some of his more recent work relating to uniform record displays and walked us through examples of "brief views" and "long views". He referenced certain record components such as "primary material". This is not in NOTIS and it was suggested that we discard this reference. He stated that he could make "electronic access" display right under the publisher information or it could go at the bottom of the bibl. display. Some discussion focused on displaying 856s with subfields, these can be added in manually. Fred also noted that he added the "summary" information into the "brief view". This is not in the NOTIS display for a brief view.

18. In closing the meeting Ed said that we would revisit search issues and would use Fred's search examples. Ed and Betsy will look at limits. Lance will focus on keyword searches with field qualifiers (the pull down menu options), and Philip will work on location codes.

19. Fred announced that he has the hook to holdings working on Z39.50 databases. Fred asked the group to also take a look at the "long view" displays.

20. Ed noted that IRPC has asked us to look into field weighting. We agreed that the Penn model will suffice as our default for now.