Cornell University Library Staff Web Page

Back to StaffWeb Index | Contents | Previous section | Next section

Library Gateway Focus Groups Report

January 1999

Prepared by Karen Calhoun and Zsuzsa Koltay

Assisted by Diane Cellentani of Marketing Backup

Research supported by a 1998 CUL Internal Grant

Findings

Awareness

Focus group participantsí descriptions of how they learned about the Gateway indicate that the library needs to make a systematic effort to enhance awareness and educate faculty, graduate students and undergraduates about the Gateway. In contrast, the findings suggest that library staff are aware and adept at using the Gateway. The following excerpt from the consultantís report provides details:

Participants were asked how they learned about the Library Gateway and how they were trained to use it. Several of the student participants learned about the Library Gateway in one of their courses, while other students "stumbled" across it and learned through the frustrating process of trial and error. A few other students worked in the library and were trained to use the Gateway.

In contrast, half of the faculty had previously used the Mann Library Gateway and migrated to the Cornell University Gateway without additional training. A few faculty or graduate students took a class on the Library Gateway or trained themselves to use it.

Several of the librarians used the Mann Library Gateway. A few of these librarians participated in meetings to assist in the design of the Gateway. All of them attended training sessions for the new Library Gateway.

Usage

Focus group participants reported how they use the Gateway along two lines: how often and where use occurs, and what is used.

How often and where use occurs

Undergraduates report they use the Gateway when they do papers, so Gateway use is intermittent (one or two times a week, when they are working on a course paper or project). Sometimes they access the Gateway from computer labs or home, but most come to a CUL unit library to use the Gateway. Some mentioned that the ability to print for free influences where they use the Gateway. Some complained that slow response time deters home use.

Faculty and graduate student participants used the Gateway more frequently (from several times a week to several times a day). They prefer to use the Gateway from their offices. Some go the library so they have the help of a reference librarian. Some also use the Gateway from home, although slow response time tends to deter home use.

Librarians access the Gateway throughout the day from reference desks and offices.

What is used?

The consultant introduced focus group participants to Gateway resources and services at the beginning of each session. To insure a common understanding of what comprises the Gateway, she provided brief descriptions of each clickable element of the left-hand frame:

She then asked participants what they use on the Gateway.

Usage patterns were similar among patrons. The primary use is Networked Resources. Many also use the CUL catalog, but they tend to prefer accessing the catalog directly or via Bear Access. Some use library Web sites or services, but few access About CU Library or Help. Those who did not use the Library Services, Library Web Sites or Help were unaware what these services provided. Some who tried Help suggested enhancements (see later section).

Library staff were likely to use the Gateway more fully. All used Networked Resources, and most accessed library Web Sites, Services and Help. Only a few accessed the catalog through the Gateway, preferring other means, including staff mode.

When asked what resources they use most, participants responded with short lists with a good deal of overlap (ProQuest, Lexis Nexis, and BIOSIS were some of the frequently mentioned titles). Full text, abstracts and indexes are the most heavily sought-after genres of resources. Undergraduate participants preferred to search full text sources first.

Undergraduate participants said they used both a keyword approach (i.e., typing words in the Gateway search box) and the Gateway subject captions to retrieve Gateway resources. Students who used keyword had learned which databases to search and went directly to those favored databases. Some remarked that selecting a database was unpleasant because they didnít know which one to choose and they needed to know the "correct" keyword to retrieve it from Networked Resources.

Faculty and graduate student participants typically used a handful of databases associated with their specialties. Like undergraduates, they find full text convenient. They tend to use keyword (known item searches) and bookmarks to retrieve their favorite resources.

Library staff participants are aware of and use a wide variety of networked resources. Typically, they used keyword to go to specific databases, and they showed patrons how to select databases from the Gateway subject captions list.

Here are some verbatim comments from participants on their usage of keyword searching versus browsing using Gateway subject captions:

Satisfaction

The focus group facilitator asked all participants whether they were very satisfied, satisfied, neutral (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied), dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with the Gateway as an access tool. Satisfaction levels were about the same across all focus groups--undergraduates, faculty and graduate students, and library staff. Most participants are satisfied, a few are very satisfied, and a few are neutral. Only one person (a library staff member) was dissatisfied with the Gateway, because he feels it gives too much prominence to networked resources and misleads students, who confuse Networked Resources with the catalog.

The following excerpts from the consultantís report and verbatim comments from participants provide further detail:

The leading reason for satisfaction among undergraduate students is the Library Gateway provides access to many useful databases. Faculty and graduate students stated the Library Gateway provides remote access to many useful databases and being able to access from anywhere was very important to them. Librarians are satisfied because it provides a single point of entry; however, they think patrons are confused and need training. The participants who rated their satisfaction as neutral stated the Library Gateway was confusing to use.

Undergraduate Students
Faculty and Graduate Students
Librarians

Likes and Dislikes

The facilitator asked participants what they liked most and least about the Gateway. For likes, students mentioned the availability of the Gateway as a resource tool, easy remote access, variety and depth of the databases, and online library services such as renewing books. Faculty and graduate students mentioned these advantages plus timesaving and excellent support from librarians. In addition to these advantages, library staff stated features and functions (i.e., Greatest Hits, e-mail) and technical support. Many mentioned the "single point of entry." The consultant concludes in her report:

The comments among the three types of users (students, faculty, and librarians) indicate a hierarchy of needs with the students representing the lowest level and the librarians representing the highest. Students need information, while librarians need to retrieve the information in an efficient way with features and functions.

When asked what they liked most about the Gateway, undergraduates chose either the existence of the Gateway (one remarked "I know people at other schools who donít have access to this kind of stuff") or the variety of databases. Faculty and graduate students chose full text. Most librarians chose the single point of entry.

For dislikes, undergraduates pointed to problems with keyword searching, confusing or different database interfaces and query languages, uncertainty about how to use the Gateway or which database to choose, frustration with Help, a desire for a Web version of the catalog, and frustration with extra steps to determine where cited material is located (or worse, learning that CUL does not have the material). Faculty and graduate students mentioned time-consuming navigation (multiple steps to get to a resource), confusion with multiple interfaces, lack of integration with the catalog, different search languages for different databases, frustration with Help, and other problems. Library staff mentioned problems with keyword searching and navigation, the Gateway design (not suited or misleading to patrons), lack of integration with the catalog, multiple interfaces to the same database, and other problems. The following verbatim comments provide further insight into their frustrations:

Undergraduate Students:
Faculty and Graduate Students:
Librarians:

When asked what they liked least, undergraduates chose keyword searching or lack of understanding of the Gateway. Faculty and graduates named the lack of a standard search engine for all databases. Library staff in one group chose Gateway navigation, especially when they donít know what they want. Library staff sense that the Gateway "misleads" patrons to think "everything" is accessible via the Gateway and the library owns all of the materials cited in the databases. They want Gateway networked resources to be fully integrated with the catalog.

Enhancements

Participantsí suggestions for current and future enhancements fell into five broad categories:

  1. Communications
    2.  Users want CUL to better communicate with them about both the existence of the Gateway and enhancements to the system and collection. Several focus group participants reported that they stumbled upon the Gateway by accident. Some students found out about it in their classes and this is clearly their preferred way. Users also expressed an interest in being notified about Gateway changes and enhancements including being notified when new resources are added to a subject category.
  2. Training and User Support
    3.  Initial confusion about what the Gateway is and how it works has been reported widely. Many feel a need for instruction but different groups clearly prefer different venues. Undergraduate students prefer assignment-specific instruction in their classes as the need arises. Unfortunately the faculty seemed unaware of the fact that they can request course-specific library instruction on the use of the Gateway and specific databases. Graduate students and faculty prefer one-on-one training, asking librarians, and self-paced tutorials. They also suggested developing content sensitive Help and search tips even though they had just laughed about how no one ever uses help pages and manuals. We heard much praise of librarians and users seemed eager to get their help through other channels, such as real time, interactive help and user support. Users remarked on the uneven response they get from different libraries to their technical help requests. They would like to see a more consistently fast turnaround time for these e-mail questions.

  3. Help
    4. Student and faculty participants reported they rarely consult Gateway Help. Of the few that have tried it one student remarked "Help is not helpful"; others noted "I get lost" when they try to use Help. They tended to prefer human (including e-mail) assistance to system help, and they were much more likely to attempt to solve a problem by trial and error than by examining Help pages. In contrast, library staff participants consult Gateway Help regularly and they also refer patrons to it.

    Suggested enhancements to Gateway Help include:

  4. Searching and Selecting Databases
    5. Many focus group participants find the Gateway overwhelming; many donít understand what they are searching, they canít easily find whatís available or what they want, and the complexity of the Gateway can be a hindrance. They complain the file of networked resources is too big, and it takes too many clicks to get to a resource. They want to enhance the current Gateway, and/or they want a future common entryway that provides:

    Participants are frustrated with keyword searching on the Gateway; they report it is counter-intuitive. When they type keywords into the search box, they feel uncertain of the result and getting zero hits is a common occurrence. Some participants go so far as to say that keyword searching of the Gateway is "worthless" or "a last resort." It is easy to infer that those who are most satisfied with the Gateway are those whoíve found a way around keyword searching (i.e., they are using the search box to search for known titles, not topics). An analysis of participantsí comments suggests they want:

    With respect to the networked resources available on the Gateway, participants said they want:

    Other suggested enhancements related to searching include:
  5. User Features
    6. Participants had several suggestions for new user features and services that would make the Gateway a more useful tool for them.

    Back to StaffWeb Index | Contents | Previous section | Next section

    rev. 1/26/99 peo